Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayer and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land. Bills FINES AMENDMENT BILL 2016 STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016 CRIMES (SERIOUS CRIME PREVENTION ORDERS) BILL 2016 CRIMINAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ORGANISED CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL 2016 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying His Excellency's assent to the abovementioned bills. Announcements CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR The PRESIDENT (14:32): The centenary of the Battle of Jutland, which took place on 31 May to 1 June 1916, allows a brief reflection on the role of the Royal Australian Navy during the Great War. At the outbreak of war, the Royal Australian Navy was, by proclamation of the Governor-General, transferred to the control of the Royal Navy. Our fleet consisted of 16 ships and two submarines with a total of 3,800 personnel. Those two subs, AE1 and AE2, both had notable roles in the war. AE1 was lost off Rabaul as part of Australia's first engagement of the war; the hunt for it remains to this very day. AE2 played a vital and indeed perhaps pivotal role in the Gallipoli campaign. She too was lost—indeed the two submarines were the only capital losses of the fleet. HMAS Sydney achieved fame as the destroyer of the notable German raider the Emden in the great battle of Cocos and was present at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in 1918. HMAS Pioneer played a significant role in one of the lesser known theatres of war—that against the German Empire in East Africa. By the end of the war our fleet had grown to a complement of 37 with 5,000 personnel and had seen action in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. There were only 108 deaths among naval personnel, twice as many from the Spanish flu of 1918 as from enemy action. There was no Australian involvement in the Battle of Jutland—itself the greatest naval engagement of the entire war and the only clash of full battleships. Over two days of intense fighting both sides withdrew from what proved to be an indecisive conflict. Nevertheless casualties were great. The British fleet lost 14 vessels of the 151 involved and 6,784 lives while the Germans lost 11 of 99 ships and suffered 3,039 casualties. Four Victoria Crosses were awarded following this mighty engagement. Although indecisive in outcome, the failure of the Germans to break the stranglehold of the British naval blockade of the Baltic and North Atlantic in which many Australian ships participated was a major factor in leading to the eventual defeat of the German Empire. Interestingly, the most decorated unit of the Royal Australian Navy was the Royal Australian Navy Bridging Team, a land-based unit mainly of reservists who were responsible for the ship-to-shore transfer of men and material, who distinguished themselves at Suvla Bay and were the last unit evacuated from Gallipoli. Lest we forget. Documents OMBUDSMAN Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the Ombudsman Act 1974, I table a special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Fostering economic development for Aboriginal people in NSW", dated May 2016. Under the Act the report has been authorised to be made public. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 2

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:36): I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (14:37): I table the following report: Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the Technical Education Trust Funds for the year ended 31 December 2015 I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. GREG PEARCE (14:37): I table the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 19/56", dated 31 May 2016. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Documents AUDITOR-GENERAL Reports The CLERK: According to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Early childhood education: Department of Education", dated May 2016. Under the Act the report has been authorised to be printed. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:47): I move: That Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 and 4 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting. Motion agreed to. Committees PROCEDURE COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT (14:48): I inform the House that on 30 May 2016 the Clerk received advice that Dr Mehreen Faruqi would replace Dr John Kaye as a crossbench member of the Procedure Committee. Business of the House ORDER OF BUSINESS The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:49): I move: That Government Business take precedence of debate on committee reports this day. Motion agreed to. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 3

Bills MARINE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016 First Reading Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:49): I move: That this bill be declared an urgent bill. Motion agreed to. Second Reading The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:50): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Marine Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 is to improve enforcement, to help protect the safety and amenity of our waterways, and to further consolidate marine legislation. The bill expands the objects of the Marine Safety Act "to provide an effective framework for enforcement". It also introduces new provisions aligned with existing road safety legislation covering dangerous and menacing "hoon" behaviour by some vessel operators; camera recording and detection of serious offences such as speeding; and drug and alcohol testing, penalties and disqualification periods. A range of other improvements identified through the 2014 Review of the Marine Safety Act are also included, and the bill further consolidates marine legislation and enables the repeal the legacy Maritime Services Act 1935. I will now turn to the detail of the bill. New South Wales has outstanding waterways for everyone to enjoy and share—whether they are boating, swimming, sailing, fishing, water skiing or wakeboarding, paddling, jet skiing or just plain relaxing on the beach or riverbank. Most of the State's half a million licensed boaters operate safely, responsibly and with regard to the amenity of other people. These people appreciate and listen to our safety messages. Lifejacket wearing is up and fatalities and serious injuries are trending down—while the number of licenced boaters and registered vessels continues to grow. Let me say to boaters who are safe and considerate, who do not speed or menace, or unreasonably interfere with others out on the water, who maintain a safe distance, stay under the legal alcohol limit, and do not operate a boat while affected by drugs, this bill is only good news for you. This is because this bill aims to better protect you, your family and friends on the water by better targeting those who willingly break the law. Unfortunately, a rogue element of jet skiers believe the rules do not apply to them and they can do what they like on the water. They have no regard for the safety and amenity of other people—the objects of the Marine Safety Act. These riders are clearly not getting the message—slow down, keep a safe distance and show respect for other boaters and water users. Community concerns about the antisocial and menacing behaviour of some jet ski riders, including in southern Sydney, are longstanding and growing. So too are jet ski registrations, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. I have had representations from State and Federal members of Parliament, other boaters and residents; and I have answered questions in this House on this issue from Opposition and cross bench members—the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Robert Brown. The Botany Bay, Georges River and Port Hacking Regional Boating Plan was finalised in early 2015 with local council, boating stakeholder and waterway user inputs. It found that "personal water craft [PWC] were involved in a high percentage of incidents and also attributed to a large percentage of safety issues". The plan calls for action "to improve user behaviour and safe boating practices, particularly amongst PWC users", as have earlier plans. Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services [RMS] staff have been working closely with industry advocates and boating organisations over many years on targeted education programs, including the "ride right" campaign to help improve on-water behaviour. These efforts have helped and are to be commended. In fact, Peter Hunter, an advocate for PWC riders and recreational vessel advisory group representative, was awarded the maritime medal last year for his longstanding efforts. But even responsible riders know there is much more work to do, and I know many jet ski riders are as affronted by hoon behaviour as the rest of us. In August 2015 a jet skier hit a tree on the Georges River and was seriously injured. In September, a kayak fisher on the Georges River at Picnic Point was seriously injured and hospitalised when a jet skier riding in a pack collided with him. This serious matter is before the courts and the kayaker has endured months of Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 4

rehabilitation. Attitudinal research conducted for Transport for NSW identifies safe behaviour as one of the most important issues for residents and waterway users. Almost half—that is, 45 per cent—of those surveyed had witnessed antisocial behaviour from jet ski riders. The pubic also recognise the need for and support increased on-water enforcement of laws around speeding, drink driving and safety zones. They value safety patrols on the water. I too am convinced that stronger enforcement is needed and I initiated a police and RMS crackdown on dangerous and antisocial riding of jet skis in and around the Georges River, Botany Bay and Port Hacking. Increased patrols, additional resources, extension of speed restrictions and a complaints hotline have been implemented, and 1,600 PWC checks were completed over summer. In excess of 400 PWC riders failed to comply with safety regulations and were issued penalty notices or given warnings. The most common penalty notice offences were speeding, with 98 penalty notices, irregular riding, with 76 penalty notices; and unlicensed riding, with 36 penalty notices. Despite the efforts of manufacturers to reduce jet ski noise emissions, 68 riders were given defect notices for illegal exhaust modifications which make the jet skis even noisier. Around 150 complaints about jet ski rider behaviour were made to the hotline. Clearly these are disappointing results. We have a problem and we need a more effective framework to support enforcement, as envisaged by this bill. There is no place for driving in a dangerous and menacing manner. We do not accept it on our roads and we should not accept it on our waterways. We need to target offenders and hit them hard to put a stop to it, and avoid penalising responsible jet skiers with waterway-wide restrictions. This is why a new offence of operating a vessel in a menacing manner is introduced in this bill under section 13A. It mirrors a similar offence in road transport law and can result in a penalty of a fine of up to $3,300, imprisonment for 18 months or both. Higher penalties apply in the case of a second offence. An example of menacing behaviour could include the situation where one or more jet ski riders repeatedly circle a fisherman in a tinnie or a kayak at speed, in close proximity, and generate wash and spray, with the aim of intimidating, harassing and causing annoyance. Additionally, new sanctions apply to menacing "hoon" behaviour under part 2 division 2, enabling New South Wales police and Roads and Maritime Services officers to seize and impound a vessel used in the hoon offence. This is similar to the successful vehicle "anti-hoon" powers introduced in 2008. Importantly, a vessel may also be seized and impounded when a person has committed a reckless, dangerous, negligent navigation offence under section 13 and a court attendance notice has been issued. The new sanctions allow an authorised officer to seize a vessel, including the boat trailer, used in a designated "hoon" offence and move the vessel to a place where it can be impounded. Alternatively, an authorised officer may give the owner of the vessel a notice requiring the vessel to be produced at a specified time and place so that it can then be impounded. A vessel may be impounded for a period of three months in the first instance. A vessel used in a second designated "hoon" offence within a five-year period will be forfeited to the Crown. Forfeited vessels may be offered for sale, or disposed of, and vessels cannot be transferred to a relative or an innocent party to circumvent these sanctions. These new sanctions provide a significant incentive for vessel owners to be more responsible and accountable for the safe use of the vessels, including by other people. Alongside new sanctions we are also strengthening safety regulations. From 1 July the NSW Police Force and Roads and Maritime Services will be able immediately to suspend the boat driving licence of a person who has committed a serious offence such as reckless, dangerous or negligent navigation. Antisocial behaviour unfortunately extends to the interactions that some offenders have with our boating safety officers. In January two officers patrolling near Brighton-Le-Sands witnessed a jet ski operator riding irregularly and dangerously close to shore and other vessels, and clearly breaching safety regulations. When he was stopped and informed that a penalty notice would be issued, the offender became aggressive, abused compliance officers and sped off deliberately spraying water at the maritime vessel. Importantly, this bill creates a new offence for assaulting, threatening or using abusive language to or impersonating an authorised officer. Similar provisions already apply to the State's fisheries officers. Boaters north and south of our borders regularly converge on the Tweed River and Murray River respectively, and who would blame them? New powers to require interstate boat licence holders to produce their licence if requested by an authorised officer are also in the bill. The summer jet ski enforcement campaign on the Georges River and in Botany Bay was resource intensive for police and Roads and Maritime Services and cannot be sustained for a long period. A smart, efficient and cost-effective enforcement framework that better targets, detects and deters serious non-compliant behaviour is needed. We know, and community members also tell us, that non-compliant behaviour restarts as soon as police and Roads and Maritime Services patrols leave an area. Hoons use their mobile phones to report the movements of patrol vessels and evade detection. Permanently basing officers at various locations during the peak boating Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 5

season is not an efficient option and would draw resources away from many other important programs. In response, the bill establishes a camera recording scheme for enforcement purposes. Camera technology has long been used for safety enforcement on the roads and sensible use of this technology on our waterways is long overdue. This bill includes provisions for the Governor to approve camera detection devices and for camera recorded evidence to be used in proceedings for offences covering using a vessel in a menacing manner, negligently, recklessly or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public; exceeding the speed limit, or not keeping a safe distance from other vessels, people, land and structures; operating a jet ski in an exclusion zone, irregular riding in a restriction zone or within 200 metres of shore near dwellings or without a life jacket; causing wash that damages or unreasonably impacts other vessels, structures or banks; operating an unregistered vessel; and using a wharf without authorisation. The new scheme will be used only in certain declared areas where there is a history of non-compliance and safety issues. This will initially be introduced on the Georges River and in Port Hacking and Botany Bay. An evaluation will be completed at the end of the 2016-17 boating season before any other declared areas are considered. It is envisaged that a mix of fixed and temporary cameras could be located on land or water, including vessels, and used to target hotspot on-water enforcement locations identified by police and RMS. The use of existing community safety closed-circuit television infrastructure will be explored where feasible. Operational issues, including appropriate signage and notification requirements, and privacy considerations will be properly addressed during the development of the maritime camera detection scheme, enabled by this bill. Let me be clear: Cameras will be used only in declared areas which have had a history of non- compliance with marine legislation and will not be deployed across the State's waterways to catch people out for minor offences. This scheme will supplement, rather than replace, police and boating safety officer patrols. Use of camera technology is about safety outcomes, not revenue raising. Any penalty revenue generated will be quarantined within the Waterways Fund and only be spent delivering boating safety education, communications and signage programs, that is, on initiatives to help our boaters comply with our laws, not to catch them. Owner liability, nomination and defence provisions will operate in the same way as equivalent road-related camera offences. Driving a vessel under the influence of alcohol is already an offence. The bill does not change existing limits but simply aligns alcohol and drug offences while driving a vessel with equivalent provisions for driving a vehicle under road transport law. Significantly, new powers allow police officers to conduct random drug testing of vessel operators on New South Wales waterways. The bill aligns penalties and licence disqualification periods under roads and maritime laws. While we are strengthening the enforcement framework there are some changes to maximum penalties which are worthy of explanation. The bill proposes the lowering of some maximum penalties to a level more consistent with equivalent offences under road transport law. This also reflects the transfer of commercial vessels regulation to a uniform national law scheme in 2013. For example, the maximum penalty for operating a vessel while disqualified from holding a boat driving licence is $11,000, whereas the maximum penalty for operating a vehicle while disqualified is $3,300. Higher penalties under the Marine Safety Act 1998 applied when these offences also captured commercial vessels. That is no longer the case and the penalties are adjusted to levels more appropriate for recreational vessel related offences. The option of a prison term of nine months has been added to the offence of operating a vessel recklessly, dangerously or negligently in cases where the behaviour of the vessel operator does not result in death or grievous bodily harm. This is one of the most serious marine safety offences and the current maximum penalty of $5,503 is not sufficient. Imprisonment can be applied as an alternative to or in addition to the fine. This approach is consistent with penalties for driving a vehicle in a manner that is reckless to the public under road transport law. Other minor changes to the Marine Safety Act 1998 to improve efficiency include: changes to some definitions and application provisions; new arrangements for gazettal of notifications; changes requiring courts to provide details of licence suspensions, cancellations and disqualifications to RMS; clarification of the direction powers of authorised officers; extension of powers requiring a person to supply information about the identity of the owner and master of a vessel to the operator of the vessel; new requirements for vessel masters to provide information requested by a harbour master and to provide assistance to people in distress; and allowing certificates to be admissible in legal proceedings as evidence in relation to marine safety licences. Existing provisions from the Maritime Services Act 1935 will be transferred to the Ports and Maritime Administration Act 1995 to maintain the status quo and enable the Maritime Services Act 1935 to be finally Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 6

repealed. This includes provisions establishing the relationships with various other Acts and those protecting port facilities and operations—for example, powers to remove unauthorised structures, and existing offences for occupying a mooring without a licence and using a wharf without authorisation. The bill also provides new regulation-making powers under the Ports and Maritime Administration Act 1995 to allow Roads and Maritime Services and the Port Authority of New South Wales to issue safety directions to regulate access to and activities on its land and infrastructure, including wharves. New powers will cover the commuter wharf permit scheme, the wharf booking system and mooring licences. The review of the Marine Safety Act was subject to extensive consultation and is a significant precursor to the reforms identified in this bill. Similarly, Regional Boating Plans finalised in 2015 following extensive consultation identify safety and community concerns and call for action to improve user behaviour on the State's waterways. This bill will clearly help to tackle the most serious user behaviour issues by providing a more effective enforcement framework. Transport for NSW consulted with Roads and Maritime Services, the Department of Justice, NSW Police Marine Area Command and the Maritime Advisory Council during the development of this bill. Further consultation will of course occur during the implementation of these reforms. I trust all members will see merit in and support the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. NORFOLK ISLAND ADMINISTRATION BILL 2016 Second Reading Debate resumed from 4 May 2016. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (15:13): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016. The Opposition does not support the bill at this time. I move: That the question be amended by omitting "be now read a second time" and inserting instead "be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 for inquiry and report." In addressing the bill and the amendment we note that in 2015 the Federal Parliament passed legislation that changed the way in which Norfolk Island is administered. The legislation abolished the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island from 1 July 2015. New South Wales previously had arrangements with Norfolk Island for the provision of health and education services, but the ambit of this bill is potentially much larger than a simple fee-for-service arrangement. The bill provides that New South Wales may enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the effective application and administration of the laws enforced on Norfolk Island. Such an arrangement may provide for the exercise of powers by an authority of New South Wales or an employee of New South Wales on or in relation to Norfolk Island. We note from the second reading speech that education and health services are already supplied to the island's residents by New South Wales, presumably under an arrangement with the Commonwealth and presumably without the need for legislation. However, as we indicated, this legislation simply provides a blank cheque, as it were, for an arrangement between the State and the Commonwealth. Apart from a bland assertion by the Government that services will be funded by the Commonwealth and result in no net cost for New South Wales, the Government has not provided the Parliament or the wider community with any real sense of the financial arrangements or impacts. The Government also has not outlined the scope of services, although we accept that in the first phase they will be limited to health and education. The bill provides for a potentially considerable extension of the laws of New South Wales into the lives of the people of Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island has been governed by a mixture of Commonwealth laws and laws made by the island's Legislative Assembly. Our understanding is that the local laws of Norfolk Island will be replaced through the regulatory power. Effectively, the Federal regulatory capacity will extend the content of at least some New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island and displace the local laws. That will happen without any consultation with the people of Norfolk Island and without their having any right to representation or consultation with the New South Wales Government or Parliament. In circumstances where so much is not known—at least by the Opposition—about the background or content of any negotiations between the Commonwealth, New South Wales and the people of Norfolk Island about these arrangements we are hesitant to support the bill at this stage; hence our proposal that the bill be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 as the appropriate committee for inquiry and report. Our view is that such an inquiry should establish the implications of the extension of administration and legislation of New South Wales to Norfolk Island and any safeguards or models of consultation that should be properly considered and introduced if this bill is to proceed. Should the move to establish the inquiry not be supported in this Chamber, the Labor Opposition will not be supporting the legislation. We do not believe it is prudent to support such a Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 7

potentially wideranging extension of our laws and the roles and undertakings of our administrative bodies into another territory without a proper understanding of the potential implications. To give some history, Norfolk Island was discovered by Captain Cook in 1788 and it became the place for convicts from Sydney to receive particularly harsh punishment. Eventually, after all of the convicts left, the empty island was deployed in 1856 by Queen Victoria's Government to settle the Bounty mutineers. In 1856 it was declared by imperial order that Norfolk Island should be kept separate and distinct from the mainland Australian States, which were federated in 1901 without Norfolk Island. In 1913 the United Kingdom essentially handed Norfolk Island over to Australia to administer as an external territory. In 1979 it was granted a large measure of self-government with an elected Parliament responsible for health, customs, immigration, tourism, culture and most matters of democratic concern. For approximately 36 years it has effectively been an autonomous territory. I note that there have been issues about its financial sustainability and whether or not the fishing licences collected by the Commonwealth should have been conferred on the Territory. I also note, although administered under these arrangements, that the island had a particular special identity—for example, it competed in the Commonwealth and Oceanic games under its own name and won medals in that capacity; it also had representation with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Union and on some United Nations committees. The issue of moving to a different form of self-government and instituting a local council—in fact, the council elections may have been held last weekend—is a matter for the Commonwealth Government, but the notion of replacing the Territory's current laws with New South Wales laws raises issues about consultation with Norfolk Island residents about laws this Parliament may make in the future knowing that they may have an application to those residents. It is our understanding that the majority of residents are not happy about this arrangement and that those concerns are being taken to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization. I have received, courtesy of persons formerly associated with the Norfolk Island Government, a joint opinion by Dr Christopher Ward, SC, Dr Stephen Tully, Professor Vaughan Lowe, QC, and Professor Richard Hoyle, about whether or not Norfolk Island can or should be inscribed in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It is their view that Norfolk Island should be included on that list, but that is a matter for the United Nations and the Commonwealth Government. The Opposition contends that it would not be a good thing for this Parliament to proceed down that path without knowing a good deal more. The legislation that was passed by the Commonwealth, subject to orders to be made by the Governor General, extended all New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island. It is my understanding that the Governor General has made an order holding back the rollout of New South Wales laws and that only seven laws dealing with health and education matters are intended to take effect from 1 July 2016. The legislation is open ended so it not only allows the State to enter into any arrangement with the Commonwealth but also envisages that New South Wales authorities and employees will be exercising their authority and functions in Norfolk Island. However, according to the Minister's second reading speech, they do that without legislative support. One might then ask: If these services are already being provided why is this legislation necessary? We assume it is to put it on a firmer foundation and that a much wider array of services are intended to be undertaken in that Territory by the New South Wales Government under contract with the Commonwealth. The problem is that the Commonwealth Government now has all the levers to extend the content of New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island and it does not need the concurrence of the New South Wales Government to do so. When one looks at the continuing disagreement between the various State and Commonwealth governments about funding for health and education on mainland Australia one finds that there may well be some dispute about the value of the services provided. One can see a situation in which the Commonwealth Government extends to Norfolk Island by its legislative levers more New South Wales laws and engages the roles and responsibilities of New South Wales agencies to extend their operations of Norfolk Island. It may be that the remuneration offered by the Commonwealth Government is in its view adequate to undertake those tasks but not so in the view of the New South Wales Government. There is no way for us to get out of that difficulty if we are drawn further into providing services and operations on Norfolk Island, even against our own wishes and inclinations, because the consent of the New South Wales Government is not required. Once we get drawn in, we will find ourselves stuck and we may be the subject of ever-increasing obligations to that Territory in a way that we did not intend and that ultimately leads to a cost impost for the New South Wales taxpayer. That is our fundamental and primary concern as New South Wales lawmakers. As we do not have all the financial details we cannot support the bill at present. I am not talking about every last detail because obviously these are commercial contracts but in a sense they are not competitive so there is no reason why they should not be on the public record. However, there is not even a real sense of what is to be involved as a result of this legislation. There is so much that is not known. We do not think it is safe, sound or prudent for us to pass this law and to give impetus to this rollout of New South Wales law and activities on Norfolk Island. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 8

The second proposition that I raised at the beginning of my contribution relates to the residents of Norfolk Island having a voice. I understand that they will have a voice at the upcoming Commonwealth election. They may voluntarily register to vote and, if so, they will be allocated to the Federal electorate of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory. But I note that Canberra is a landlocked electorate; it is not contiguous with the sea in any way so it makes it a little anomalous. Having said that, we understand that this is not a novel arrangement— namely, a similar arrangement applies in relation to the Cocos Keeling Islands and to Western Australia. Indeed, the Western Australian law applies to those islands in the same way as it is proposed to extend New South Wales law to Norfolk Island but the Norfolk Island residents will have no subnational representation. If the content of our laws are to be placed on Norfolk Island by the Commonwealth there should be some mechanism of consultation between this Parliament and Norfolk Island so we know what its views are if laws that we make at some future point are made to apply to it. That does not appear to have been given any consideration. The Opposition has met with representatives of the Norfolk Island People for Democracy, including Christopher Magri, the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the former Norfolk Island Government. We have also had communications with a number of private citizens as well as persons formerly engaged in the administration, including some worrying representations from persons employed in the public services of Norfolk Island—one public servant had her pay cut by 2 per cent because she made a comment on Facebook adverse to the administrator of Norfolk Island, former Coalition member Gary Hargreaves; and persons engaged in broadcast facilities on Norfolk Island have been prevented from broadcasting any service critical of the removal of self- government or the raising of issues such as this bill in the Parliament. Those are allegations that are, as yet, untested, but they are very serious and I would like to think that the Government of New South Wales and members in this Chamber would not charge down this path without evaluating whether there is anything in these somewhat concerning and undemocratic measures, if, in fact, they have taken place. I have also received a copy of a letter from Mr David Buffett, a former Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, who also held ministerial responsibilities in both health and education at different times. His letter is addressed to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, but I think it is appropriate to read it onto the record because I think the concerns it raises go to the heart of these matters and I think they should be very carefully evaluated by all members before they vote on this matter. Mr Buffett says: I write to you with some reasonable knowledge of Norfolk Island affairs, having served as Chief Minister, and held ministerial responsibility in both Health and Education portfolios, at various times. This legislation has been brought to your parliament at the request of Commonwealth authorities. There has been no satisfactory Commonwealth consultation about the detail of this proposed legislation, with the community of Norfolk Island; although claims to the contrary are made by Commonwealth Ministers and officers. Similarly, I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that neither has there been consultation between the NSW government (source of the services) and the community of Norfolk Island at large (where the services are to be placed) about detail and preferred delivery of the services designated in the proposed legislation. Information (both spasmodic and conflicting) filtering to the community, signal commonwealth directions being given to NSW representatives and NSW representatives conveying same to Norfolk Island players in the respective fields of Education and Health. However, you will immediately understand the compelling difference between "directions" and "consultation". Prospective recipients of these services in Norfolk Island are concerned about a number of aspects of the proposed legislation and seek to examine these concerns in detail. The preferred method of such an examination is to seek referral of the Bill to a Committee of Enquiry. I will not read it all but the letter goes on to say: First, the matter of education. Presently, education facilities are accessed from K to Yr. 12 in a single Norfolk Island school. This service is provided by the NSW Department of Education and Communities (teachers, curriculum, etc.) and funded by Norfolk Island authorities. This arrangement commenced in 1906 and has continued to provide an excellent education facility in Norfolk Island. Over this century plus period of time, the NSW Department has experienced name changes, as has the Norfolk Island education authority. A current Memorandum of Understanding (January 2015) stands in place and will continue to stand in place, to deliver such services. Education will not be endangered in Norfolk Island, should the above Bill be referred to a Committee of Enquiry. Second, the matter of health. Presently, health services are provided by a statutory body in Norfolk Island, known as the Norfolk Island Hospital Enterprise. This enterprise, to name its major components, employs the doctors, a dentist, nursing staff, radiologist, pathologist, pharmacist, runs an aged care unit on the same premises, and a 24 bed hospital. The facility is supported by the NSW Department of Health, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. As with education, a current Memorandum of Understanding (2013) stands in place with the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Today [26 May 2016] I have had discussion in Norfolk Island with the CEO of this District authority, and he confirms continuity of the existing health services beyond 1st July 2016. His services are not dependent upon the proposed NSW legislation. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 9

Notwithstanding the significant revision of responsibilities for delivery of a range of services in Norfolk Island (principally a migration of responsibilities from a Norfolk Island authority, to a commonwealth instrumentality), Education and Health services would not be interrupted in Norfolk Island, by referral of the Bill to a committee of Enquiry. I do seek your support to refer The Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 to a Committee of Enquiry. And he provides his contact details. I find that representation, and many like it that I have received over the past few weeks, compelling. I believe there are a large number of questions that we have not had answered and which I think it would be unfair for the Parliamentary Secretary to have to address on the fly. Mr David Shoebridge: She'll give it a go. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I am sure she will give it a go. For example, what steps has the New South Wales Government undertaken to apprise itself of the application to the decolonisation committee? Is there anything in that claim in the precedents of the island? Is there a potential embarrassment for the State of New South Wales if we are seen by international authorities to be aiding and abetting recolonisation, for example? Is it a matter they have even looked at? If they have looked at it and they are convinced utterly that there is nothing in it, it would be good to receive that advice, presumably furnished by the Solicitor General, but I would hazard a guess that that has not taken place. Before members vote on this legislation, particularly if members intend to vote in favour of the legislation, they should have a full understanding from the Government about, apart from health and education, what else is intended to be covered by this legislation in future agreements. How much money is the Commonwealth putting on the table? Is that adequate, according to Treasury advice, to cover the costs incurred by New South Wales? What measures are in place to stop the Commonwealth extending obligations of New South Wales agencies and authorities and employees to provide services on Norfolk Island so that we do not find ourselves getting drawn further and further into an ever-extending financial commitment? What mechanisms are in place to resolve a difference of opinion between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales about the cost of providing service X, whether it is health, education or some other future service to be provided? I do not like the terms "the thin edge of the wedge" or "the slippery slope", but by embracing this legislation now with so much unknown there is a risk that we are effectively giving a blank cheque to an ever- increasing commitment by New South Wales and its authorities to provide services on Norfolk Island. There is no real guarantee that that will not cost the New South Wales Government and taxpayers in the future, because we do not know what mechanisms are there to protect the public finances of this State, and I draw attention to the democratic deficit. I understand that there are a lot of additional things that will be in place on Norfolk Island— I think Norfolk Islanders will have to pay income tax from 1 July, and that is fine, other Australians do that, but they will not be heard in the deliberations of this Parliament when we make rules for this State in the future, even though our laws may be then made to apply to Norfolk Island and its residents to the exclusion of domestically made Norfolk Island law. That is troubling; there should at least be some mechanism for consultation. Too much is not known. In our humble view, there are too many risks to support the legislation at this time. Rather than simply say no, we propose an inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. We understand that 1 July is not that far in the future, but a short, sharp deliberation could be undertaken—General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has done that before; for example, with electricity privatisation, which was dealt with in a matter of weeks. But, given that letter I have just read onto the record, it appears that this legislation does not need to be passed by 1 July to ensure the continuity and ongoing provision of health and education services. I am not saying that the committee inquiry should be lengthy, but we should take this opportunity to get to the bottom of the concerns that have been raised with me, and no doubt with other members of this Chamber. My understanding is that when the Norfolk Island representatives came here a few weeks ago they met with me and with other members of this House and I believe they sought to meet with representatives of the New South Wales Government. I am not sure whether they did so. I look to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a full report of the interaction between the New South Wales Government and the representatives of the Norfolk Island People for Democracy Mr David Shoebridge: She already has. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I will suspend my judgement until I hear from the Parliamentary Secretary herself. Notwithstanding any response she may make, I think it is incumbent on us to evaluate these issues for ourselves, to get to the bottom of these matters to ensure that there are no risks for taxpayers and the Government of New South Wales or, if there are some risks, that we can take some steps to put safeguards in place. I do not think we should accept a bland catch-all assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Government that there will be no cost to the New South Wales taxpayer or that the Commonwealth will cover it all. That may well be true, at least for the near future, but as more services are required of New South Wales authorities and as more New South Wales laws are imposed upon Norfolk Island and its residents, that may not always be the case. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 10

Let us take this opportunity to proceed prudently and cautiously; let us have that inquiry. When it reports back we can consider the bill at that point, with the additional information we will then have. To do anything else, to rush this through without that inquiry, would be risky, imprudent and frankly irresponsible and we will not be party to it. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15:39): In 1856 Norfolk Island became the first part of what we now know as greater Australia to give women the vote. In May last year their democratic right to control their destiny was basically taken off them by the Commonwealth Government. That is a modern day tragedy and it is also the subject of a complaint to the United Nations about Australia effectively recolonising the people of Norfolk Island, who have a long and proud history of governing their own affairs and doing so in an exemplary fashion, respecting their citizens. That started in 1856 with being the first part of Australasia to give women the vote. The bill that is currently before the New South Wales Parliament proposes that the New South Wales Government become a party to an arrangement that has been imposed upon Norfolk Island, against the wishes of the majority of residents of Norfolk Island, that will see New South Wales laws being imposed upon the people of Norfolk Island in circumstances where they have no say whatsoever about the formation of those laws. That is not an arrangement, when it is opposed by the people of Norfolk Island, that The Greens can be a party to. It is primarily for those reasons—and others which I will develop in the course of this contribution—that The Greens will not support this bill and, indeed, strongly endorse the proposition put forward by the Opposition that we have an inquiry to listen to the people of Norfolk Island before we take any legislative step that affects them. What does the bill do? The Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 on the face of it simply authorises the New South Wales Government to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of services and the exercise of functions by New South Wales officers on Norfolk Island. At the moment it is likely to be mainly health and education but there is no limit; it is whatever the Commonwealth chooses; whichever law of New South Wales the Commonwealth chooses it can impose upon Norfolk Island by way of a Commonwealth regulation. As I understand it, with the passage of this bill, New South Wales' services can only be extended by agreement with New South Wales as entered into under various memorandums of understanding. As I noted earlier, the Commonwealth Parliament legislated in May last year to, in the words of the New South Wales Government, reform the legal and governance framework for Norfolk Island but, in the words of the Norfolk Islanders, take away most of their democratic rights. Under that legislation the Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for funding and delivering services to Norfolk Island and it plans apparently to establish in due course, perhaps from 1 July this year, a form of local government on Norfolk Island—the Norfolk Island Regional Council. One may ask: What say do the people of Norfolk Island have over the shape and future of their local council? They will just get whatever form of local government the New South Wales Local Government Act provides for because it will be imposed upon them by the Commonwealth. They do not have a right to have a say in that. If one asked most ordinary residents in New South Wales, they would say that is a pretty B-grade form of local government representation, which can be grossly abused by this State Government. Apparently the New South Wales Government already provides some schoolteachers and health and hospital services through arrangements it has with the Norfolk Island administration. There is no peril in those arrangements falling over if we do not rush through this legislation. There are longstanding arrangements for the provision of those services and they will continue to provide those services to the people of Norfolk Island with or without this bill. However, the Commonwealth wants to dot all its i's and cross all its t's before 1 July so that it can engage in that which the people of Norfolk Island complained about to the United Nations—the recolonisation of Norfolk Island, starting 1 July. What exactly has been proposed for Norfolk Island? With the exception perhaps of those areas where the Baird Government has sacked the council, a basic democratic right in Australia is the right to have a say about local affairs through representation at local council—that should be entrenched in the Constitution but it is not yet—the right to have a say about one's State or provincial affairs such as police, hospitals, roads and public transport through democratic representation at a State or Territory level and then the right to democratic representation about broader national affairs such as defence through representation at a Federal level. The people of Norfolk Island will not have that package of rights. The Commonwealth has decided that they should have no State representation. The people of Norfolk Island are going to have the laws of New South Wales imposed upon them by regulation-making power of the Commonwealth Government but they will have no say to represent anybody at all in the New South Wales Parliament. From what I can tell the people of Norfolk Island are quite happy controlling their own affairs and they really do not want this so-called assistance from the Commonwealth Government by taking away their democratic rights. Obviously a better model would be the one that covers Lord Howe Island because the good people of Lord Howe Island get a say as electors in the Federal electorate of Sydney and they get a say at a State level through the State electorate of Port Macquarie. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 11

The Hon.Walt Secord: They do not get a good deal there. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I am not suggesting that the current result is perfect for the people of Lord Howe Island but they at least get somebody who has their interests in mind when laws are being passed through the State Parliament and they can hold them to account, but the people of Norfolk Island are getting none of that. In fact, bizarrely the Commonwealth has decided that the people of Norfolk Island's Federal representation will be in Canberra, a land-locked electorate thousands of kilometres away from Norfolk Island. What State representation is it proposed that they get—absolutely nothing; no representation at all at a State level. They are deeply aggrieved by this because they have been controlling their own affairs since 1856 and now they are having this taken off them. If any other government were doing this and we were looking at it from any kind of perspective, we would liken it more to a coup than some kind of assistance—a coup led by the Commonwealth to take away Norfolk Islanders' democratic rights. They are now asking where they have any democratic say in the Australian system. They have made a series of representations to members of this Chamber saying, "Please let us have a say in this." I know they met with the Labor Opposition and they met with my office. They sought meetings with all other political parties. No doubt we will hear if anybody else met with them. Maybe nobody else met with them because they realised they did not have a vote so it does not matter what they think. I think it matters what they think; The Greens think it matters what they think. Of course we should meet with people before we impose New South Wales laws upon them and before we place New South Wales services in their territory. When we met with them they said, "Please let us have a say on this. At least hear from us before you do that because nobody else has been hearing from us or listening to us. Can you please hold an inquiry; it does not have to go forever but give us an opportunity to come and talk to the State MPs because we are not going to have a say at the ballot box. Give us a chance to come and talk to the State MPs before you enter into this arrangement and before you irrevocably push through this Commonwealth-driven agenda to take away our democratic rights. Just listen to us." That is why the Labor Opposition has moved the amendment seeking this matter be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 and that is why The Greens absolutely are committed to supporting it so that we get the chance to hear from the people of Norfolk Island. They have been trying to make their voices heard in the Federal election campaign. A number of them are seeking to enrol to vote for the first time. Patricia Cahill, The Greens candidate in the Federal seat of Canberra, has told me that she has been contacted by members of the Norfolk Island community. She said: I am hearing about a situation that should not happen in a country like Australia, where we believe that every single person's vote counts, that every person has the right to parliamentary representation. I want us to welcome Norfolk Islanders as part of Australia, with full citizenship rights, but we can only do that if we offer them real representation. She concluded by saying: This issue is all about a lack of representation and respect. The New South Wales Parliament can help the people of Norfolk Island by ensuring parliamentary representation. I commend her for those thoughts. We could also help the people of Norfolk Island immediately, right now, by undertaking one of the most fundamental actions of a democracy: we could listen to them. We could invite them in and listen to them before we pass laws that affect them. The Greens believe that the people of Norfolk Island have been denied that fundamental right. I understand that the Government has raised with other crossbenchers a series of concerns. The Government says, "If we do not do this before 1 July then the wheels will fall off in Norfolk Island. The schools will stop operating. The hospitals will cease operating. All the drips will dry up." That is not true. In that context, I appreciate the correspondence I received from Mr David Buffett, who I think was a previous administrator of Norfolk Island. The Hon. Adam Searle: He was Chief Minister. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: He is a previous Chief Minister. I will not read the entire letter into the record. It says in part: This legislation has been brought to your parliament at the request of Commonwealth authorities. I pause there to note that this is at the request of Commonwealth authorities. This legislation has not come to the Chamber at the request of the people who will be affected by it. This is not a petition from the people of Norfolk Island saying, "Please do this to us." As I understand it, most members in this Chamber have not listened to the people of Norfolk Island. The letter continues: There has been no satisfactory Commonwealth consultation about the detail of this proposed legislation, with the community of Norfolk Island; although claims to the contrary are made by Commonwealth Ministers and officers. Similarly, I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that neither has there been consultation between the NSW government (source of the services) and the Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 12

community of Norfolk Island at large (where the services are to be placed) about detail and preferred delivery of the services designated in the proposed legislation. Not only has the Commonwealth not spoken with them; neither has the State Government. Yet the State Government is saying that this is a good deal for Norfolk Island. How does it know that it is a good deal unless it talks to the people who will be affected? Mr Buffett's letter says: Prospective recipients of these services in Norfolk Island are concerned about a number of aspects of the proposed legislation and seek to examine these concerns in detail. The preferred method of such an examination is to seek referral of the Bill to a Committee of Enquiry. That is exactly what The Greens propose should happen. Mr Buffett goes on to talk about education: A current Memorandum of Understanding (January 2015) stands in place and will continue to stand in place, to deliver such services. That will be the case whether or not this legislation passes today. Mr Buffett says: Education will not be endangered in Norfolk Island, should the above Bill be referred to a Committee of Enquiry. He then goes on to talk about health: Presently, health services are provided by a statutory body in Norfolk Island, known as the Norfolk Island Hospital Enterprise. This enterprise, to name its major components, employs the doctors, a dentist, nursing staff, radiologist, pathologist, pharmacist, runs an aged care unit on the same premises, and a 24 bed hospital. The facility is supported by the NSW Department of Health, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. As with education, a current Memorandum of Understanding (2013) stands in place with the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Today— that is, 26 May, which is the date of this letter— I have had discussion in Norfolk Island with the CEO of this District authority, and he confirms continuity of the existing health services beyond 1st July 2016. His services are not dependent upon the proposed NSW legislation. So there is no rush. There is no need to charge through and pass this bill in the next few days or weeks to meet the arbitrary timetable of the Commonwealth Government. We have plenty of time to listen to the people of Norfolk Island, the people who will be affected by the legislation we pass. We have an obligation to do that. We are obliged to show basic human decency, to speak to and listen to the people of a territory to which we are proposing to extend our laws and our services. I commend the amendment to refer this matter to a committee. It is our basic democratic obligation to the people of Norfolk Island. The Greens will move a further amendment if this bill reaches the Committee stage, if the motion to have an inquiry does not succeed. That amendment seeks to find ways to extend the franchise of New South Wales to include the people of Norfolk Island if this bill proceeds. I look forward to further debate on this matter. The Hon. ERNEST WONG (15:54): I speak in debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016. This legislative instrument must be approached with due care. The current approach of the Baird Government is to rush through arrangements without a clear way forward. Once again, this Government has failed to undertake the democratic process of consultation. The context of this bill is that the Federal Government passed legislation in 2015 to change the way in which Norfolk Island is administered. That legislation abolished the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island from 1 July 2015. Specifically, the bill before the House today provides for the exercise of powers in relation to Norfolk Island either by an authority of the State of New South Wales or an employee of the State of New South Wales. It should be noted that any administration carried out by the State of New South Wales and its employees on Norfolk Island will be funded by the Commonwealth Government and will involve no net cost to the State. However, this bill would enable an extensive intrusion of New South Wales laws into the governance of the land and peoples of Norfolk Island. Little is known about the facts of the proposal for administration that is before us. We do not know the plan for negotiations between the State of New South Wales and the government and people of Norfolk Island. Considering the potentially far-reaching implications of this legislation for the people of Norfolk Island—the removal of their representation and the replacement of their tax system—the current crash-through approach is not an advisable course of action. It is proposed that this action be taken with very little community consultation and without any platform for redress by the people of Norfolk Island. That is a major cause for concern. In the current circumstances, Labor prefers that the bill undergo examination. Referring this bill to the appropriate committee for inquiry is the best way forward at this stage. It will allow a more thorough examination of the implications of the provisions within the bill. The Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 needs to be more closely considered. It should make provision for the introduction of appropriate safeguards if the committee of inquiry considers it prudent to do so. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 13

The Hon. PAUL GREEN (15:57): I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party in debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016. The bill authorises New South Wales to enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth Government for the provision of services and the exercise of functions by New South Wales officers on Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation in May 2015 that reformed the legal and governance framework of Norfolk Island. Under that legislation, the Commonwealth Government assumed responsibility for funding and delivering services to Norfolk Island and is to establish an elected Norfolk Island regional council from 1 July 2016. The New South Wales Government currently provides school teachers and some health and hospital services through agreements with the Norfolk Island administration. The Commonwealth Government has requested that New South Wales deliver some services to Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016 on the basis that the services are funded by the Commonwealth Government and result in no net cost to New South Wales. The Hon. Adam Searle asked, I think rightly, whether we are writing a blank cheque. What is the expectation of New South Wales taxpayers and the longevity of this particular bill? So I think there is a slight mention there about how that will be addressed. The bill authorises New South Wales to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth Government for the provision of services and the exercise of functions on Norfolk Island. The bill authorises New South Wales Government authorities and employees to exercise functions on Norfolk Island pursuant to such an arrangement. In terms of the content of the bill, the amendments to the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Act 1979, which commence on 1 July 2016, contemplate that the Commonwealth Government may enter into arrangements with New South Wales to provide for the exercise of powers or the performance of functions or duties on Norfolk Island by New South Wales authorities or employees. The PRESIDENT: According to sessional order, business is now interrupted for questions Visitors VISITORS The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's Gallery women parliamentarians from the Bougainville House of Representatives of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, including: the Hon. Francesca Semoso, Deputy Speaker; the Hon. Josephine Getsy, Minister for Community Development; the Hon. Marcelline Kokiai; and the Hon. Isabel Peta. These parliamentarians are here for a program being run this week under the auspices of our twinning program between the Bougainville House of Representatives and the New South Wales Parliament. They are very welcome, and I hope they enjoy their visit to Parliament. I hope that the program they are attending this week will be enjoyable too. Questions Without Notice HUNTER ROADS The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00): My question is to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given the death of three motorists in a 24-hour period on Hunter roads this month, what is the Minister's response to Northern Region Acting Inspector Steve Rudd saying that "the speed limit along Bucketts Way left little room for error"? Will the Minister now review the condition of the road and the current speed limit? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is an important question on a serious subject—it is one that I had a lot to say about in the public domain in the last week and I certainly will have more to say on it. The situation where a policeman suggests a reduction in speed limits is serious. Through our Centre for Road Safety, we are always evaluating roads to determine the appropriate speed by addressing the condition of the road and the infrastructure, where they are going, whether there are tight corners and the accident history of the road. That is ongoing across all our roads in this State. We are continually researching these issues. In some parts Bucketts Way has a surface that is less than desirable. As members would know and expect, there are not many roads in this State that I do not travel on in my job as a Minister. Bucketts Way is one where in some places, frankly, the surface is not one that is desirable. We are spending a record amount of money on fixing infrastructure. It is interesting to note that we do not get much support from some Opposition members, and their colleagues in The Greens, when it comes to spending money on roads. The Hon. Adam Searle: It was my question, not theirs. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. I am being gracious to the Hon. Adam Searle but I am talking about some of his colleagues in the Opposition, and some of his parliamentary colleagues in The Greens. I was disappointed to see the shadow Minster for Roads out yesterday, at a time when the road toll figures are not terrific, questioning the ability of police to have better control of speeding by using speed cameras. It is not enough Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 14

for somebody just to get their face in front of a camera or to just speak in front of a microphone; they actually have to make sense in what they are saying and have a proper outcome. This is the person who would be the alternative Minister for road safety, and frankly their performance was less than desirable. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: my point of order goes to relevance. The question was about fatalities and the condition of Bucketts Way. The Minister is now launching into an attack on another member. The PRESIDENT: The Minister had been generally relevant, and indeed directly relevant, in most of the remarks he made. I draw his attention to the question in case he has any other remarks he wishes to add. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I think I have covered the issues as such, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what was quite an appropriate question. ROAD TOLL The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (16:05): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister please update the House on the current New South Wales road toll and the measures the Government is taking to improve driver behaviour? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:05): I thank the Hon. Bronnie Taylor for her question. It certainly reinforces my answer to the previous question. The current road toll in New South Wales can only be described as a State tragedy. Too many people are dying on our roads—169 so far this year, which is 34 more than the same time last year. Just last week the Deputy Premier and I launched an advertising campaign called "Towards Zero" to change the way people think about the road toll and to get road users to be more mindful of their own behaviour. The advertising campaign, which started on television on Sunday—and I am sure many members have seen it; I have certainly had favourable comments about it—highlights the human element of the road toll. We are hoping it will help drive down the number of crashes and fatalities by changing people's attitudes. We have to get into the minds of the people going outside the boundaries of normal safe driving. A road toll of 169 in less than six months is not just a number—it is children's lives that have ended before their time, it is mums and dads who will never come home again, and it is grandparents lost to their families forever. As we saw when the count reached 164 on that day, it is sportspeople and it is people we know in the community. I have said here before that there is only so much the police and the Government can do. It is up to every road user to do their bit as well. I was disappointed yesterday, as I indicated earlier, to see the shadow Minister for roads yesterday in the media speaking against speeding enforcement—this at a time when speeding is, sadly, still killing people despite our extensive efforts to slow drivers down. The number of pedestrian deaths has increased in this year's toll too, even though we have put in place more measures than ever before to protect them. In addition to the New South Wales Government's record $1.2 billion spend on road safety over the past five years, we are implementing a number of targeted initiatives to help address some of the emerging issues arising out of the road toll. We are accelerating a $20 million rollout of rumble strips, wide centre lines and crash barriers to warn drivers when they are fatigued. We need to understand fatigue, and I thank the member for his comment and his support on that. Fatigue occurs not only when someone gets in their car and drives to Brisbane or to Melbourne. It may well be a result of someone having a busy weekend and then going into work the next week. They might be working between 12 noon and midnight. The following Friday, at a quarter past midnight, they might be driving the 20 kilometres home and fall asleep at the wheel. Quite often we find that deaths from fatigue occur when people are within 20 kilometres of home. They are the ones we need to educate and I hope that these rumble strips will be important for them. We are also investing $250,000 for an in-ground traffic light trial at key crossings in the central business district for people who cannot raise their head from their phone and look at the traffic, which could save their lives. It is frustrating and silly that people do that and I will do everything I can to save their lives. [Time expired] ROOKWOOD GENERAL CEMETERIES RESERVE TRUST The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:09): My question is directed to the Minister for Lands and Water. Is the Government investigating allegations of serious misconduct by former hairdresser and chief executive officer of Rookwood Cemetery, Fiona Heslop, who was on a base salary of $230,480? If so, does the investigation extend to her expenditure of $583,236 on executive coaching services and strategic advice, and the awarding of other contracts to her friends? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:10): I inform the House that at my direction, an independent investigation into governance and operations was undertaken by Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW [CCNSW] at the Rookwood General Cemeteries Reserve Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 15

Trust [RGCRT]. The investigation was only related to the Rookwood General Cemeteries Reserve Trust. CCNSW has submitted the investigation report to me and it is under consideration. Three board members, including the chair, recently resigned from the RGCRT board resulting in insufficient board members to legally constitute the trust board. As a result, on Friday 13 May 2016 I appointed an interim administrator to manage the affairs of the RGCRT to 30 June 2016. The role of the administrator is to ensure operations and service delivery at Rookwood General Cemeteries are maintained and the trust is managed while the investigation report is under consideration. Once it has been thoroughly considered, the investigation report, along with the New South Wales Government's response, will be released. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:11): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in regard to when the independent investigation report to which he referred will be released, the timetable for its release and whether that report will be made public? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:11): Obviously the Hon. Walt Secord was not listening. Once the investigation report has been thoroughly considered it will be released together with the New South Wales Government's response. NATIVE VEGETATION LEGISLATION Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (16:12): My question is directed to the Minister for Lands and Water. Today members of Parliament received a letter from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists expressing serious concerns about the proposed weakening of native vegetation laws in New South Wales. When will the Government start listening to science and evidence? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:12): I thank Dr Mehreen Faruqi for her question, particularly the part that implies that this Government does not listen to science and evidence. That is exactly what this Government has been doing and that is why it has put out for consultation a draft package that is in line with the 43 recommendations that were developed by scientists, ecologists, economists and people who have looked at the practices in New South Wales. We not only listen to scientists but also talk to the community. There is an eight-week consultation period. We have taken this package to public forums and publicly released it so it is open and not hidden from public scrutiny from all sides of the argument. We said we would base our policy on science and engage people who are the real stakeholders in this issue in part of the solution. We said we would talk to and take along the farmers on whom the former Government's policy has had an adverse impact. I echo the remarks of Mr Derek Schoen, President of NSW Farmers, who said our farmers are the real environmentalists. They are the hands-on environmentalists. Our farmers are not desktop environmentalists like the Hon. Penny Sharpe. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the second time. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We have said that our farmers need to be part of the solution. We know that our farmers are interested in biodiversity and to make sure that the best natural resource management on the property of which they have been custodians for generations is valued. We need to make sure that we have a system that embraces modern farming techniques that can deliver environmental outcomes as well as productivity gains for our farmers. That is what this is about: it is about taking the best natural resource management, farming practices, biodiversity gains and combining them in a policy that we have put out for public consultation quite openly. We know that you can have your cake and eat it. We believe that we can engage our farmers to be part of the solution. We have put $240 million on the table in our first five years for private land conservation to increase biodiversity. What did they offer up? How many dollars did they offer up? Not one dollar and now they have the hide to say that the Government is not basing it on science. The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr Jeremy Buckingham to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We have put out this policy for public consultation. It is open for all to read and to comment on. It will then come back to government and I look forward to the debate in the spring session of this House when we will get a chance to do this all over again. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 16

COMPANION ANIMALS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (16:16): My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister highlight how the Government is working with the RSPCA to break social isolation for people with disability? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:17): As anyone who has owned an animal can say, pets fulfil so many different roles in the family home. The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: They are often the confidante, joker, security, peacekeeper and play mate. In my own case, my family's miniature poodle, Tiffany, has been kind enough to take on the role of my personal trainer, generously giving up her time to take me on walks around the neighbourhood. But for people with disability, pets mean so much more. They can make such a difference to a person's health and wellbeing. For a person with disability, they can bring independence, help break social isolation and bring companionship. I am pleased to say the Government acknowledges the many benefits companion animals can provide to people with disability. We support initiatives that encourage the use of animals as companions, such as guide dogs or assistance animals. Together with my colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services and member for Wakehurst, Mr Brad Hazzard, and Mr Steve Coleman, Chief Executive Officer of the RSPCA, I recently welcomed a new resident to a home for people with disability in Sydney's north. Teddy, an Irish wolfhound crossbreed, specialty trained companion dog, was gifted to Judith Gippert. Judith has cerebral palsy and lives in Venee Burges House, which is a support accommodation unit in Allambie Heights. Venee Burges House is located behind the head office of the Cerebral Palsy Alliance, where Judith has been employed as a desktop publisher since 1969. Judith is a motivational speaker and collaborates regularly with government bodies to advocate for accessibility for people with disability. She has also been a keen supporter of the RSPCA for many years. Teddy, the dog gifted to Judith, is the second dog the RSPCA has provided her. Sadly, Judith's previous dog, Tyson, passed away some months ago. Following the loss of Tyson, the residents and workers were ready for another companion. Teddy's arrival was much anticipated and welcomed. Teddy was trained by veteran dog trainer Steve Austin and is the only dog apart from Tyson to move from an RSPCA shelter to a care facility. For people like Judith who experience social isolation a buddy like Teddy can provide a great deal of joy, happiness and companionship. I am advised that Judith is now greeted by an enthusiastic and happy Teddy each evening when she arrives home from work. My department's focus on person-centred approaches helps people such as Judith to determine their supports and achieve their life goals. This means that residents of group homes who wish to have a dog or other pet for companionship purposes are able to achieve that goal when health considerations have been taken into account and other residents agree. Importantly, the life-changing National Disability Insurance Scheme enables people with disability to have choice and control over the resources they use, including guide and assistance dogs, when they are considered to be reasonable and necessary supports. In closing, I extend my sincerest thanks to Steve Coleman and his team at RSPCA NSW. Their generosity and foresight will bring much joy and happiness to Judith and the residents and staff at Venee Burges House. I look forward to working closely with RSPCA NSW on developing more initiatives like this to benefit even more people with disability across New South Wales in the coming months. TOONGABBIE CREEK The Hon. PAUL GREEN (16:21): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for the Environment. Last week my office received a photograph of Toongabbie Creek, the water of which was coloured fluorescent green. I have been contacted by concerned constituents regarding the possibility of toxic dumping and the risk that it poses to the community. Will the Minister advise the House on what caused this discolouration and what the Government is doing to address the community's concern regarding water pollution at Toongabbie Creek? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:22): I thank the member for his serious question. I will immediately refer it to the Minister for the Environment and come back as soon as possible with an answer. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 17

ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROTESTS The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (16:22): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Multiculturalism. In light of the clashes between protesters and a racist group in Melbourne last weekend and the planned protest on 4 June this weekend by the so-called Party for Freedom in Blacktown calling for the deportation of Africans and Muslims, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that community harmony is maintained, and what advice has he sought from other government departments and agencies including the NSW Police Force? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:22): In relation to clashes in Melbourne, I suggest the member refers her question to the relevant Labor Minister in Victoria. The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the second time. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: There were two parts to the question. The first part related to Melbourne, I answered it. The second part relates to Sydney. If I am given an opportunity I am more than happy to answer that. I have said on many occasions and will continue to say that this Government and my agency Multicultural NSW are second to none at ensuring that we maintain harmony in our State. I have said on many occasions that we come from more than 225 places of origin, speak more than 200 languages and practise more than 125 religious beliefs. The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: It is clear for all to see that we do those things in New South Wales in the most harmonious way. We work and live as one community, apart from a few isolated cases of extremists who are completely wrong. Let me make it very clear on the record that they are completely wrong and do not have the support of the community. In fact, they are condemned by the community and by all sides of this Parliament. There would not be one person in this Chamber who would not condemn them. We will continue to work— The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. The question was very specific and asked what steps the Minister had taken. I ask you to draw him back to leave of the question. What steps has he taken to counter the racist rally on Saturday? The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Multicultural NSW and the Government do not take steps simply in relation to one rally; we take steps in relation to every past, current and possible future rally that might occur. That is what we do. The action taken by this Government not only through Multicultural NSW but also through working with every other government agency—whether that be the police or otherwise—ensures that the harmony of this State is maintained. We ensure that no laws are broken and we stand and condemn the actions of isolated groups that have no support whatsoever from the vast majority of people of New South Wales. Their actions will always be condemned and will always be stopped. Let us be honest: Nobody supports these groups. Without a doubt they are pathetic if they think they are making any difference whatsoever to the harmony of different multicultural groups in New South Wales. Look at the organisation called Reclaim Australia. What a joke. Who are they reclaiming Australia from? Are they reclaiming Australia from John Ajaka and his family, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis and her family or the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and his family? What an absolute joke. And who are they reclaiming Australia for? Are they reclaiming Australia for our Indigenous brothers and sisters? The reality is nobody listens to them. The vast majority of Australians completely ignore them. [Time expired.] The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (16:27): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in relation to the advice sought from other agencies and the police? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:27): As I was about to say before my time expired, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis talked about extremist organisations and asked what the Government does. Why doesn't she google it and see what this Government has done, what I as Minister have done and what Multicultural NSW is doing in relation to the COMPACT Grants Program to ensure that any form of radicalisation or extremism is appropriately dealt with and stopped? The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Didn't you watch the news about what happened in Melbourne? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: You should have a good look at what we are doing. Clearly, you have no idea. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 18

COMMERCIAL FISHING The Hon. RICK COLLESS (16:28): My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister please update the House on changes to commercial fishing in New South Wales to secure the future of the State's industry? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:30): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question. Today heralds a new era for commercial fishing in New South Wales. Earlier today I announced key changes to an industry that has struggled under inefficient controls for many years. These changes will ensure that the $90 million commercial fishing industry is a strong and sustainable industry well into the future and that the supply of locally caught, high-quality seafood to New South Wales households will continue. On becoming Minister I observed that the changes initially proposed were causing some distress for commercial fishing businesses so I have travelled the New South Wales coastline to meet with more than 200 commercial fishers and to hear first-hand about the changes needed for this industry. The Government has made a number of changes to deliver a tailor-made package to ensure that we both look after those fishers who want to stay in the industry and support those who wish to exit. This reform will allow New South Wales commercial fishers to invest in their businesses with more certainty than ever before and give them reassurance that they will have the access to the fisheries resource now and into the future. But this type of generational change takes time to get right and we have taken the time to consider the feedback of fishers and make the necessary adjustments to get it right. Fundamentally, the Business Adjustment Program introduces linkages between fishing shares and catch and effort limits. This means that fishers who want to fish more or catch more can tailor their businesses to do so, and those who wish to catch less can downscale by selling shares they do not need. We have also given fishers more time to adjust to the changes, which will be rolled out gradually from now until December 2018. This may be difficult for some fishers but through a comprehensive suite of assistance measures the Government will help fishers through this transition period. For the first time active commercial fishers will have access to low interest rate loans to help them purchase subsidised shares. Other assistance measures include grants for independent financial advice and subsidies for both buyers and sellers of shares to assist in the transition. We will also offer a fixed fishing business buyout of $20,000 for fishers looking to exit the industry or to sell their businesses. Grants of up to $10,000 are also on offer for fishers who choose to exit the industry and retrain in a new profession. In addition to these support measures, we will make sure that local fishing cooperatives are also supported. A one-off payment of up to $30,000 is available for cooperatives to help cover the cost of specialist business advice. For cooperatives located on Crown land a standard long-term lease will be made available, and we are also looking at options for short-term rent subsidies. The Government has also committed $400,000 to partner with industry to boost awareness of the commercial fishing industry in New South Wales and to see New South Wales seafood as the most sought after catch of the day. This reform will give fishing shares value and reduce much of the red tape that has restrained the industry for many years. The success of the sector not only means jobs for commercial fishers but also for a wide range of supporting services such as fishing cooperatives, transport companies, wholesalers and retailers. The implementation of share linkages, combined with assistance measures, will secure the New South Wales commercial fishing industry and ensure that it is sustainable well into the future. I thank the commercial fishing sector for the level of consultation that we have engaged in. This is not just an announcement today; it is the start of a journey that we will work through together. BROKEN HILL WATER SUPPLY Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (16:32): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands and Water. The member for Barwon is currently conducting a community survey of the residents of Broken Hill to assess their support for long-term water options. This survey gives respondents three options: a pipeline from Wentworth on the Murray, a pipeline from Jamestown in South Australia, or water from bores. Many residents are writing in a fourth option: "Restore the small and medium flows to the Darling River— The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: As the member knows, this is question time, not the adjournment debate. The member has gone way beyond giving background information to render a question intelligible. I ask that the member be brought to order. Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: To the point of order: As members know, I have been pursuing this issue—which is incredibly important to the people of Broken Hill—for many years. I was just getting to the substance of my question. In fact, I was only halfway through my time allocation for asking a question. I suggest I was completely in order. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 19

The PRESIDENT: Order! I thank members for their contribution to the point of order. The Hon. Catherine Cusack is correct in saying that questions should only contain such facts as are necessary to render them intelligible. As a general rule of thumb, I have used the 30-second point as an acceptable amount of time in which facts can be brought to the attention of a Minister so that he or she can give the answer being sought by the member. We have gone a little bit past that point. I ask the member to come to the interrogatory part of his question as quickly as possible. The tradition in question time is that questions be of an interrogatory nature. Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The fourth option being put by residents is: "Restore the small and medium flows to the Darling River and Menindee Lakes and return water to the river. NO BORES, NO PIPELINE." Will the Government respect the community sentiment? What will it do to return more water to the Darling River and Menindee Lakes? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:35): I thank the member for his question. I congratulate the member for Barwon for continuing the consultation on this important issue with his local community. We have said that the long-term solution for Broken Hill and Menindee Lakes is to be able to provide infrastructure, which we are going to fund and those opposite voted against, that will give more certainty to those people. The people of Broken Hill deserve a reliable quality water source. If we are able to do that through the infrastructure options we have put on the table then that will address the issue the member is trying to get this Government to commit to—a healthier lake system and a better river system. The people of Broken Hill rely upon the water in the lakes. We are currently experiencing a record lack of inflow into those lakes. Other than praying for rain, there is no way we will have that security— The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr Jeremy Buckingham to order for the second time. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Praying for rain is something that those opposite only seem to be able to offer up. It is like the trip that the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Luke Foley and the Hon. Daniel Mookhey decided to take out there a few weeks ago. The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Walt Secord that he is on two calls to order. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: It was as if Huey, Dewey and Louie jumped into a plane. They worked out that they would take Daniel to Broken Hill because he is from the west— Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: For the life of me I do not understand how a diatribe against the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and the Hon. Mick Veitch has anything to do with my question, which related to the fourth option that the people of Broken Hill are putting to the Hon. Kevin Humphries and the option that that community wants. The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has made his point. The Minister was being generally relevant. If the Minister has anything else to add to his answer— [Interruption] The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What did you just say? The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Hon. Catherine Cusack has a question to ask the member she can do so outside the Chamber. If the Minister has anything further that he wishes to add I draw his attention to the question that was asked. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: In relation to the options for the people of Broken Hill, those opposite decided to take a trip. They decided to take the Hon. Daniel Mookhey because in their eyes he is from the west— Western Sydney. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Penny Sharpe that she is on two calls to order. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: The Minister knows full well that he should address members by their full title. He has called the Hon. Daniel Mookhey twice by his first name only. He should refer to him as the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. The PRESIDENT: Order! Several references have been made to the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, but I cannot recall whether all of them were in the proper form. I remind members that it is appropriate that they refer to other members by their correct title. The Minister has the call. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: So they took the Hon. Mick Veitch along. He thought he would talk about Agfair, but he was just a week late. Agfair had been on a week earlier. The Hon. Rick Colless was out there so he covered that and that was okay. They got there and thought they would talk about water. They turned around and Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 20

said, "Who is going to talk about water?". The Hon. Mick Veitch said, "Well, not me because you sacked me from that portfolio." The Hon. Luke Foley turned around and said, "Where is the water shadow Minister?" They said, "We forgot him. We've left him back in Sydney." They had gone all the way out to Broken Hill to talk about water and left the water spokesperson in Sydney. How much of a faux pas is that? We are delivering the infrastructure we said we would to give certainty back to the people of Broken Hill and Menindee. They cannot rely upon the river at the moment. Those opposite should go up and have a look in the catchment and look at the record drought that we are seeing. There are no inflows coming down the river; there are no inflows that are going to make a difference. We need to ensure that we give that community certainty and we have put hundreds of millions of dollars on the table to do that. Those opposite have voted against it. The local member is doing the right thing and is continuing to talk to his community. I look forward to when we can announce the final infrastructure project that we are going to deliver for the people of New South Wales, I look forward to the support of those opposite, I look forward to a healthy lake system and I look forward to a healthy river system as a result. WILCANNIA WEIR The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:41): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. What is the Minister's response to community concerns about the lack of response to the Wilcannia community seeking funds to upgrade the Wilcannia weir? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:41): I thank the member for his question, which has been asked in the House previously. The information that we had was that some information and a feasibility report into the issue had been sent to the Department of Primary Industries. I am pleased to advise that the Deputy Director General of the Department of Primary Industries—Water has received that feasibility investigation report, including a scoping study and business case for the Wilcannia weir. A number of New South Wales government agencies, together with representatives of Central Darling Shire Council, the Wilcannia Aboriginal Land Council, the Wilcannia Working Party and the Wilcannia Tourism Association have been working closely on this project. Once the reports have been thoroughly reviewed by the Government, the future stages of the project will be considered and the reports will be published on the Department of Primary Industries' website. This has taken far longer than anyone anticipated and I have asked that the department considers the next steps as quickly as possible. If any more information comes to hand I am happy to report that to the House. WESTCONNEX AND M4 WIDENING The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (16:43): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Could the Minister update the House on the progress of the M4 widening project, which forms the first section of the WestConnex motorway? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:43): I thank the member for her question. Where is Albo? He is a little bit confused lately; he seems to be in favour of WestConnex one day and against it the next. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: The ancient member would be well aware that— The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will resume his seat. He is lucky he is not being removed from the Chamber. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was delighted to join the Premier recently to view construction of this critical piece of infrastructure to widen the M4 from three lanes to four in each direction from Parramatta to Homebush. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Did you see why it blew out by $7 billion? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You know the Labor Party is not supporting this on most days, except Bill had to come out and bring them into line. Along with the Premier and the Federal Minister for Major Projects, Paul Fletcher, I inspected progress on the new overpass which is being built to support the additional lanes on the M4. Every day 100,000 trips are made along the M4—100,000 people from Western Sydney driving to work— and those motorists no doubt are equally thrilled to see all the work happening. But they would not have been so thrilled with the Labor Party this week and Anthony Albanese, who is a modest man— The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: With a lot to be modest about. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He does have a lot to be modest about. He had not told his constituents in the inner west about his role in the inauguration of WestConnex. We would not have had WestConnex without Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 21

him pledging the money. It is our responsibility to save Albo; we will tell his electorate how important he was to WestConnex—but then he became Albo the Confused. How are we going to save Albo when he is so confused? The Federal Opposition leader was then going to say— The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The Minister is transgressing in two ways. First, he is not being generally relevant to the question and, secondly, if he wishes to attack the Hon. Anthony Albanese he should do so by way of substantive motion and not as an aside during his answer. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am saving him because he is too modest; he has not told his electorate what he has done. He got confused, so now I am helping him. When he said he was going to remove the money that the Federal Government had pledged to WestConnex his Federal leader had to say to him, "Anthony, you cannot do that." But the worst thing that we saw was the appalling behaviour at a council meeting in the inner west. A group of individuals and two Greens members called into the council meeting with their "Ban WestConnex" banners and signs. With not one of the two Greens members there telling them not to do it, we saw an appalling situation of a member of the public spitting into the face of the administrator, which clearly Mr David Shoebridge supports. Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: If the Minister wants to cast aspersions upon a member of the other Chamber he must do so by substantive motion. The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that if they wish to reflect in any way on a member of this House or the other House they must do so by way of substantive motion. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Greens members were there apparently in support. One of the members took at least 24 hours to condemn the action while the other member praised it. [Time expired.] Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The Minister has directly cavilled with your ruling. Despite your ruling, he sought to cast aspersions on the two members. I ask you to direct him to withdraw his comments. The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: I ask Mr David Shoebridge to clarify what the aspersion was. Is the aspersion the fact that the Minister said The Greens supported the action of the protesters? The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time. I ask members to give other members the courtesy of silence when they are making contributions on points of order and me the courtesy of silence so I can listen to them and rule upon them. The Minister's time has expired. I did not hear those aspersions. After the exchange I think the best thing is that we just move on. IVF CLINICS Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (16:50): I wish to ask the Leader of the House, the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the Premier, a question. Is it a fact that according to the ABC's 7.30 report last night some IVF clinics in New South Wales are exploiting women, some aged 47 years, seeking to have a child with expensive charges and dangerous treatment over many years of unsuccessful IVF treatment? Will the Government review these IVF clinics in New South Wales and place them under the close supervision of the NSW Department of Health? The Hon.Walt Secord: Fred, it was Four Corners; not the 7.30 report. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am sorry, it was on Four Corners. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:50): I thank the honourable for his question. No, I am not aware because I was watching Channel 9 at that time. I was watching The Voice. It certainly is a serious issue that the honourable member has raised. I will take it on notice and refer it to my colleague the Minister for Health for an answer, DUNGOG LEAD CONTAMINATION The Hon. MICK VEITCH (16:51): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Land and Water. What steps has the Minister taken to provide medical testing and assistance with accommodation for a single Dungog mum and her two children who were forced out of their Hunter Water-owned home after being exposed to high levels of lead contamination? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:52): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the question went back to what steps I have taken. Obviously this is a highly operational matter and I would hope the appropriate steps have been taken by the relevant authority, Hunter Water, particularly if it is a Hunter Water property. I hope that I have not had to take any steps because the appropriate steps have been taken by the relevant agency. However, I will take the Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 22

question on notice and I will make sure that I am across those details. If the appropriate steps have not been taken, and the issue that the member raises is as he says—and I do not doubt, as he is a person with a high level of integrity, that he would have not have those facts right—then I will ensure the correct steps are taken. But I think it would be safer for me to take the question on notice, get across those details and report back to the House. YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (16:53): My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for the Environment. Can the Minister update the House on the Youth Opportunities program and its benefits to children and young people in New South Wales? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. As members may be aware, the Government's Youth Opportunities program provides funding for one-off, time-limited new projects which support young people to lead and participate in community development activities. I am pleased to inform the House that up to $1.1 million is now available to fund Youth Opportunities projects to be conducted between January and December 2017. These one-off grants are available to youth and community organisations and to local government to support local youth-led projects with a positive youth development focus. Since the Government launched this initiative in 2012 we have provided $6.8 million to support 120 local projects across New South Wales. We have provided funding for projects which enable young people to better engage with their local communities and develop leadership, communication, teamwork and other life skills. Projects also provide volunteering opportunities that link them to further education and training. Late last year I announced funding for 31 Youth Opportunities projects, which are now underway. These projects are making a significant difference in our community. When I was in Broken Hill in April I met with a number of the young people participating in the Young Aboriginal Emerging Leaders project and heard their stories and vision for strengthening their communities. Their commitment to the future of their communities and to creating opportunities for other young people in the Murdi Paaki region was heart-warming and inspiring. This is at the heart of the Youth Opportunities program. This project is providing a wonderful opportunity for young people to develop confidence and skills while at the same time contributing to initiatives that ultimately benefit the whole community. I also recently visited a project being managed by Weave Youth and Community Services in Waterloo. This is another inspiring project, engaging disadvantaged and marginalised young people and providing training, skills development and experience so that they are engaged and can fully participate in their communities. Skills learnt through this program are transferable to other areas of these young people's lives and will have a positive and lasting impact on their education, employment and personal development. Applications for Youth Opportunities funding for projects to be run in 2017 opened on 23 May and will close on 27 June. I encourage all members in this place to promote this important program within their communities. The Department of Family and Community Services will be holding a series of workshops across New South Wales to answer questions from potential applicants about the program guidelines and the application process. Information about the Youth Opportunities program and the workshops is available on the youth website: www.youth.nsw.gov.au. I will be announcing the successful applicants later in the year. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:56): My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for Health. My first question to the Minister is: With the Government's current focus on biosecurity, what investigations have been undertaken to satisfy public health authorities that there will not be any further cases of antibiotic resistance in the general public similar to the Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus [VRE] of the early 2000s? Secondly, given that there were no health department investigations into the VRE cases at John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle and given the ongoing use of antibiotic-type substances such as coccidiostats in intensive farming of animals, will the Minister establish an inquiry into this use of antibiotic-type substances and the potential impacts on human health? The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I seek clarification on how many questions a member can ask within a question. My understanding is that a member can ask only a single question rather than two entirely different questions, although from a similar background. The honourable member said, "My first question" and then went on to detail his second question. I am asking whether that is appropriate under the standing orders. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 23

The PRESIDENT: Order! While, in fact, the standing order does refer to the asking of each question, the ruling that has generally been made by previous Presidents is that while there may be only one question that does not necessarily restrict the question to one subject. The understanding would be that generally the subjects would be related so that the question does not become impossible for a Minister to answer in the limited time available. The member had concluded his question. I will allow the question. However, I remind members seeking answers to questions that Ministers have only four minutes in which to respond. The Minister has the call. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:59): I thank the member for his question. It is clearly a detailed question, or questions. I will refer it to the Minister for Health and seek a detailed answer. WATER DIVINER The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16:59): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that on 11 May the Minister told Parliament that the Department of Premier and Cabinet provided $16,500 to employ a water diviner near Wagga Wagga, and given revelations since that—surprise, surprise—no water was found, does the Minister still support this expenditure? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (17:00): I thank the member for her question. It is my understanding that that money was given to the council by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the council then engaged the services of the water diviner. Members of the Opposition who have perhaps never lived outside a city— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You do not know where I have lived, so I would be quiet if I were you. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I was talking about those who have never lived outside a city. There are those who have lived outside a city. I acknowledge that the shadow Minister still resides in regional New South Wales. He is the only one, but at least there is one. The fact that council chose to use the services of a water diviner, whether or not he charged the council, is not something that members opposite should mock. People in regional communities quite often use the services of people like water diviners. When they are looking for other types of infrastructure— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: This is hard science right here. The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has been repeatedly warned. Under Standing Order 192 I suspend the Hon. Penny Sharpe from the service of the House until 5.30 p.m. The Usher will accompany her from the Chamber. [Pursuant to sessional order the Hon. Penny Sharpe left the Chamber at 5.00 p.m. DUNGOG LEAD CONTAMINATION The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (17:02): In answer to the question asked by the Hon. Mick Veitch earlier in question time, I am advised that Hunter Water recently tested for contaminants at a property on Abelard Street, Dungog, a former Hunter Water depot currently tenanted by a family and men's shed. The property is non-operational land owned by Hunter Water. It has been listed for consideration on Hunter Water's property disposal plan and requires further due diligence works, including obtaining an environmental site assessment. On-site testing undertaken as part of the environmental site assessment returned elevated levels of lead, leading Hunter Water to offer to move the tenants off site indefinitely while further testing and investigations are undertaken. I am advised that Hunter Water has engaged a specialist consultant to assist with the investigations and is supporting the family to source alternative accommodation. Additionally, Hunter Water has encouraged the tenants to visit their local general practitioner. It is also seeking to work with adjoining properties to advise of the works being undertaken and to undertake further soil sampling. The disposal investigations were only preliminary and no decision has been made on the future of the property. Hunter Water awaits advice from the engaged consultants to further understand the on-site issues. Hunter Water regrets the inconvenience to both the family and the men's shed. However, their health must take priority while the source of contamination and options for remediation are explored. Question time concluded. Documents TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (17:04): I table the following report: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 24

Transport Administration Act 1988 and Passenger Transport Act 1990—Report of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations entitled "Rail Safety Investigation: Hawkesbury River Railway Bridge, Brooklyn", dated 14 September 2015. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Bills NORFOLK ISLAND ADMINISTRATION BILL 2016 Second Reading Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (17:05): The Christian Democratic Party notes that the Commonwealth Act provides that, where New South Wales laws are applied as laws in force in Norfolk Island, powers under those laws can be vested by the Commonwealth Minister in New South Wales authorities and employees under an arrangement entered into between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. The bill authorises New South Wales to enter into such arrangements with the Commonwealth Government. It allows New South Wales authorities or employees to exercise powers conferred on or vested in New South Wales authorities or employees pursuant to such an arrangement with the Commonwealth Government. I commented earlier on the concerns raised by the Hon. Adam Searle in debate on his motion to refer this bill to a committee. The Christian Democratic Party is also being cautious. We will wait until we have heard the contributions of all parties before making an informed decision. We want Norfolk Island to have representation. Lord Howe Island has representation. We strongly recommend that Norfolk Island be given the same sort of representation that Lord Howe Island has in the State electorate adjacent to the island. It is obvious that the New South Wales Government would not put forward this legislation if it had not had an overwhelming commitment from the Commonwealth Government to cover the cost of the provision of services. This bill formalises the current provision of services. The New South Wales Government expects full cost recovery for taxpayers for any services provided to Norfolk Island. The Christian Democratic Party appreciates the concerns raised by the people of Norfolk Island, as expressed by the Hon. Adam Searle and Mr David Shoebridge. I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Norfolk Island but was unable to do so at short notice. The Christian Democratic Party has listened to all contributions and is of the view that the Government is not being hasty with this bill. It has been well thought through. The main concern raised by the Hon. Adam Searle that New South Wales would be out of pocket does not carry weight. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, in her second reading speech, will clarify the concerns raised by the Hon. Adam Searle. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House. The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE (17:08): I will make a brief contribution to the debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016. I endorse the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Hon. Adam Searle. The object of this bill is to authorise New South Wales to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of services and for the exercise of functions on Norfolk Island by New South Wales. Last year, the Abbott-Turnbull Government passed legislation which altered the way in which Norfolk Island is administered. Previously Norfolk Island had been Australia's only non-mainland territory to achieve self- governance under the Norfolk Island Act 1979. The island has a population of as few as 1,800 inhabitants, mainly of European-only or mixed European- Polynesian extraction. The last census reported that the population was ageing, with a declining number of inhabitants in the 20-year-old to 34-year-old age range. Perhaps this relates to the lack of tertiary education institutions on Norfolk Island, as well as the fact that the small economy does not provide sufficient employment opportunities for people in that age group. The previous system of governance for Norfolk Island saw the existence of a Legislative Assembly, consisting of nine members elected by popular vote for a period of no longer than three years. This system was, as I said, abolished by the Federal Government last year. The new Federal legislation sees the Commonwealth assume the responsibility for funding and service delivery to Norfolk Island. It will see the establishment of an elected Norfolk Island Regional Council from 1 July 2016. In March this year the Federal Government requested the assistance of the New South Wales Government to provide service delivery support in the areas of school education, local government and health, commencing in July this year. The bill provides for an increase in the delivery of services compared to what has been provided in Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 25

previous years. It also provides that the New South Wales Government may enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the effective application and administration of the laws in force on Norfolk Island. This would include the potential exercising of powers by an authority of New South Wales or any employee of New South Wales in relation to Norfolk Island. Thus the bill means that there is a potential intrusion into the daily lives of Norfolk Island residents by New South Wales laws without the residents of Norfolk Island having any recourse. That is the crux of the issue— without Norfolk Islands residents having any recourse, right to representation or consultation with the New South Wales Parliament—which was well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition in this House. Whilst the bill on the surface seems fine, particularly in regard to the provision of support to the regional council, we should be wary of the consequences of this potentially expanded role for us in New South Wales and for the people of Norfolk Island. As so much is unknown about the background to negotiations between the Commonwealth, the State and Norfolk Island, proper inquiries should be made and information should be gathered so that we are all informed of what is going on and we understand exactly where we stand with regard to this bill. That is why it has been proposed that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for inquiry. I do not think the amendment moved by the Hon. Adam Searle would be time-consuming. Indeed the Hon. Adam Searle and other members have indicated that it would not be. But it would give members of this Parliament and the people of Norfolk Island an opportunity to participate in consultation before the reintroduction of this bill into this House and its adoption which would allay any fears or doubts about what New South Wales is signing up for. Once again, I commend the amendment moved by the Hon. Adam Searle. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:12): I support the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016. Norfolk Island is an Australian external territory with a unique history and a small population that is slowly declining. The population has gone from 2,601 in 2001 to 1,796 at the last census. The population predominantly consists of Australian and New Zealand citizens, with 38 per cent being descendants of the Pitcairn Islanders, as mentioned previously. The history of Norfolk Island is unique. It has effectively been part of Australia since European settlement. Part of my own family history is wrapped up in the history of Norfolk Island. My fifth great-grandmother, Maria Hopper Hazelwood, was born on Norfolk Island on 15 November 1795. Her mother, my sixth great- grandmother, Elizabeth Hopper, died on Norfolk Island in 1795 at the age of 41. Her husband, William Hazelwood, had a much better lifespan than she did, living to the age of 91 years. He died in New Norfolk in Tasmania, which was a settlement started by those from Norfolk Island. They were transported to what was then Van Diemen's land in order to stop the penal settlement in Norfolk Island for some years. It was then started up again in 1825 and continued until 1856, when the Pitcairn Islanders and Bounty mutineers were moved to the island, as has been mentioned. In its more recent history, since 1979 Norfolk Island has been a self-governing territory. Throughout that period we have seen it unable to deliver sufficient services to its people. In 1979 the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly was granted all local, State and some Federal responsibilities under the Norfolk Island Act 1979. Since that time, Norfolk Island has struggled to generate enough revenue to provide sufficient services, infrastructure and government functions to its people. Tourism has long been the primary industry of Norfolk Island but the global financial crisis caused an economic depression, high unemployment rates and a declining quality of life. David Buffet, the administrator at that time, who has been mentioned by other speakers in this debate, said that Norfolk Island would voluntarily surrender its self-government in exchange for Federal funds. So in regard to Norfolk Island's self-sufficiency things have not been rosy for some time. According to the 2012 Norfolk Island economic development report, between 2004 and 2012 the Australian Government provided soft loans and direct transfers to the Norfolk Island Government totalling $31.1 million. There are concerns for the wellbeing of some residents of Norfolk Island, who are receiving services at a significantly lower standard than those available to comparable communities elsewhere in Australia—from inadequate social support to infrastructure, aged care and health services. As we have heard, some people on Norfolk Island do not necessarily want these services provided by the Commonwealth or by New South Wales. But a significant proportion of community members, as has been seen in media reports, are crying out for these services. Unfortunately they have been silenced on the island. Of course I admire places with self-determination and low taxation, but when they are coming cap in hand to the Federal Government and asking to be propped up there are problems that ensue. That is why the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation in May 2015 that reformed the legal and governance framework for Norfolk Island. Under that legislation, the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for funding and delivering services to Norfolk Island and is to establish an elected Norfolk Island Regional Council from 1 July 2016. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 26

The New South Wales Government is already providing schoolteachers and some health and hospital services through agreements with the Norfolk Island Administration. The Commonwealth has requested that New South Wales deliver some State-type services to Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016 on the basis that the services are funded by the Commonwealth and result in no net cost to New South Wales. On 30 March 2016 the Premier announced that the New South Wales Government will assist the Australian Government to provide some services on Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016. New South Wales has agreed to continue assisting with health and school education services for Norfolk Island, following the Commonwealth Government's decision to extend Australian social security, immigration, taxation arrangements, and government services to the island. From 1 July 2016, Australian citizens residing on Norfolk Island will also have the rights and responsibilities of mainland Australians, including access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [PBS], which they have not had up until now. The Australian and New South Wales governments are working closely together to determine the final scope of services involving New South Wales. These will include school education, the management, delivery and regulation of State-type health services, and advice about financial support for the newly established Norfolk Island Regional Council. As part of that the New South Wales Local Government Act is being used to assist in forming the rules for that council. The Australian Government is committed to reforms which will result in a sustainable, stronger and more prosperous Norfolk Island. New South Wales is pleased to help the Australian Government achieve its objectives to improve social and economic outcomes for Norfolk Islanders. Commonwealth laws which apply New South Wales laws will also be phased in from 1 July 2016. New South Wales will sign an agreement with the Commonwealth in advance of the 1 July 2016 start date, outlining the full range of services to be provided by New South Wales on Norfolk Island. In many ways this is something that will continue the current arrangements for New South Wales on the island, and improve them in the future. I commend the bill to the House. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (17:19): I will speak only briefly in debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 as my colleague the Hon. Paul Green has already put forward the position of the Christian Democratic Party. I refer to my correspondence with David Buffet, Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, who expressed concerns about arrangements for the future of Norfolk Island—an issue to which the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Searle, and Mr David Shoebridge referred. In case my silence was interpreted as a lack of interest in this correspondence, I followed it up with the Government and received assurances relating to the matters raised in the correspondence, which were more than adequately outlined by the Hon. Scott Farlow. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 as it is in the best interests of that island's population. The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (17:20): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 which has as its object to authorise New South Wales to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of services and for the exercise of functions in Norfolk Island by New South Wales. In 2015 the Federal Parliament passed legislation that changed the way that Norfolk Island was administered. The legislation abolished the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island from 1 July 2015. New South Wales previously had arrangements with Norfolk Island for the provision of health and education services but the ambit of this bill is potentially much larger than a simple fee for service. This bill provides that New South Wales may enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for effective application and administration of laws in force on Norfolk Island. Such an arrangement may provide for the exercise of powers by an authority of New South Wales or an employee of New South Wales, or in relation to Norfolk Island. Previously Norfolk Island had been Australia's only non-mainland territory to achieve self- governance under the Norfolk Island Act 1979. The island has a population of a little less than 1,800 inhabitants, of European-only or mixed European-Polynesian extraction. The last census reported that the population was ageing, with a declining number of inhabitants in the 20-year-old to 34-year-old age range, which is most likely related to a lack of tertiary education institutions on Norfolk Island as well as the small economy not providing sufficient employment options for people in that age group. The previous system of governance in Norfolk Island saw a Legislative Assembly consisting of nine members elected by popular vote for a period of no longer than three years—a system that was abolished by the Federal Government last year. The new Federal legislation will result in the Commonwealth assuming responsibility for funding and service delivery to Norfolk Island and the establishment of an elected Norfolk Island Regional Council from 1 July 2016. In March 2016 the Federal Government requested the assistance of the New South Wales Government to provide service delivery support in the areas of school education, local government and health, commencing in July. The bill provides for an increase in the delivery of services compared to those that were delivered in previous years. It also provides that the New South Wales Government may enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 27

This bill will result in a potential intrusion into the daily lives of Norfolk Island residents by New South Wales laws without the residents of Norfolk Island having any recourse, right to representation or consultation with the New South Wales Parliament. While this bill seems fine on the surface, we should be wary of the consequences of its potentially expanded role. As the background to any negotiations between the Commonwealth, the State and Norfolk Island is unknown, proper inquiries should be undertaken and information should be gathered. That is why the Opposition would like this bill to be referred to an appropriate committee for inquiry. I hope that members support the motion to establish an inquiry. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (17:24): I strongly support the Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 and urge members to reject the suggestion by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis that rather than establishing a strong framework for the delivery of quality services to Norfolk Island this legislation should be referred to a committee. I believe that this straightforward legislation is most welcome, given the changed circumstances of Norfolk Island. By way of background, in recent years Norfolk Island suffered a fairly catastrophic decline in its population— from 2,601 in 2001 to 1,796 at the last census. While Norfolk Island had its own Parliament to provide the necessary services, the sheer weight of administration and its inability to access specialist services, for example, information technology to administer land and property functions, made it administratively unviable. The Australian Government worked sensitively with the Norfolk Island community for a long time and it reached a decision that was brought to a head by a review of the health outcomes at Norfolk Island hospital, which were found to be unsatisfactory for residents and visitors to the island. The Commonwealth Government then took action to strengthen governance arrangements for the island. Many island residents understood the economic need to make their island sustainable and supported the Commonwealth Government's efforts to settle their island, which they saw as a lifeline. Norfolk Island, which boasts much heritage and which has a stunning natural environment, is a long way from Australia. It was settled twice, the second time through the relocation of former Pitcairn Islanders who have now developed a huge attachment to the island. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments want to support and preserve all that heritage. For some time I have been passionate about the future of Norfolk Island. Because of the special role that New South Wales plays in relation to Lord Howe Island, I believe our State has the capacity, with its ample resources and its diversity of services, to deliver a full suite of services to a range of remote communities as well as to urbanised communities—whether those services be health, education or administrative services. I have been championing the idea that New South Wales has a positive role to play in the future of Norfolk Island now that the Commonwealth Government is seeking to incorporate its elected governance arrangements into mainstream Australian arrangements. The constituents on Norfolk Island will be voting as part of the Australian Capital Territory in the forthcoming Federal election. I am sure they will avail themselves of that and be part of our national electoral system which will maintain their democracy. The amount of money spent by Australia on maintaining Norfolk Island is simply staggering. As Norfolk Island will never be financially viable on its own it is in everybody's interests for it to be made sustainable in the future. New South Wales is already delivering educational services and employees of the New South Wales Department of Education have been successfully teaching children on the island, which by all accounts is a wonderful experience for them. It has benefitted children on the island to undertake the Higher School Certificate and to access tertiary institutions in New South Wales. It seemed to me an obvious thing with our economic strength and our strong and growing record as an employer of choice. The Premier is passionate about giving our public servants as many opportunities as possible to grow and develop and to make our services available for the benefit of everybody. As I said, given our experience with Lord Howe Island we are an obvious supplier of Commonwealth-funded services under the new arrangements for Norfolk Island. I think this is quite visionary and there is a lot more that New South Wales can accomplish when it comes to exporting our government services to a range of our neighbours. In this case, Norfolk Island is in immediate need, particularly for health services. I commend the Premier, his staff and the department for recognising the available opportunity and putting in place this framework that will allow our State to be of service to the Norfolk Island community. I have never visited Norfolk Island but obviously it is on my bucket list. By all accounts it is a stunning island with a great future, provided that wisdom prevails at this time. The tough step is to bring the Norfolk Island governance arrangements into line with its current population of 2,000. This bill will be tremendously helpful in arresting the decline in population and making the island sustainable. I look forward to hearing of the successful arrangements being implemented under this legislation. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (17:30): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, in reply: I thank the Hon. Adam Searle, Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. Ernest Wong, the Hon. Paul Green, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 28

the Hon. Scott Farlow, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis and the Hon. Catherine Cusack for their contributions to this debate. The Norfolk Island Administration Bill 2016 is designed to authorise New South Wales to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of services and the exercise of functions by New South Wales authorities and employees on Norfolk Island. In response to some of the matters raised in the debate, firstly I am advised that representatives of the Government met with Mr Chris Magri of the Norfolk Island People for Democracy to discuss their concerns in relation to this matter. I am further advised that representatives of the New South Wales Department of Education and the New South Wales Ministry of Health have visited the island to assess the service need and engage with key community stakeholders in relation to health and education services. New South Wales currently staffs Norfolk Island Central School with teachers who deliver the New South Wales curriculum to students. The South Eastern Sydney Local Health District also currently provides some governance and technical expertise to the Norfolk Island hospital. The changes taking place on Norfolk Island are wide ranging and have caused some anxiety in the community. While the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the overall governance of the island and the wellbeing of the community, New South Wales is happy to continue to support Norfolk Island through the provision of school education and health services. Given our existing relationship with the Norfolk Island community and expertise in delivering and regulating high-quality health and school education services it makes sense for New South Wales to continue and, where appropriate, expand our commitment. In relation to the contribution of the Hon. Paul Green, I indicate that activity undertaken by New South Wales on Norfolk Island will be on a full cost recovery basis. New South Wales will only agree to deliver services and perform regulatory functions after the Premier, the New South Wales Treasurer and relevant New South Wales Ministers have thoroughly considered the implications. This Government is yet to enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth relating to the provision of services to Norfolk Island. It is expected that this will take place in coming weeks. It is intended that any services to be delivered by New South Wales agencies pursuant to an arrangement entered into with the Commonwealth will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the involvement of New South Wales remains appropriate. A concern has been raised about the prospect that New South Wales through this bill and the application of New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island will be drawn further into providing assistance to Norfolk Island and incur financial costs associated with that assistance. The application of New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island does not obligate New South Wales to provide any services or exercise any functions with respect to Norfolk Island. This was emphasised by the Commonwealth when it amended the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Act. Similarly, this bill does not commit New South Wales to provide assistance to Norfolk Island. The bill enables the New South Wales Government to enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth Government on a case- by-case basis. New South Wales is yet to do so. New South Wales has been clear in its communications with the Commonwealth that any arrangement will be on the condition that there is no net cost to New South Wales. Any provision of services by New South Wales to Norfolk Island will be of our choosing. The Leader of the Opposition in this House has asked why this bill is needed. The need for this bill arises in the particular context of legislation passed by the Commonwealth with respect to Norfolk Island, being amendments to the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Act 1979 that apply from 1 July 2016. The Commonwealth legislation specifically provides for the circumstances in which New South Wales authorities and employees are authorised, under Commonwealth law, to exercise functions on Norfolk Island. However, irrespective of any authorisation under Commonwealth law, State legislation is needed to confer on New South Wales authorities and employees the particular function of delivering services on Norfolk Island by or under the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Act. This is particularly important for New South Wales statutory authorities that rely on State legislation to define the extent of their functions and powers. This bill therefore complements the Commonwealth legislation and ensures that the delivery of services by New South Wales authorities and employees on Norfolk Island is authorised for the purposes of State law. The Leader of the Opposition also raised the question of the application of international law to Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island has been a part of Australia for more than 100 years. Its position as a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth has been affirmed by the High Court of Australia. In 1979 the Commonwealth Government established what was effectively an experimental system of self-government on Norfolk Island. That experiment has not worked well. Public infrastructure on Norfolk Island is run down. Critical services such as the local hospital are not accredited to mainland standards. Last year the experiment was brought to an end when— with bipartisan support—the Australian Parliament changed the governance arrangements for Norfolk Island to match those used in Australia's other external territories such as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island. From 1 July Norfolk Islanders will be brought into the Australian social security, tax and Medicare systems, and a newly elected Norfolk Island Regional Council will provide local representation. New South Wales Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 29

has expertise in delivering complex State services such as health and education. This bill will enable New South Wales to assist the Commonwealth in delivering better services for the people of Norfolk Island. The Government opposes the motion for the bill to be referred to a committee for consideration. As I said, Norfolk Island has been a part of the Commonwealth of Australia since 1914 when it was accepted as a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth. That position has been affirmed by the High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth Government is ultimately responsible for the governance of Norfolk Island—as it has been for more than a century. In 2015 the Commonwealth Government—with the support of the Federal Labor Party—passed legislation that changes the legal and governance arrangements for Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016. From that date, the Australian citizens of Norfolk Island will be able to directly elect a Norfolk Island Regional Council, which will be responsible for local level and municipal government functions on Norfolk Island such as the maintenance of roads, water and sewerage, power, waste disposal and treatment, land use planning, historic and cultural areas, and management of local natural areas. The population of Norfolk Island will also be eligible to vote in Federal elections and referendums from 1 July 2016. Norfolk Island residents will enrol for the Australian Capital Territory Division. They will be represented by a single federal member of the Commonwealth House of Representatives, the member for Canberra, and senators for the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for determining the governance of Norfolk Island through the application of Commonwealth laws, and through the administration of New South Wales laws applied as Commonwealth laws in Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island residents are not citizens of New South Wales and this Parliament does not determine the legislation that applies to Norfolk Island. It is the Commonwealth Government that decides which New South Wales laws apply to Norfolk Island as Commonwealth laws. This model is consistent with arrangements in Australia's other inhabited external territories such as Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Where the Commonwealth decides to apply a New South Wales law to Norfolk Island, the Commonwealth can unilaterally vary that New South Wales law to suit Norfolk Island. Where New South Wales laws apply to Norfolk Island, this does not impose responsibilities on New South Wales with respect to Norfolk Island. New South Wales would need to come to an arrangement with the Commonwealth to exercise powers and functions under laws that apply to Norfolk Island. This bill only enables New South Wales to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of services and exercise of functions by New South Wales authorities and employees on Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth has requested the assistance of New South Wales in the delivery of some State-type services to Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016. If the passage of this bill did not occur this session then, because of the legal arrangements already put in place by the Commonwealth that will apply from 1 July 2016, there would be serious questions about whether New South Wales could continue its involvement in Norfolk Island. Since 1991, New South Wales has provided schoolteachers for Norfolk Island Central School under an arrangement with the Norfolk Island Administration. Our involvement with the school is supported by the Norfolk Island community. While New South Wales is yet to enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth, we intend to continue the provision of teaching staff to the school. New South Wales has also provided some limited health services that allowed Norfolk Island residents access to hospitals in the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. We are currently considering the scope of enhanced health services it may provide to Norfolk Island. This may involve assisting in the transition from the current Norfolk Island Hospital to a multi-purpose service such as those in rural and regional areas. By its very nature our involvement in the development of a multi-purpose service would entail consultation with the Norfolk Island community. Given our existing relationship with the Norfolk Island community and our expertise in delivering and regulating high-quality health and school education services, it makes sense for New South Wales to continue and, where appropriate, to expand our commitment. This bill enables New South Wales to do so. I commend the bill to the House. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that this bill be read a second time, to which the Hon. Adam Searle has moved an amendment. I now put the amendment of the Hon. Adam Searle. Ayes ...... 15 Noes ...... 20 Majority ...... 5 AYES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Pearson Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Mr Wong Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 30

NOES Dr Phelps Mr Ajaka Mr Amato Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Green Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Ms Taylor Reverend Nile

PAIRS Mr Secord Mr Harwin

Amendment negatived. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied. The House divided. Ayes ...... 20 Noes ...... 15 Majority ...... 5 AYES Dr Phelps Mr Ajaka Mr Amato Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Green Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Ms Taylor Reverend Nile

NOES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Pearson Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Mr Wong Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz

PAIRS Mr Harwin Mr Secord

Motion agreed to. In Committee TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Bronnie Taylor): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (17:55): I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 2016-051A: No. 1 Report on options to extend democratic franchise to Norfolk Island Page 3. Insert after line 3: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 31

7 Report on options to extend democratic franchise to Norfolk Island (1) The Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Secretary) is required to prepare a report on available options for Commonwealth legislation to extend the democratic franchise of the people of New South Wales to the people of Norfolk Island. (2) The Secretary is to make a draft report available for public consultation in Norfolk Island and is to take into account any submissions made before finalising the report. (3) The Secretary is required to provide the report to the Minister within 12 months from the commencement of this Act and the Minister is required to table the report in each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report. This amendment would insert an additional provision requiring a report to be issued about options to extend the democratic franchise on Norfolk Island. The amendment seeks to at least give the people of Norfolk Island some structure, some hope that this Government, whose laws will be applied to Norfolk Island, is considering ways in which it can extend the franchise of New South Wales to Norfolk Island. It may well be that the answer in the report is that it is outside the legislative powers of the Commonwealth to simply extend the franchise by legislation and it may be that it requires an amendment to the Constitution in order to allow this to happen. It may be that it is a simple matter for the Commonwealth Parliament, by legislation, to extend the franchise to the people of Norfolk Island; it may be that it requires something from the imperial Parliament to do it. I do not know because I have not looked into the full detail of how it is that we grant the people of Norfolk Island the democratic rights that everybody else in New South Wales and in the Commonwealth has, that is, a right to vote in a State election as well as a right to vote in a Commonwealth election. We surely owe it to the people of Norfolk Island when we are entering into arrangements to apply the laws of New South Wales to their conduct, their activity and their previously independent territory, to have the opportunity to vote here in New South Wales. I am not afraid of 2,500 additional Norfolk Islanders getting the franchise and voting in New South Wales; I am convinced they would enrich our polity. I am convinced that it would be a good thing for New South Wales to extend the franchise to the people of Norfolk Island and I would embrace them as full voting citizens of this State if that is what they chose to do. But surely we should get the report, we should have a look at it and we should give them the option. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (17:58): The Government opposes this amendment. This bill authorises the making of arrangements by New South Wales with the Commonwealth to facilitate service delivery to Norfolk Island. The bill does not seek to reincorporate Norfolk Island into New South Wales and there is no intention to do so. Norfolk Island is not a part of New South Wales but, rather, a Commonwealth external Territory. It is the Commonwealth that has changed the legal and governance arrangements for Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016. It is the Commonwealth, and not New South Wales, that decides which, if any, New South Wales laws apply to Norfolk Island. Where they do apply, they apply as Commonwealth law and the Commonwealth can modify them for Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth has provided for democratic representation of citizens of Norfolk Island that reflects its status as an external Territory. This consists of the election of a Norfolk Island Regional Council and the right to vote in Commonwealth elections. It would be inappropriate for the secretary of a New South Wales government agency to review and comment on how voting and representation arrangements might be varied in relation to a Commonwealth external Territory that is not a part of New South Wales. The bill is facilitative in nature. It will authorise government authorities and employees to deliver services to Norfolk Island under an arrangement made between New South Wales and the Commonwealth. The bill does not deal with the laws that apply to Norfolk Island or matters of democratic representation as these are matters that are solely for the Commonwealth. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (18:00): With great respect, I think the Government has missed the point of the amendment. We know it is a decision of the Commonwealth Parliament to change the legal and governance arrangements; that is fine. We certainly do not seek to cavil with that. What is before this Chamber is a matter for us. If we embark on this course of action to give this fairly open-ended blank cheque to the Commonwealth—and despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said—there is no leverage; once the bill is passed in this form the State Government will have no leverage to stop the Commonwealth drawing us in even closer. For example, if the Commonwealth decided to extend the environmental protection Act and the role of the Environment Protection Authority to Norfolk Island, it can do that without the consent of the State Government. Mr David Shoebridge: Health and safety. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 32

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: And the work, health and safety legislation engaging the roles of WorkCover, it can do that without our consent, and engage the obligations of those agencies to provide, at taxpayers' expense, those services. All sorts of implications flow from that because the people of Norfolk Island will not get a say in that. We understand that and we do not seek to change that but this amendment seeks to find other ways of engaging with the people of Norfolk Island so that we can be mindful of their views when making laws that may in future be imposed upon them. That is a responsible course of action. It does not cavil with what the Commonwealth has done. It has done what it has done; rather, it is the terms and conditions upon which we are prepared to go down this path. If this Chamber is prepared to embrace the Government's proposal, despite the arguments that we have marshalled, then this amendment surely is the very least that can be done. Should not the Government try to do the least it should do; it should try to do much better than that but it should at least do the least it can do to try to engage with the people of Norfolk Island. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (18:02): It was deeply disappointing to hear the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary, no doubt on instructions, simply dismissed the options of looking for a way to give the people of Norfolk Island a chance to get some democratic franchise and a say in the laws that ultimately will be governing them. To simply say, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, "Well, this is about a Commonwealth bill; it is about Commonwealth laws"; that the Commonwealth will be imposing New South Wales laws by regulation— Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Commonwealth—ignores a pretty simple fact: that what we are debating at the moment is how the New South Wales Government will be applying services and under what terms the New South Wales Government will be applying services to Norfolk Island. Fundamentally, the reason it is the New South Wales Government that will apply those services in Norfolk Island is partly by reason of geography—although the geographical argument does not work so well when one realises the people of Norfolk Island will be getting a vote in the land-locked seat of Canberra at a Federal election—but it is also because the Commonwealth Government is going to choose which New South Wales laws it applies to Norfolk Island. It will not be Norfolk Island choosing which New South Wales laws apply; it will be a Minister in the Commonwealth Government imposing New South Wales laws on them. If New South Wales laws are going to be imposed, why will the Government not engage in the argument, even by writing a report and considering ways in which the people of Norfolk Island can have a say in those laws? That is all we are saying: allow the people of Norfolk Island to have a say in the laws that will be imposed on them. Simply saying, "No, it is the Commonwealth that will be imposing New South Wales laws on them and therefore we are not going to consider it" sadly misses the intent of the amendment and sadly discounts the very legitimate democratic interests of the people of Norfolk Island. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (18:04): I would just like to say that The Greens' protestations about concern for democracy would be a lot more plausible if we overlooked a report from the ABC which came through where the Deputy Convenor of The Greens and the Federal Greens candidate for the electorate of Cowper said that her party was making arbitrary decisions— The Hon. Trevor Khan: Point of order— TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Bronnie Taylor): Order! The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps will resume his seat. The Hon. Trevor Khan: The member should speak to the amendment rather than enter into some bizarre second reading speech. TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Bronnie Taylor): Has the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps finished? As there are no further speakers, the question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Committee divided. Ayes ...... 14 Noes ...... 18 Majority ...... 4 AYES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Pearson Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 33

NOES Dr Phelps Mr Amato Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Reverend Nile

PAIRS Mr Secord Mr Ajaka Mr Wong Mr Harwin

Amendment negatived. TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Bronnie Taylor): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (18:14): I move: That you do now leave the Chair and report the bill to the House without amendment. Motion agreed to. Adoption of Report The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (18:15): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (18:15): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (18:15): The Opposition will oppose the third reading of this bill. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Quite right too. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. We have tried to work with the Government and members of other parties to hold an inquiry into what we regard as the outstanding issues. Having regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply speech, the questions raised by the Opposition remain unanswered. Mere assurances that the Commonwealth Government will foot the bill for whatever services New South Wales provides to Norfolk Island in the future, pursuant to some agreement that we have not seen, should not give anyone in this Chamber any great comfort. If there is a detailed agreement between the Commonwealth Government and State Government to that effect, I invite the Government to share it with the Parliament so that we can take comfort from that. The problem is that assurances given are not always able to be enforced in years to come, when all the people who sought, gave and received those assurances are no longer part of government at either level. The situation is that the Commonwealth Government, by its own motion, can extend the content of New South Wales laws to Norfolk Island through Federal regulation. Whether we like it or not, the terms of those extended laws may engage the obligations of New South Wales institutions. Those institutions would then be obliged to provide services on and to Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth may pay for some or all of those services or may do so inadequately. The Commonwealth's assessment of what might be a reasonable fee might not be shared by the New South Wales Treasury. We will not be able to argue the toss if the Commonwealth Government pulls the lever and requires New South Wales bodies to provide those services under Commonwealth law. The only leverage available to New South Wales is whether to pass this legislation and the conditions upon which it does so. The contribution by the Hon. Scott Farlow reinforced the concerns of the Opposition. The problem is that the legislation does not specify the scope of the services. The Parliamentary Secretary says that Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 34

the services extend to health and education at the moment. From the contributions of Government members, the underlying intent is clearly to increase the range of services over time. The cost of providing those services will increase over time. As a result, the potential risk to the New South Wales budget will increase over time. Nothing the Government has said provides any assurance that we have any levers to pull to avoid that outcome, other than whether we pass this bill and whether we place caveats on it, as we ought to. The Parliament has not taken up our suggestion to hold an inquiry into the bill to drill down into the issues and obtain a more informed picture. In those circumstances, the Opposition cannot responsibly support this bill. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Ayes ...... 18 Noes ...... 14 Majority ...... 4 AYES Dr Phelps Mr Ajaka Mr Amato Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Green Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Ms Taylor Reverend Nile

NOES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Pearson Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz

PAIRS Mr Gay Mr Secord Mr Harwin Mr Wong

Motion agreed to. STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2016 Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 May 2016. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (18:27): I lead for the Opposition on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016. The Opposition does not oppose this bill. The bill continues the practice of Governments of all stripes of the statute law revision program, which has been in place for over 30 years, to make minor policy changes, to repeal redundant legislation and to maintain the quality of the statutes of this State. There is a long list of minor amendments proposed to a variety of statutory instruments, including: the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the Biological Control Act, the Biosecurity Act and the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act. The list goes on, through the alphabet, through to the Water Management Act 2000. There are additionally amendments for the purpose of statute law revision, amendments consequent on amendments made to the University of Western Sydney Act, amendments following the repeal of the Home Care Services Act and other minor amendments, none of which appear to us to be of great moment or controversy. So we will not be opposing this bill. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (18:28): On behalf of The Greens I commence a lengthy and detailed speech on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016. The way The Greens deal with this bill is to have each member look at the relevant parts that affect their portfolio, so I do not pretend today to have looked at each and every element of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 or the Sporting Venues (Invasions) Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 35

Regulation 2011. But, this bill having ground its way though the party processes, The Greens can comfortably say that we do not oppose it. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (18:29): I speak in debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016, as I have in relation to every other statute law bill that has been introduced in this House over the past five years. I congratulate the Attorney General once again for introducing a magnificent bill, made even more magnificent by the fact that for the first time in many years this Government is repealing Acts in their entirety. This bill will repeal five Acts, for which I congratulate the Attorney General. I encourage her to repeal many more. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (18:30): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak briefly in debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016 which has as its object to make minor miscellaneous changes to various Acts and regulations to rectify drafting errors and implement minor policy changes. I will not read through the Acts, regulations and by-laws as the list is lengthy but I will focus on certain changes that are of interest to the Christian Democratic Party. The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 is an Act to provide for the care and protection of, and the provision of services to, children and young persons, and for other purposes. The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 will be amended to clarify the effect of the registration by the Children's Court of child protection orders and other orders that have transferred to New South Wales from other jurisdictions. The Children's Court may make a range of orders to ensure the safety, welfare and wellbeing of a child or young person. This amendment is in line with a provision of a model bill approved by the Community Services Ministers Council in 1999 and adopted by other jurisdictions. The Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 is an Act to provide for complaints, reviews and monitoring in relation to the provision of community services; to provide for official community visitors and their functions; to confer and impose functions on the Ombudsman; to confer and impose functions on the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and for other purposes. The Act will be amended with an insert to prescribe the functions of official community visitors [OCVs] and decisions that are subject to administrative review. Official community visitors are statutory appointees of the Minister for Disability Services and the Minister for Community Services. They visit accommodation services for children, young people, people with disabilities and people living in licensed boarding houses throughout New South Wales. A visitable service is a government or non-government service providing full-time accommodation and care for children and young people in out-of-home care and people with disabilities living in supported accommodation. This also includes people living in licensed boarding houses. A visitable service is one that is operated, funded or licensed to provide accommodation and care by Family and Community Services, noting Ageing, Disability and Home Care and/or Community Services. The amendments will encourage the legal and human rights of persons using visitable services, including welfare, interests, conditions, right to privacy, confidentiality, adequate information and consultation. It also aims to facilitate the early and speedy resolution of grievances. The New South Wales Mental Health Act 2007 is an Act of Parliament that governs the care, treatment and control of people in New South Wales who experience a mental illness or mental disorder. The Mental Health Act 2007 will be amended to make it clear that any certification or notification of an opinion as to the mental state of a person that is given after the person is detained in a mental health facility and examined by certain medical practitioners or authorised persons, including in person or via audio link, is to be in the correct form prescribed by the regulations. The Home Care Services Act 1988 will be repealed and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NSW Enabling) Act 2013 will be amended to dissolve the Home Care Service of NSW and transfer its residual assets, rights and liabilities to the Crown. The Home Care Service of NSW was established in 1943 as the NSW Housekeeper's Emergency Service. Its role was to provide housekeeping assistance during illness, childbirth and other emergencies. From these modest beginnings, home care has grown into an organisation employing more than 4,500 staff across New South Wales. They do a great job. The Australian Ageing Agenda states: The Home Care Service of NSW is one of the largest home care providers in the country, with a 70 per cent market share in NSW for domestic assistance and personal care. The 70-year old Home Care Service had revenues of $234 million last financial year, and its 4,000 employees provided services to over 51,800 clients. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 36

That is a terrific outreach to the vulnerable in our community. The Christian Democratic Party applauds all the volunteers and helpers. Mutual organisation Australian Unity has signed an agreement with the New South Wales Government to accept the transfer of the Home Care Service of NSW in a $114 million deal. Under the agreement, staff and clients will transfer to Australian Unity Home Care Service and Australian Unity will continue to provide these valuable services. As previously mentioned, the object of the bill is to make minor miscellaneous changes to various Acts and regulations to rectify drafting errors and to implement minor policy changes. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House. The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (18:36): On behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016. As part of the ongoing statute law revision program, this bill enables minor policy changes to be made efficiently and redundant legislation to be repealed. The bill makes a range of minor amendments to 27Acts, five regulations and one by- law across various portfolios. Overall, it ensures that New South Wales legislation remains as up-to-date and effective as possible. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (18:37): On behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bills EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY INSURANCE MONITOR BILL 2016 Second Reading Mr SCOT MacDONALD (18:37): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. In December 2015 the Government announced its intention to abolish the insurance-based emergency services levy [ESL] from 1 July 2017, and to replace it with an emergency services property levy [ESPL]. The New South Wales Government considers that the current system of funding fire and emergency services is unfair. Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW State Emergency Service have operating costs of more than $1 billion per year, 73.7 per cent of which is paid through a levy on insurance policies. Only people and businesses who buy insurance are currently contributing to the funding of these vital services. Under the proposed new system, which we will bring before Parliament later in the year, all property owners will contribute to the cost of the essential and valued fire and emergency services through the ESPL. The abolition of the insurance-based levy and the introduction of a property-based levy will bring New South Wales in line with all other mainland States. In Victoria, the most recent State to transition to a property levy, the reform received bipartisan support, with the Australian Labor Party announcing the reform and the Coalition Government implementing it. We anticipate that the vast majority of insured residential property owners will be better off under the ESPL, with the average residential insured property owner saving around $40 per year. Importantly, the proposed emergency services property levy will be revenue-neutral for the Government. The ESPL will replace the revenue currently generated by the ESL, including insurance duty levied on ESL amounts. The State Government and local governments will continue to provide the remainder of the funding required by our emergency services. This reform will help to address the serious issue of underinsurance in New South Wales by reducing the cost and improving the affordability of insurance, which sees 36 per cent of households in the State without contents insurance. The existing insurance levy increases the cost of property insurance by around 20 per cent for residential policies and 40 per cent for commercial policies. Abolishing the levy will reduce the cost of insurance, enabling more people and businesses to take out insurance to protect their properties from fire, floods, storms and other natural disasters. This bill is the first of two pieces of legislation dealing with the reform of the funding of our emergency services. This bill will establish an Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor, who will be responsible for Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 37

ensuring that insurers pass on the benefits of abolishing the emergency services levy to households and businesses in the form of lower insurance premiums. This bill will also allow the monitor to obtain insurance data and to pass this information to NSW Treasury to be used to model the effects of different options for the proposed ESPL. This data is crucial to understanding the impacts of the ESPL on different sectors of the community so we can ensure that a fair system is designed. Later this year, once we have done this work, the Government intends to introduce legislation abolishing the ESL and establishing the ESPL. We will then have more details about the new levy and will welcome an informed discussion about the proposed ESPL. The bill before the House does not establish an ESPL or remove the current ESL. It merely puts in protections to ensure a smooth transition to the new ESPL. I ask all members to consider in their decision-making that the key decision point is later this year. The New South Wales Government is building on the lessons learned from Victoria, the most recent State to reform the funding of its emergency services. One of the key lessons was the need to establish an insurance monitor well before the date on which the insurance levy is abolished. This bill acts upon that lesson. By establishing the consumer protection framework now, before legislation abolishing the ESL is introduced, the Government is providing a framework that will enable insurers to gradually transition insurance prices so that the ESL will be fully removed from insurance prices by 1 July 2017. Oversight of the industry will continue until the end of 2018. Professor Allan Fels, AO, and Professor David Cousins, AM, have been appointed as the monitor and deputy monitor respectively. Professors Fels and Cousins performed the same roles in Victoria. Until the end of 2018 insurers will be prohibited from engaging in "price exploitation" or "false and misleading conduct" regarding the effects of ESL reform. These prohibitions will be subject to civil penalties of up to $10 million. Price exploitation is when an insurance company does not pass on to consumers the full reduction in cost from the abolition of the insurance-based levy or seeks to recover more in the fire services levy from policyholders than the insurance company is required to remit to the Government. The monitor will help to ensure this does not happen. The monitor may seek penalties in respect of prohibited conduct occurring between 10 December 2015, when the reform was publicly announced, and 31 December 2018. The monitor may hold public inquiries and instigate legal proceedings if necessary. The monitor will issue guidelines to assist insurers when setting their ESL rates. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard. Leave not granted. The monitor will also have powers to deal with consumer complaints and may seek compensation orders on behalf of consumers where they have been overcharged. The monitor will report to the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation and will work closely with NSW Fair Trading. At the end of the monitor's period of operation—that is, after 31 December 2018—any outstanding consumer complaints, litigation or other matters will be passed to NSW Fair Trading for resolution. This bill provides for an increase in the ESL in 2016-17 covering the costs of the monitor in 2015-16 and 2016-17. These costs are estimated at $9.3 million. I emphasise that this will have no impact on the funding for New South Wales fire and emergency services. This is an opportunity for New South Wales to catch up with the rest of the mainland States and make the funding of our emergency services fairer and insurance premiums more affordable. This is the first part of legislation needed to make the transition to a property levy and will allow the monitor to obtain insurance data and to pass this information to NSW Treasury to be used to model the effects of different options for the proposed ESPL. This data is crucial to understanding the impacts of the ESPL on different sectors of the community so that we can ensure a fair outcome is reached. I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (18:45): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor Bill 2016. As Labor members did in the other place, we will propose a number of amendments to this bill. As members are aware, in December 2015 the Government announced that it would seek to introduce an emergency services levy added to council rates to fund fire and emergency services. These services are currently funded through a levy on insurance companies that then include them in premiums. The Government has claimed that by introducing the levy insurance prices will drop. To guarantee insurance companies pass on the price difference in full it is intended that the monitor and the deputy monitor will operate from proclamation of this legislation until 31 December 2018. It is perhaps no accident that this price monitoring mechanism is due to cut out just short of the next State election. That is a somewhat cynical if not short-sighted approach by the Government. The Government has not introduced or released any legislative details about the specifics of the new levy. As the shadow Treasurer in the other place indicated, the Labor Opposition remains very sceptical about the emergency services levy that the Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 38

Government intends to introduce. However, the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor Bill 2016 now before this House is designed for consumer protection should that levy proceed. Notwithstanding what sounds like good intentions, the short-term nature of the bill deprives it of much of its potential efficacy. As Labor members did in the lower House, we will put forward a number of amendments to improve the legislation and provide real consumer protection rather than a pale shadow thereof. The first amendment will be to make the emergency services monitor a permanent position and not one that conveniently ends a few months before the next election. We want to ensure that the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor is put in place on a permanent basis. We think everyone in the community should have a high degree of scepticism in relation to the market power of insurance companies and the ability of regular people to navigate that maze when exposed to very high increases in insurance premiums. Labor members in the other place have had many representations made to them about severe increases in insurance premiums as a result of fire and flood risk and the like. The fact is that those threats have translated into significant increases in insurance premiums that people pay every year to insure their residences. This is a good opportunity to make sure that this bill sends a clear message to insurance companies that no gouging of customers will be permitted. A further amendment would require the Treasurer of the day to report the findings of the monitor to the Parliament within one month of receiving a report. This is about transparency for all members of Parliament who represent communities across New South Wales. Each member should be confident that when the Treasurer of the day receives a report from the monitor or deputy monitor it will be made public and tabled so that all members of Parliament and the wider community are informed. That is why we want to put this safeguard in place. The Opposition also believes, as was recommended in the 2011 Lambert report, that a full public consultation and education campaign should be conducted before the transition to any levy commences. That report comprehensively looked at a range of challenges within the State's finances and broader revenue and expenditure regimes. It recommended that public consultation be carried out before the implementation of any change to the levy is conducted. We are concerned that we are starting the process not really knowing where it will end up or with a very clear idea about where we will end up. The Government could have avoided that by coming forward with its levy proposal ahead of this monitoring legislation. The Labor Opposition amendments are designed to improve transparency. Indeed, they go a bit further than the bill to make sure that we have a permanent cop on the beat to ensure that insurance premiums are kept at affordable and reasonable levels. We also want to make sure that the Parliament is informed about what is happening in relation to insurance premiums across the State. I am sure that all members of Parliament would appreciate being kept informed, given the impact and cost of insurance premiums on families in our respective communities. Our reforms, which are contained in the amendments currently with the Clerks, will increase protections for consumers. We invite the Government to reconsider its intransigent position of rejecting our amendments out of hand in the other place and to contemplate the sensible and appropriate amendments we advance. The fact that we have constructively engaged with this bill does not indicate support for any future bill to be introduced about the levy. The shadow Treasurer in the other place has indicated, as sensible legislators and responsible alternative government, that we will reserve our opinion until we see the text of any bill. Having said that, if our amendments are not accepted we will not be supporting this bill. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (18:51): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I make a contribution to debate on the Emergency Services Levy Monitor Bill 2016. The objects of this bill are stated as: To provide for the following matters in connection with the emergency services levy reform: (a) the establishment and functions of an Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor (the Monitor), (b) remedies in relation to the following conduct: (i) exploitative pricing of insurance contracts as a consequence of the emergency services levy reform, (ii) conduct that falsely represents, or misleads or deceives a person about, the effect of the emergency services levy reform. The functions of the Monitor will include various advisory, monitoring, investigation, and enforcement functions in connection with the emergency services levy reform. The proposed Act will be repealed, and the functions of the Monitor will cease, on 1 January 2019. I note the concern raised by those opposite about the timing. This bill, which is the first of two pieces of legislation to deal with reform of New South Wales emergency services funding, establishes the position of Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor. The New South Wales Government considers the current system of funding for the fire and emergency levies to be unfair. Each year Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 39

NSW State Emergency Service have operating costs of more than $1 billion and 73.1 per cent of that cost is paid through a levy on insurance policies. Currently only people and businesses buying insurance are contributing to the cost of this vital service. Local councils contribute 11.4 per cent and the New South Wales Government contributes 14.6 per cent of the total cost. The Government is proposing a new system of funding for this levy—namely, that all property owners will now contribute directly to the cost of essential fire and emergency services through the payment of an emergency services property levy [ESPL]. The ESPL will be collected through local councils in conjunction with rate payments. As a former mayor of the Shoalhaven I am concerned that the collection of this levy is in a way cost-shifting, and should this change occur we will be calling on the Government to provide full cost recovery to local councils. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Oh! The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I know that it is a big ask. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Listen to the gasp. The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge that interjection. I acknowledge that it is unusual for a State Government to give full cost recovery to local councils but we strongly encourage it because local councils will be providing an additional administration service to NSW Treasury. The Christian Democratic Party supports the creation of an Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor. It is important that the transition of the insurance- based levy to a property-based levy is monitored. We want to ensure that insurers pass the benefits of abolishing the emergency service levy [ESL] on to households and businesses through lower insurance premiums. The bill will allow the monitor to obtain insurance data and to pass this information on to NSW Treasury to be used in modelling the effects of different options for the ESPL. This will enable NSW Treasury to understand the impacts on different parts of the community and help to ensure that a fair system is designed. The establishment of the monitor will seek to ensure a smooth transition. The Government is establishing a consumer protection framework to enable insurers to gradually transition their prices so that the ESL will be completely removed from insurance prices by 1 July 2017. Until the end of 2018 insurers will be prohibited from engaging in price exploitation or false and misleading conduct regarding the effects of ESL reform. Professor Allan Fels, AO, has been appointed as the monitor and Professor David Cousins, AM, has been appointed deputy monitor until the end of 2018. The shift from the emergency services levy to the emergency services property levy will enable the continued funding of our vital emergency services and also partly reduce the cost of insurance premiums for families who feel they have been priced out of the market. Importantly, how will the shifting of this cost to property owners be felt by families? We need to understand how the levy rates will be decided. The cost of living continues to rise and we need to ensure that we are working to ease pressure on families and communities whilst still ensuring they have access to adequate services. I have also received concerns from the NSW Rural Fire Service Association. The NSW Rural Fire Service is an outstanding organisation that works to protect communities across New South Wales. It has 76,000 volunteers—the highest number of rural fire service volunteers throughout Australia. I ask the Government to consider the following suggestions. First, that the funding for the NSW Rural Fire Service remain separate and independent from other emergency services and that the NSW Rural Fire Fighting Fund remain as a separate special deposits account in NSW Treasury. Secondly, that the proposed Emergency Services Property Levy will replace only the current Emergency Services Levy collected by insurance companies from policy holders, and that the current contributory funding received from local councils and the New South Wales Government will remain. Thirdly, that the association be kept fully informed of the progress of the draft legislation and that an exposure draft be provided on the new Emergency Services Property Levy legislation so that interested parties are able to comment and provide feedback prior to the introduction of legislation to this Parliament. In addition, I ask that the Government consider the impacts of levies on farms held in multiple titles. I acknowledge that this is the first of two bills. This bill seeks to establish the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor, and the Christian Democratic Party certainly supports that. In regard to the second bill, we ask that consideration be given to the impacts the change in the levy may have on local council costs, the cost of living to families, particularly to some of our most vulnerable—pensioners—and on our regional farmers. We ask that the Government also consider the concerns of the NSW Rural Fire Service Association. Other organisations have made approaches to us about the proposed second bill and we will have more to say if that bill is brought forward. At this point in time we commend the bill to the House. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 8.00 p.m. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 40

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (20:00): On behalf of The Greens I speak to the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor Bill 2016. This bill was announced as part of a package of proposed reforms by the Treasurer at the end of 2015 which built upon a discussion paper that was released by the Government in 2012, I think, proposing to reform the current scheme for funding State fire and emergency services expenditure. As members know, under the current scheme the expenditure is funded through contributions paid by levies on insurance products. The Government's proposal is to change the regime to have the emergency services levy instead paid for by a broad land tax levy across all classes of property. The arguments that have been put by insurance companies for quite some time now are "Please don't tax us. We don't like people taxing us because it may discourage people from getting insurance cover." The arguments that have always been place about having a levy on insurance products paying for emergency services levies is that the insurers benefit enormously from having the fire brigade arrive to put out the fire because it greatly reduces the amount of compensation that insurance companies have to pay. Since Roman times there has been a variety of different ways to fund emergency services levies. At different times the scheme has been that private fire brigades will be paid for by people making contributions. They would put a little plaque on the front of their Roman villa or on the front of their property in Annandale. If their house is burning down the fire brigade may turn up from a particularly well-heeled Roman noble and if they have paid their levy he may put out the fire but if they have not often there would be fairly quick negotiations perhaps about the sale of that property to the person who rang the fire brigade— The Hon. Adam Searle: A fire sale. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It was called a fire sale. The funny thing was the longer the negotiations went on the lower the price was offered for the property. Eventually a deal was sealed and the fire was put out. There were various changes to that in New South Wales but eventually it got to the point when the New South Wales Government recognised that it had an obligation to provide comprehensive fire services and emergency services and that is obviously where we should be. The provision of a fire brigade and emergency services is an essential public good and should continue to be provided as a core provision of public service. If we have to pay for it, The Greens believe that the best way to do so is to have a levy on insurance products because ultimately the insurance industry is one of the greatest beneficiaries of having emergency services in place. This Government wants to change that and follow a position that has been rolled out in Victoria. It wants to have emergency services paid not by a levy on insurance products but by a broad land tax across New South Wales, which some might call a great big new tax. This bill is meant to put in place some kind of monitoring process that will seek to prevent the gouging of consumers by insurers if the levy is lifted by way of further legislation that may or may not come through this Parliament. One might ask: Why is the Government getting ready so early to put on this monitor? What is the problem? What is the evil that may happen? We know that there will a huge churn in respect of who pays for the emergency services levy if we go from a levy on insurers to a levy on landowners. The 2012 discussion paper released by the Government shows that under the current scheme 49 per cent of the insurance levy is paid for by businesses, 45 per cent is paid for by owners or occupiers of residential properties and 6 per cent is paid by the owners or occupiers of rural properties. Businesses pay a smidgeon under half, occupiers and owners of residential properties and rural properties pay the rest. Who uses the services, one may ask? The discussion paper shows quite clearly that who uses the services is a reasonably close fit to where the funding comes from. Currently 55 per cent of call-outs are to business properties that pay a little bit under half at 49 per cent. About 34 per cent of call-outs, to 45 per cent of the levy being paid, are to residential properties. So already residential property owners are paying probably more than their fair share, given their number of call-outs they get but it is a rough approximation. At the moment 7 per cent of the call-outs are to rural property owners. Therefore, it a pretty fair match between the amount that rural property owners pay and the amount of call-outs they get. On the Government's own 2012 figures, if we move from a levy on insurance products to a levy on a land tax on some sort of an ad valorem basis what happens? Instead of businesses paying 49 per cent of the levy, with 55 per cent of the call-outs, they will pay just 13 per cent on a broad based levy. The amount that rural property owners will pay will double from 6 per cent to 12 per cent on a land-based tax. They will be paying for twice the number of call-outs that they receive. Residential property owners will pay 75 per cent of the tax, which is huge slug on them. Who will benefit? Currently businesses pay roughly $340 odd million a year and will have a wonderful day out under this regime as it will decrease to just $91 million per annum, a massive quarter of a billion dollar annual benefit to Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 41

them. Who will pay? As always, residential property owners—that is, ordinary mums and dads. Their contribution will increase from $315 million to $525 million, and rural property owners' contribution will increase almost double from $49 million to $84 million. Why do The Greens have trouble with this bill? It is not because we have a problem with a monitor being put in place to try to stop gouging of customers for insurers, but if the Government goes ahead with a wrong ended policy it will open the door to insurance companies having the chance to gouge consumers then obviously a monitor needs to be in place. Obviously we also need to learn the lessons of Victoria. But this whole policy is cockeyed. This policy will produce a grossly unfair quarter of a billion dollar annual gift to businesses paid for by mums and dads and rural property owners. Of course The Greens oppose this entire legislative regime. We are happy to seek to make the monitor better by supporting all of the Opposition amendments that I have had a chance to read. A couple more amendments recently came through. However, giving a quarter of a billion dollar unfair gift to businesses paid for by mums and dads and property owners is something we oppose. For that reason we will not be able to support this bill even if it is improved through amendments. The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (20:09): I strongly support the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor Bill 2016 and congratulate the Treasurer on introducing it early in this Parliament. I cast my mind back to the genesis of this important reform during the previous Parliament when much work was done on preparing the way for this bill. At the time I was Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury and Finance. The very fine Minister was the Hon. Greg Pearce and the Treasurer was none other than the Premier, who was keen for this reform to be brought into the light. As Parliamentary Secretary I did a lot of work preparing the background for this bill. I particularly worked with stakeholders and consulted on how the new reform should be designed. It became clear that a range of levers needed to be pulled. The experience of Victoria was particularly salient. At that time the Victorians had embarked on a fairly courageous direct approach that ran into a few challenges. Indeed, the appointment of Professor Allan Fels and Professor David Cousins as the price commissioners helped smooth some of the unexpected consumer fallout relating to the implementation of the Victorian reform. We were keen to learn from those lessons and understand the ways in which we could improve upon the experience in that and other jurisdictions. The then Treasurer took a wise decision to defer the implementation of the reforms until this Parliament. At the time a range of stakeholders spoke out against the proposed reforms; however, most stakeholders held a strong view that the reforms were the right thing to do. I think that will also be the case for this reform process. It is clear that some vocal stakeholders will have plenty to say when the final reforms come to Parliament. I am expecting the Rural Fire Service and the unions to be amongst them but I am sure that when they examine the design elements of the Government's package they will see a fair and balanced set of reforms that will establish a properly funded scheme with the incentives in the right place. It is important to note that we are taking away a pernicious levy that imposes a significant impost on all insurance holders in this State. In addition, the GST applies to the levy. In other words, there is a tax on a tax on insurance policies. Insurance holders pay a very significant sum that in no way correlates to the risk involved in covering their policy and there is an incentive against insurance because of the significant imposts. As the Parliamentary Secretary so eloquently put, 36 per cent of households in New South Wales are not insured. That is a pretty poor rate. We should be trying to improve the incentives so that people do not underinsure their properties. Indeed, people should be encouraged to insure their assets so that when there is a fire or flood emergency a large number of uninsured households will not look to the State government to fill the hole that they should have filled. Perhaps if the cost of insurance was more realistic they may well take out a policy. In this situation we will put the load on the other side—that is, the property owners of this State. The proposed model is to collect the levy through council, which is a very simple system that is easier to predict. At times it is difficult to know how much revenue will come in because some people may not renew their policy. By knowing who owns the property the levy can be administered easily through the rates system should that be the final design mechanism for this reform. In essence, it will be a much more equitable way of imposing this tax burden that funds an essential service. The system will spread the burden across a much broader base and put the incentives in the right place. The lower cost will encourage insurance coverage more generally, which will address the significant underinsurance problem in our State. In relation to the design of the reforms, as I said a number of levers can be pulled. A range of modelling has been done, and I am sure it was significantly enhanced before this bill came before this place. The establishment of the Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor will further augment that through the monitor's ability to access information from insurers. That will provide us with better, more current information on which to design the scheme over the coming months. That is an important design principle. We need the best information to ensure that we get the best possible scheme. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 42

It is also worth noting that people such as Professor Allan Fels will be on the ground prior to the establishment of this scheme to make sure that insurers know their responsibilities and that they will be held to account. The experience in Victoria is very instructive in that regard and Professor Fels played a positive role in protecting consumers. Whatever the design of the scheme, the bigger issue is managing the transition well. As we can imagine, an insurance policyholder may receive a wonderful bill for the Emergency Services Levy [ESL] at one point in the year and then as a property owner receive a different bill later in the year levying an amount for the ESL through their rates. The timing of how that is managed in the course of a calendar year is tricky. There are risks involved and there is obvious scope for gouging by insurers on either the way in or the way out. That is where Professor Fels will play an important role as the price monitor in making sure that insurance companies understand their responsibilities. Insurance companies will be held accountable so that there is no price gouging. The price will be monitored both on in the way in and the way out. The experience in Victoria was that much of the risk can be well managed and will fall at the feet of the insurers at the end of the day. As long as we have a mechanism for accountability through someone of the stature of Professor Fels, who understands the risks as well as the concerns and priorities of consumers, we will achieve the best possible outcome. I cannot promise that it will be perfect but it will be better having Professor Fels involved earlier in this process. Indeed, the experience in Victoria was the earlier the better to ensure that everyone understands their obligations and are held accountable to them. I commend the Treasurer for introducing the bill and note that the Parliamentary Secretary is doing a sterling job in promoting it in this Chamber. I listened to the comments of Mr David Shoebridge with a little concern. Some of the figures he quoted did not acknowledge that in some of the sectors to which he referred only a number of people who hold insurance will be affected. If one considers that 36 per cent of all households have insurance, which must be related to the amount of money spent on call-outs, and when those figures are normalised and we look at all those people who are property owners, those figures will become a lot more similar. Indeed, we need to ensure that we do not in an unintended way create concerns about the affordability of this for those who do own property. We need to balance some of the considerations that Mr David Shoebridge raised to ensure that we do get the best model that produces equitable outcomes. I am sure all the things will go into the pot and that the Treasurer will design an equitable and fair scheme—one that will deal with potential unintended consequences. A scheme that will put a very robust program in place under the guidance of Professor Fels, one of the most respected people in this area. This reform is long overdue. It will bring a much more equitable and transparent system to New South Wales. Indeed, it will bring us finally into the family of property-based insurance levies in Australia. The Treasurer and the Government are to be commended. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (20:21): What a difference two months make. Only two months ago The Greens housing spokesperson, Ms Jan Barham, put out a press release in which she welcomed the call by peak bodies from civil society and the business sector to phase out stamp duty and to replace it with a broad-based land tax. Only two months ago The Greens spokesperson on housing was calling for the removal of what was essentially a transactional tax and the imposition of a broad-based tax on all homeowners, yet today Mr David Shoebridge has said that is a terrible system. According to Mr David Shoebridge the funds required to finance—as the Hon. Adam Searle has put it— a "demonstrable public good" should come from a transactional tax rather than what is effectively a broad-based land tax. That is a remarkable about-face. Indeed, it behoves The Greens to say if they support broad-based land taxes, in whatever form they might be, or do they essentially support transactional taxes? You cannot say one thing on 5 April 2016 and then say exactly the opposite on 31 May 2016. Mr David Shoebridge: You do not know the difference between stamp duty and an insurance levy. You have not worked that out? The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I will take the interjection. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): No, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps will not. Mr David Shoebridge will remain silent, just as I asked the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to remain silent earlier. We will proceed with the debate. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: In both instances they are essentially transactional levies—in the case of the stamp duty, it is a proportional amount of the value of the house; in the case of the fire services levy, it is an amount placed on the insurance purchasing that is transacted on an annual basis. Firstly, it is true that they are not identical but they are deeply comparable in what they effectively do. For The Greens to do a complete Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 43

about-face means one of two things—they either do not know what their policy is or they are completely hypocritical about what their policy should be. Secondly, if the honourable member is true to his word then he should be calling for the abolition of the generalised contribution to the cost of health at a Federal level because that is essentially what we have. We have a broad-based tax applied to everyone who might potentially be using the health system; we do not have a transactional tax placed upon those who take out private health insurance to fund the health system. Again, one would have to ask Mr David Shoebridge if he believes that the funding of medical benefits should not be coming out of generalised revenue through broad-based taxes but instead should be imposed via a levy on those who have private health insurance. That is exactly what he is arguing in relation to the fire services levy today. This is a very good bill. It is a shame that some of those opposite do not appreciate the quality of thought that has gone into its production. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SCOT MacDONALD (20:25): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I thank the Hon. Adam Searle, the Hon. Paul Green, Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps for their contributions to this debate. In December 2015 the Government announced its intention to abolish the insurance- based emergency services levy [ESL] from 1 July 2017 and to replace it with an emergency services property levy [ESPL]. The New South Wales Government considers that the current system of funding fire and emergency services is unfair. Only people and businesses who buy insurance are currently contributing to the funding of these vital services. Under the proposed system, which we will bring before Parliament later in the year, all property owners will contribute to the cost of the essential and valued fire and emergency services through the ESPL. The abolition of the insurance-based levy and the introduction of a property-based levy will bring New South Wales in line with all other mainland States. We anticipate that the vast majority of insured residential property owners will be better off under the ESPL, with the average residential insured property owner saving around $40 per year. This reform will help address the serious issue of under-insurance in New South Wales by reducing the cost and improving the affordability of insurance which sees 36 per cent of households in this State without contents insurance. This will enable more people and businesses to take out insurance to protect their properties from fire, floods, storms and other natural disasters. This is the first of two pieces of legislation dealing with the reform of the funding of our emergency services. It will establish an Emergency Services Levy Insurance Monitor, who will be responsible for ensuring that insurers pass on the benefits of abolishing the ESL to households and businesses in the form of lower insurance premiums. It will also allow the monitor to obtain insurance data and to pass this information to New South Wales Treasury to be used to model the effects of different options for the proposed ESPL. This data is crucial to understanding the impacts of the ESPL on different sectors of the community so that we can ensure a fair system is designed. This bill does not establish an ESPL or remove the current ESL; it merely puts in protections to ensure a smooth transition to the new ESPL. I ask members to remember that the key decision point is later this year. This is an opportunity for New South Wales to catch up with the rest of the mainland States and make the funding of our emergency services fairer and make insurance premiums more affordable. I thank the Hon. Paul Green for his contribution. I will now address some of the issues he has raised. In regard to councils, the Government intends to reimburse councils for all reasonable costs associated with the emergency services property levy [ESPL], including set-up and ongoing collection costs. The Government will continue to work closely with Local Government NSW to ensure the views and concerns of councils are addressed and the outcome is fair as we move towards the introduction of the second piece of legislation later this year. We acknowledge the issues the member raised on behalf of local government. The Government is committed to the support of our emergency services. These changes will be revenue neutral and will not in any way adversely impact the funding to Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW State Emergency Service. The current bill gives the insurance monitor power to collect data from insurance companies so that NSW Treasury can design the new property levy so that a fair outcome is achieved for all sectors of the community, including farmers. Further details will be provided to Parliament later in the year once we have completed this modelling and we return with the property levy legislation. I will now address some of the comments made by Mr David Shoebridge. He was concerned about who will pay the ESPL. The Government has already announced that the proportion paid by different sectors, such as residential or commercial property owners, will remain broadly unchanged from the current profile. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 44

Motion agreed to. In Committee The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole, with the exception of clause 79. I note that there are two sets of Opposition amendments on sheets C2016-043A and C2016-044C. The Opposition has requested a no vote to clause 79. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (20:33): By leave: I move all Opposition amendments on sheet 2016- 433A, with the exception of a no vote to clause 79: No. 1 Monitoring period Page 5, clause 10, line 19. Omit "during the monitoring period". Insert instead "after 30 June 2014". No. 2 Monitoring period Page 5, clause 10, lines 21 and 22. Omit all words on those lines. No. 3 Prohibited conduct orders Page 9, clause 18, line 24. Omit all words on that line. No. 4 Time for commencing proceedings Page 15, clause 34, line 20. Omit "31 December 2018". Insert instead "2 years after the offence was alleged to have been committed". No. 5 Compensation orders Page 18, clause 42, line 5. Omit all words on that line. * Repeal of Act Page 27, clause 79. [Vote "No" to the Question that the clause as read stand part of the bill.] No. 6 Terms of office Page 28, Schedule 1, lines 11–14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead: 3 Terms of office Subject to this Schedule, the Monitor and Deputy Monitor each hold office for a period of 5 years, but are eligible for re-appointment. No. 7 Terms of office Page 28, Schedule 1. Insert after line 23: (b) completes a term of office and is not re-appointed, or No. 8 Repeal of Act—consequential amendments Page 31, Schedule 3, line 1. Omit "Acts". Insert instead "Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103". No. 9 Repeal of Act—consequential amendments Page 31, Schedule 3, lines 2–19. Omit all words on those lines. No. 10 Repeal of Act—consequential amendments Page 31, Schedule 3, line 20. Omit all words on that line. I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet C2016-044C: No. 1 Reports Page 5, clause 11 (3), lines 37 and 38. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead: (3) The Minister is to table the report (or cause it to be tabled) in both Houses of Parliament within 30 days after receiving the report. I spoke to the substance of these amendments in my second reading contribution, and members in the other place canvassed the issues in the second reading debate. I do not propose to speak further other than to say that the amendments seek to make the monitoring period permanent: to make the watchdog—the cop on the beat—a permanent feature rather than one that expires just prior to the next State election. Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet C2016-044C provides for a reporting mechanism through the Minister having carriage of the legislation. There are other consequential amendments. I urge members to adopt these amendments because they would enhance transparency and consumer protection, significantly improve the legislation and meet a number of the criticisms that have been made by the Opposition and The Greens. For example, amendment No. 4 extends the time for bringing proceedings. I believe Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 45

it is more appropriate to have a time that runs from whenever an offence is committed rather than from the closure date of the scheme, as proposed by the Government. The rest of the amendments are essentially consequential. I urge members to support the Opposition's reasonable amendments. Mr SCOT MacDONALD (20:35): The Government does not support the Opposition's amendments moved in globo on sheet 2016-043A and Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet C2016-044C. The majority of amendments proposed by the Opposition are designed to extend the period of the operation of the monitor indefinitely. That is entirely unnecessary. The emergency services levy will be abolished from 1 July 2017 and the monitoring period is proposed to conclude on 31 December 2018. This 18-month period is more than sufficient time to ensure that insurers have passed on savings resulting from the abolition of the emergency services levy to consumers. The bill provides that any ongoing issues at the end of the monitoring period will be passed on to NSW Fair Trading for resolution. Once the monitor's role is completed, the insurance industry will continue to be monitored by existing oversight bodies, such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Having a permanent role would be a duplication. One other issue raised in Opposition amendment No. 1 in the first round of amendments submitted is just as redundant. The Opposition has suggested that the Minister table reports from the monitor within 30 days of receiving them, but the bill that we have drafted already requires the monitor to publish his or her reports as soon as practical. Therefore, we do not accept the Opposition's amendments. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (20:37): The Greens support each and every one of the Opposition's amendments. Clearly, if there is a concern—the Government has effectively put the nod to that concern by introducing this bill—that insurance companies may engage in price exploitation or false or misleading conduct in relation to the setting of their insurance premiums, we see no evidence that that will disappear after 18 months following the reforms. Indeed, the experience in Victoria seems to suggest that there was concern for a period considerably longer than 18 months. The Government seems to think that after 18 months it does not want a watchdog keeping an eye on this to stop consumers from being the subject of price exploitation or false or misleading conduct. It seems to me that the Government hopes it will all be magically fixed after 18 months. As I said earlier, that was not the experience in Victoria. The experience in Victoria was that it took a long time for prices to be adjusted—in that time a good many consumers got badly burnt—and that the monitoring regime that was set up was woefully inadequate. For those reasons, The Greens support the Opposition's amendments. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (20:38): I heard the Government's comments in relation to the Opposition's amendments but the Christian Democratic Party is concerned about the monitoring period. We want some surety that the monitoring period will extend beyond 1 January 2019—perhaps another four years or so. We are currently looking at our obligations. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (20:39): Given that ongoing negotiation and consideration by the Christian Democratic Party [CDP], I wonder whether the Government would be of a mind to adjourn this debate to enable that consideration to occur. Rather than trying to make this up as we go the Government should adjourn the debate to enable that consideration to occur. I think everybody would much rather have an informed contribution from all parties. It would be beneficial to all parties if the CDP had the ability to communicate its position to the Government so that we reach an agreed position. That is something that the Labor Opposition might support but perhaps Labor members could speak for themselves. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (20:40): I am happy to do so. If there is a real prospect that the monitoring period, which under this bill will close on 18 December 2018, could be extended for the period proposed in our amendments, or for some other period, obviously something would be better than nothing. We think an adjournment would be appropriate. Government members are feverishly working with their crossbench allies but it would be a good thing if we ensured that this bill delivered the best results for the wider community. It would be a sign of good faith if the Government was prepared to adjourn this debate and we moved on to the next bill, which should not take too long. We could then return to this legislation and deal with it having had the benefit of further reflection. Giving members a chance to think things through and to reach a settled position would be preferable to putting unreasonable pressure on them. Although this is a responsible Opposition, it is doing its best to assist the Government. However, there are limits to its capacity to do so if the Government is not willing or able to help itself. The important thing is that the monitoring function proposed in the bill is necessary and should extend beyond the proposed monitoring period. When there is a transitioning from the current system to a new system, whatever that new system may be, there is likely to be a need for specialised ongoing monitoring rather than just monitoring by regular agencies. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 46

The fact that a special monitor was conceived for this bill for the transition period reveals that there is a need. Anyone who knows about the vagaries of insurance and the difficulties consumers have with insurance would welcome the idea of having an ongoing monitoring function. Having a permanent monitor would be the most appropriate course of action for the monitor and the deputy monitor. If members do not agree and they want to extend the period that is provided in the bill we will consider any suggestion. We urge the Government to consider things carefully and to join us by adopting our amendments or suggesting something better than what is currently proposed. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (20:43): In light of discussions that have been held in this Chamber, it has been explained to me that 18 months is necessary to oversight the transition of insurance obligations to local government, which will be well and truly over after 18 months. My understanding is that those obligations will be transferred to local government. The Christian Democratic Party does not support the Opposition's amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Order! The question is that the Opposition's amendments be agreed to. The Committee divided. Ayes ...... 13 Noes ...... 19 Majority ...... 6 AYES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz

NOES Dr Phelps Mr Amato Mr Blair Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Reverend Nile

PAIRS Mr Secord Mr Harwin Mr Wong Ms Taylor

Amendments negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that clause 79 stand as a clause of the bill. Motion agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Bill reported from Committee without amendment. Adoption of Report Mr SCOT MacDONALD (20:54): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That the report be adopted. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 47

Motion agreed to. Third Reading Mr SCOT MacDONALD (20:55): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (20:55): I indicated earlier in the debate that if we were unable to amend the bill to improve consumer protection, to make it a worthwhile framework, we would not vote for the bill in the third reading stage, and we cannot. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): The question is that this bill be now read a third time. The House divided. Ayes ...... 19 Noes ...... 13 Majority ...... 6 AYES Dr Phelps Mr Amato Mr Blair Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Farlow Mr Franklin (teller) Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Reverend Nile

NOES Dr Faruqi Mr Buckingham Mr Donnelly (teller) Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Ms Houssos Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz

PAIRS Mr Harwin Mr Secord Ms Taylor Mr Wong

Motion agreed to. Visitors VISITORS DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): I acknowledge that we have with us in the President's Gallery tonight Hannah Taylor, daughter of the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. Apparently she is turning 20 today so I wish her a very happy birthday on behalf of the Parliament of New South Wales and as prosperous a future as her mother has had. Bills COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOUR) BILL 2016 Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 May 2016. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (21:04): I lead for the Labor Opposition in this place on the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. The Labor Opposition will not oppose the bill, but we regard it as a second-rate stunt that will have no practical impact other than to fill up the statute book. The object of the bill is said to be to make it a summary offence to engage in behaviour that is disrespectful according Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 48

to practice and convention in a number of jurisdictions. Specifically those jurisdictions are: the Supreme Court, the Land and Environment Court, the District Court, the Local Court and coronial proceedings. This new summary offence will have a maximum penalty of 14 days imprisonment or 10 penalty units, currently $550, or both. To breach the proposed section, the person must be an accused or defendant or party to proceedings in the court or called to give evidence in relation to coronial proceedings. It extends to someone who is appearing in or being represented in coronial proceedings or who has been called to give evidence. The offending behaviour must be intentional and must have occurred during the proceedings. They do not have to have intended to be disrespectful but they must intend to do the actions or behaviours that are found to have been disrespectful. The behaviour that is criminalised is behaviour that is disrespectful to the proceedings or presiding official according to established practice and convention. There are a number of provisions which would normally be regarded as restrictive and as a means to limit the too-frequent use of the offence. Proceedings must be brought only by a person or a member of a class of persons authorised, in writing, by the Secretary of the Department of Justice. Proceedings can only be commenced with the authorisation of the Attorney General. There are also evidentiary provisions about transcripts or audio or video recordings of the proceedings concerned. Judicial officers cannot be required to give evidence in prosecutions. The bill says it does not affect any power with respect to contempt. It also provides that a person cannot be prosecuted for both this offence and contempt for the same behaviour, which at least avoids the double jeopardy point. In analysing the legislation it is clear that "disrespectful behaviour" according to established court practice and convention is extraordinarily wide. It should be a basic principle of the criminal law that its provisions are clear. This bill is not. If the Government really wants to criminalise the behaviour of defendants who are not willing to stand up in court then it should do so simply and directly rather than through this overly wide provision—and of course it should do so only if it is satisfied that there are no other ways of dealing with the problem. The maximum penalty for the offence is quite ridiculous. It seems reasonably obvious that this offence is aimed at people charged in the main with terrorism offences. They are, by definition, very serious offences with serious penalties. An extra 14 days for these types of offenders would be fairly meaningless and will have no real impact. The provision in relation to requiring the Attorney's consent is very strange indeed. There is no evidence that this legislation is really needed. It all seems to stem from a particular incident in the District Court that occurred in about November 2015. We have seen a report in the media that the matter was referred to the Attorney General by the judge concerned. I understand that in that case the Attorney sought and received the advice of the Solicitor General. I assume the Solicitor General found there was no attempt to prosecute, not that the Government has released any evidence. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to just confirm those matters. The Government proceeds in this legislation by arguing that the current laws are not adequate. Apart from that one example to which I have referred, in my understanding it is quite clear that judicial officers, whether magistrates or judges, have proven quite adequate within the inherent powers of courts to control their proceedings to deal with challenges to the authority of the courts and to the judges that falls short of contempt. Apart from being dealt with for contempt when it reaches that level, persons can be removed from court rooms. In the case of defendants' inappropriate behaviour they can be held in the cells until they behave themselves. Clearly the attitude of defendants can be considered by courts in the context of contrition and sentencing. It does not take a lot of research to realise the practical implications of this legislation will be extremely limited. The fact is that the courts of this State have proved they have the resources, skills and temperaments to be able to deal with these matters sensibly and without too much fanfare. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether it is the intention of the Attorney General to delegate to the Solicitor General the Attorney's role in this matter. That at least would give people a little more comfort that there would be a proper and considered approach to whether to prosecute for this offence if it ever gets to that level. As I said, the Opposition regards these measures as not necessary and of extremely limited practical effect. We wills not oppose the bill if the Government intends to proceed, but time will show that its only real effect is just to clutter up the statute books. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:11): I speak to the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. Sometime in the mid-1990s I was an associate to a wonderful man named Justice Eric Baker, a Family Court judge on the Appeal Division in Parramatta who had quite a heavy caseload. He would often hear very emotionally contentious property settlement matters or matters in relation to children. I recall on one occasion there had been a property settlement in relation to a couple who had a modest house somewhere in Sydney which was effectively their only asset. Whilst they both had some earning capacity, in order to deal with the property settlement it was clear that the house had to be sold and the net proceeds distributed between the two parties because the marriage had broken down. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 49

The wife and mother did not want to sell the property that was very important to her because her children had been raised in the house for years and she was very emotionally attached to it. The time the property orders had to be effected had expired and she did not agree to the sale of the house. She came to court and asked for a few extra months to try to raise alternate finance so the house would not have to be sold. The first extension was granted; she was still distressed and then a second extension was granted. By the time she asked for a third extension it was very clear that she would not be able to get the finance and the property would have to be sold. She was very upset, very, very angry and at the end of her tether. She was going to see her house sold from under her by the operation of the law. When eventually the judge said, "I'm sorry, madam, enough is enough. I will now give the registrar the power to sell your house", she lost it. In tears and anger she picked up a glass of water and hurled it at the judge. I, very courageously as his associate, ducked. The glass smashed into the bench and glass and water went everywhere. I then heard a tap, tap on the bench, which is the way a judge gets the attention of an associate. I looked up and he leaned across and said, "Call the next matter", which I did and we carried on. That judge had recognised that the woman had had enough and had had a very bad day in court. She had had the terrible experience of a breakdown of her marriage and showed the grossest disrespect to the court by hurling the glass and causing all manner of grief. But because the presiding judge knew the personal history that explained her behaviour there was no way he was going to punish her, despite her conduct. That shows the vast well of common sense that we have in judges and magistrates all over this country and this State. The Greens believe that that well of common sense, decency and experiences of judges in dealing with the great mass of humanity is the appropriate place to look when we are dealing with issues of contempt or disrespect. They do it with enormous integrity, humanity and competence all around this State and this law is quite simply not needed. The thought that if that kind of action happened in a State court and some functionary in the Justice department could second-guess the judge in that case—notwithstanding the judge not wanting to press contempt— maybe egged on by a campaign in the Daily Telegraph if it had a video of it or there was a discussion of it, eventually see someone like that woman being prosecuted and put in jail for 14 days or fined 10 penalty units is not the future that The Greens want for New South Wales courts. The Greens believe this proposed law is not only grossly unnecessary because there is more than sufficient power that goes back centuries to punish people for contempt in the New South Wales courts but also it is pernicious and may see people being inappropriately punished under a law that allows for no defence, no nuance and no context. This bill creates a new summary offence for engaging in behaviour that is disrespectful according to what is described as practice and convention in any court in New South Wales, except in the Children's Court. There is no requirement to prove any intention for the conduct to be disrespectful. There are no defences specified for the offence. The maximum penalty is 14 days imprisonment, 10 penalty units or both. The bill proposes to insert a new section into each of the Supreme Court Act 1970, Land and Environment Court Act 1979, District Court Act 1973, Local Court Act 2007 and the Coroners Act 2009 which creates the new offence in each of those Acts. The offence is made out if the person is a respondent, a party or a witness to a matter, and the person intentionally engages in any act or failure to act during the proceedings that is disrespectful to the court or magistrate, according to established court practice. Proceedings for the offence occur in the Children's Court if the person is a child or in the Local Court otherwise or the Supreme Court in its summary jurisdiction. Imagine if potentially we could put children in jail for 14 days because they have been disrespectful to courts. It is bizarre if that is what we are proposing to do. The Attorney General needs to consent, which creates a whole lot of other problematic issues, given how highly politicised it may become. The Attorney General does not need a formal referral if he or she decides in some political moment that kind of prosecution should happen because pressure is being put on them by the Daily Telegraph or a radio shock jock. This move apparently follows the refusal to stand before the court by Wassim Fayad and co-accused Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai during their arraignments in front of Judge Andrew Colefax who then referred the matter to the Attorney General. The New South Wales Solicitor General found the actions undertaken could not stand up as contempt of court—under that centuries-long tradition of protecting our courts—because there was no clear intention. They could not prove it was the intention of those people to be disrespectful, so what did the Government do? It removed intent. People can be unintentionally disrespectful and find themselves going to jail for 14 days. That not only applies to someone whose name sounds like Wassim Fayad; it applies to anyone. We understand that the Supreme Court, the Land and Environment Court, the District Court, the Local Court, the Children's Court, the Coroner's Court and the Drug Court were consulted on the initial proposal and the Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 50

drafting of the bill. We have asked the Government to show us where any of those heads of jurisdiction supports this bill. We have asked it to show us anything in writing from any one of them saying they need this law and support this bill. We have had nothing at all. They have been consulted but we do not know what they have said. We most definitely do not have anything showing that any of the courts think this is a good idea. Courts in New South Wales already have strong powers to deal with contempt. The Local Court Bench Book sets out some guidance on the application of the law, and it shows the enormous good sense of our judges. It provides: Contempt in the face of the court is an act which has the tendency to interfere with or undermine the authority, performance or dignity of the courts or those who participate in their proceedings ... That is well established High Court authority. The bench book goes on to say something that is missing from the Government's discussion on this legislation. That is: Generally, rudeness and even extreme discourtesy by legal practitioners, will not be considered to be contempt ... Further, like police, judges and magistrates are, by their training and temperament, able to resist the sting of insults directed to them. ... The bench book then refers to a string of cases including Coleman v Power and Ferguson v Walkley supporting that proposition. Politicians should be aware of just how downright practical judges are and how adept they are at dealing with people on a human and basically decent level. It is demonstrated by the bench book, which continues: It is no offence simply to be angry with the authorities (including, of course, judicial authority). Some people can articulate their anger in measured language that clearly explains their reasons for feeling as they do. Others, especially when their anger is combined with high emotional stress, or alcohol, or other debilitating factors, cannot ... Depending always on all the relevant evidence, it would probably be quite wrong to charge someone with an offence simply because such language was used in anger. It is clear that the Attorney General—spurred on by the outrage of the Andrew Bolts of this world and the Daily Telegraphs of this city—has decided that the well-established and widely supported understanding of contempt is insufficient. The new offence is substantially different from contempt proceedings in that the bar to make out the offence is so much lower. A person does not need to intend to be disrespectful to be found to have committed an offence; disrespect itself if proved objectively is enough to put someone in jail. It is an extraordinary proposition. That it can apply to children, young people and vulnerable people is deeply troubling. The idea seems to be that we need this power to defend our courts, but the courts have not asked for it. While one judge referred a matter to the Attorney General for consideration not one of the heads of jurisdiction in New South Wales has said they want this power. None of them has approached the Government requesting this new offence. Who has? Andrew Bolt or Ray Hadley. They should not be running our court system. They should not be deciding what is or is not conduct that can put someone in jail when appearing before a judge. While the courts may have been consulted on the drafting of the bill, the Government is unable to provide any endorsement from any or all of them. We do not support the creation of this new offence. There are far better tried and true ways that have been practised over hundreds of years in our criminal and civil justice systems to respond to disturbances in court. This new offence is not only wrong in principle; it will be wrong in practice. Just imagine that someone chooses not to stand up in court when a judge comes in because of religious or personal reasons or because they are just so sick of the system. The judge decides not to prosecute them for contempt. The judge wants the matter to proceed because they realise the person is going to have a bad day anyhow. They are probably going to go to jail for the substantive offence or they might be going to lose their civil case. The judge decides not to prosecute them for contempt because they realise that courts have to get on and deal with the wash of humanity as best they can while maintaining their authority and being decent and humane in dealing out justice. The following day somebody from the Daily Telegraph or on talk-back radio is grossly offended by the conduct and decides to drum it up. Outrage is created and the Attorney General bows to pressure and decides to prosecute the person. The person comes back to court to be prosecuted but they are still sick of authority and once again they do not stand up. What will we do? Is the proposal to just endlessly repeat this farce? It will happen. We will have an endless farce where people are prosecuted because they did not stand up in the proceedings in which they were being prosecuted for not standing up in earlier proceedings. And all this to deal with a mischief that does not need dealing with and an alleged disrespect to our courts that the courts are perfectly able to deal with. I have enormous faith in our judges and magistrates to ensure that courts maintain their authority and respect through well-honed principles of contempt. They have shown that they can do it. No matter what debates we have in this Chamber, we all respect our courts and recognise that their independence founded on hundreds of years of common law tradition is a fundamental part of a free society. The courts have been excellent at maintaining their authority and integrity. This bill risks undermining their integrity and putting politics on the floor of our courtrooms. Indeed, it will encourage people to show disrespect and go through this ridiculous cycle that the Government is proposing to insert into our criminal justice system. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 51

There was all this concern because two people of Muslim faith did not stand up in a court in New South Wales. Suddenly a set of new powers were needed. Where was the outrage when five senior barristers in the Victorian Supreme Court showed, in the words of Justice Kevin Bell, disrespect to the Chief Justice and the court when they decided to flout the court's authority by wearing their silly wigs after the Chief Justice had told them not to? The Victorian Chief Justice had told barristers that they were not allowed to wear wigs any more because they were a sort of nineteenth century throwback and Victoria wanted a more modern court. Five senior counsel decided to flout the ruling of the Chief Justice. They entered Justice Bell's court wearing their wigs because they thought it was the kind of garb barristers should wear and they liked it. Justice Kevin Bell said: The Chief Justice has directed that judges of this court are not to wig unless the circumstances are exceptional. You are not showing, and neither are your colleagues showing, the respect that I expect of the Chief Justice from you and I want to record my profound disappointment that one, two, three, four, five members of this Bar table have wigs on ... He went on to say: Well I want to make it clear to you that it's not a question of respect for me, though I do feel disrespected. Whether you intend that disrespect or not, and I accept the fact that you do not intend it and that you are wearing wigs by reason of principle, but I experience disrespect. But the more important question is how this treats the Chief Justice, not only of this court, but this state ... She is the constitutional chief of the judicial system of Victoria and has directed that judges not wear wigs, and you five stand there wearing wigs—it's untenable. If the New South Wales law had been on the statute book it would be no defence to say that those barristers did not intend disrespect. All five of them could be banged away for 14 days for showing disrespect to the court. What a farce that would be. Of course, that is not the kind of conduct that gets the Daily Telegraph razzed up because it was by five upper middle class white people. This is an unnecessary and pernicious law. The Greens oppose this bill. `The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE (21:29): I make a brief contribution to the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. In December 2015 the Attorney General announced that a bill would be introduced to create a new offence covering deliberate, disrespectful behaviour in court. This announcement followed a New South Wales District Court trial, which highlighted that certain behaviour such as failing to stand for a judge may not amount to contempt of court. The bill makes it a summary offence for a person to engage in behaviour that is disrespectful, according to practice and convention, in the Supreme Court, Land and Environment Court, District Court, Local Court or in coronial proceedings and imposes a maximum penalty of 14 days imprisonment or 10 penalty units, equivalent to $1,100, or both. The Legislation Review Committee reviewed this bill and noted: The Committee notes that the new offence created by this bill is ill defined, in that the Bill does not provide any guidance on what behaviour could be considered disrespectful according to established court practice and convention. This may lead to varying interpretations and inconsistency in the application of the provision. In my opinion that says it all. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN (21:30): I will be brief in my contribution to debate on the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. I do not agree with the position that was put by Mr David Shoebridge—in fact, I am in almost polar opposition. We see too much disrespect for not only our courts but also for our police. Not only is this bill spot-on; it is way overdue. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will support the bill. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (21:31): I make a contribution to debate on the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. I am not totally in agreement with Mr David Shoebridge but some of the concerns I have in relation to this matter are worth raising. There is a need to maintain the decorum and respect of the court. I do not think anyone in this Chamber disagrees with that. We faced a problem where behaviours were undertaken by people who claimed a religious motive—a motive that notably has not been endorsed by any single Muslim cleric in Australia as being somehow religiously required. The Hon. Adam Searle: Or sanctioned. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Or sanctioned. People have taken an excuse, which by any objective standard is completely bogus, to show disrespect towards the court. The question is: What then do we do about that? There is clear legal evidence to show that the nature of the offence was not so great as to warrant a contempt charge but, of necessity, one would have to say that something should be done to stop that. What can be done? Certainly a judge or magistrate could exercise their discretion. They could simply say to an offender, "If you are not prepared to stand then you will be removed from the court." They could then be remanded for 24 hours to see if they change their mind, but after 24 hours they may not have changed it. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 52

The judge or magistrate could then say, "You will be remanded for another 24 hours" and by Friday they might decide that they do not want to spend the weekend in the cells and stand. Then again, given the obdurate nature that was clearly displayed, where they would purport to rely upon a tenet of a faith that is completely incorrectly cited by the people concerned, one may well conclude that they are of such a nature that no amount of indirect punitive remanding will get them to stand. Theoretically, we could have a situation where a particularly obdurate prisoner and an equally stubborn magistrate or judge puts them on perpetual 24-hour remand. The judge could simply refuse to hear the case until the prisoner decided to stand. If that were to occur, members of this Parliament would decry the action taken by the magistrate or judge as completely disproportionate and unreasonable. They would say that the magistrate or judge should simply let it go through to the keeper, not worry about it, and proceed with the substance of the case. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We would support the magistrate. The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am not talking about Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. The existing legislation includes provisions that a judge or a magistrate could rely upon if they felt sufficiently aggrieved at the behaviour of a defendant. However, as I said, there would be just as many people in the legal community who would then express mock outrage at this over-reach of judicial power and this unprecedented and overly prescriptive discretion being exercised by a judge or magistrate. What then do we do? We agree that the authority and the respect of the court should be maintained. However, if we rely upon existing powers, we will face precisely the same criticism that we would if we were to enact these new powers. This is not restricted to people who claim faith-based exemptions to standing before a judge. Some may refuse to stand before a female judge because they do not respect the authority of women to stand in judgement of them. There might be a situation in which a particularly aggrieved Aboriginal activist who does not believe that it is valid to apply white law to them says that they do not want to stand because they do not recognise our law and because there was no formal ceding of the land to the British Government in 1788 or subsequently. A wide range of people could be sufficiently aggrieved by the courts, and the question is what we then do. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I accept that points can be made in support of the retention of an existing magisterial or judicial power effectively to impose a punitive 24-hour sanction on people until they come to their senses and show a little respect. However, I am not sure that judges and magistrates would give full effect to that in the face of a particularly recalcitrant defendant. Nor am I sure that the judge or magistrate concerned would be relieved of criticism for taking such a course of action. While I would like to maintain the existing situation, I do not believe that those two considerations can be addressed. Therefore, I will vote for the bill, but I will be interested to see its application analysed in one or two years to find out exactly who is being brought within its scope. I commend the bill to the House. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (21:39): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak in support of the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Bill 2016. I congratulate the Attorney General, the Hon. Gabrielle Upton, on responding to what I regard as not just disrespect but also arrogance by some men who decided not to stand in court and to make their action a protest against the authority of the court. I am pleased that the Government has introduced this legislation. It is a challenge to design legislation to deal with this situation and hopefully what the Attorney General has put together will be successful in the long term. I join many citizens in New South Wales, and indeed Australia, who were affronted when some men who were appearing before a court claimed that because they were Muslims they did not have to stand at the beginning of the court hearing. They made the false claim that it was because of their religious principles. But, as we have heard, there is nothing in the Muslim religion that requires people not to stand; those men were simply misusing their religion as an excuse for their behaviour. Hopefully this legislation will deal with people who show this disrespect in the future. The reason for the legislation is that the existing law of contempt deals with serious behaviour intended to disrupt or undermine the court. The trial in the New South Wales District Court reported in the media in November 2015 highlighted that some types of disrespectful behaviour, such as a failure to stand for a judge, may not be contempt. Community sentiment suggested that all people appearing before a court should be respectful, and that includes standing when required. In December 2015 the Attorney General announced that the Government would create a new offence to deal with disrespectful behaviour in court. As I have said, we are pleased that this legislation is now before the House. This new offence, which will become law when passed by the Parliament, will apply to all New South Wales courts except the Children's Court, which has unique procedures tailored to children. The offence will not apply to tribunals, where parties are often self-represented and proceedings are less formal. The offence will be committed where an accused person, defendant, party or witness in court proceedings engages in intentional behaviour, such as a failure to stand for a judge when requested or to comply with a reasonable direction of a Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 53

judge in the court during those proceedings, and that behaviour is disrespectful to the court or judge according to established court practice and convention. The maximum penalty for the offence will be 14 days imprisonment and/or $1,100, which is half the maximum penalty for contempt. The offence will be dealt with summarily in the Local Court, the Children's Court or the Supreme Court after the matter where the offence occurred has been dealt with. Proceedings must commence within 12 months. As I said, it is difficult to design legislation to deal with this situation, but I believe that the Attorney General has done that and we will see how it works in practice. We support the bill before the House. The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (21:43): On behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Government believes this is a measured response to an issue that demanded the attention of this Parliament. This new offence adds to the range of tools available to judges and magistrates to enable them to manage their courtroom effectively. It does not detract from any measure currently available. Additionally, the passage of this bill will send a clear and unambiguous message that the community expects certain levels of behaviour from those persons appearing before our courts. It is not too much to ask that a certain degree of civility, respect and consideration be demonstrated in the courtroom. I would like to address certain issues that have been raised during the debate. The issue of whether there is a delegation of the Attorney General's power to the Solicitor General was raised by the Hon. Adam Searle. I am advised that the way this offence will be prosecuted will mirror the procedure for contempt—that is, the matter would be referred by the Attorney General, either on his or her own initiative or following a referral by the presiding judge or magistrate, to the Crown Solicitor's Office. The Crown Solicitor's Office would then prepare an advice for the Attorney General to consider. In practice, the Attorney General will delegate that decision to the Solicitor General or Crown Advocate under the Solicitor-General Act 1969 and the Crown Advocate Act 1979, as is the case for contempt. The Solicitor General or Crown Advocate will then make a determination as to whether a prosecution should proceed. In response to the assertion that there is no empirical data to demonstrate that current powers are inadequate, I am advised that a recent District Court trial demonstrated that there is gap in the law in relation to disrespectful behaviour that falls below the level of contempt. In November 2014 a repeat offender appearing in court on charges for breaking and entering failed to stand for the District Court judge, claiming he was not subject to any authority other than his religion. A year later in November 2015, appearing this time for car theft and attempted murder, he again refused to stand. The offender's protest regarding standing in court went on for more than a year in multiple court appearances in front of several judges. The 2015 incident was referred to the Attorney General by the judge of the District Court. On both occasions, advice was sought from the Crown Solicitor's Office as to whether the conduct amounted to contempt. Given that the offender's decision not to stand was not accompanied by any overt conduct intended to interfere with the due administration of justice, the Solicitor General under existing delegations determined, on advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office, that the incident fell below the threshold required for establishing the criminal offence of contempt of court. The Solicitor General decided not to proffer contempt charges. The incident confirmed that our current law does not adequately reflect our community's standards for the level of respect that should be shown to the court and our judicial officers. In response to Mr David Shoebridge's question as to whether the courts want this new offence, I am advised that during the development of the proposed offence the Department of Justice undertook extensive consultation with legal stakeholders, including the courts. The Supreme Court, the Land and Environment Court, the District Court, the Local Court, the Children's Court, the Coroner's Court and the Drug Court were all consulted on the initial proposal and the drafting of the bill. The feedback received from stakeholders has been considered and taken into account in drafting the new offence, where possible. The offence will apply only to the accused person, defendant, party or witness in court proceedings. It will not apply to people in the public gallery, who can simply be ejected from the courtroom; legal practitioners, who are already subject to professional standards under solicitors and barristers rules; nor police prosecutors in the Local Court, who are subject to standards set out in the Police Act 1990. In response to the comments made by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, I am advised that the offence will apply to behaviour that is disrespectful to the court or the judge according to established court practice and convention. In this way the offence will reflect community expectations as to how people should conduct themselves when appearing in court. It is not uncommon for courts to apply objective tests that reflect current community standards such as this, including when determining the other summary offences such as offensive conduct or offensive language. The Government firmly believes this bill reflects deeply held community sentiment. I commend the bill to the House. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 54

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The House divided. Ayes ...... 32 Noes ...... 3 Majority ...... 29 AYES Dr Phelps Mr Ajaka Mr Amato Mr Blair Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Donnelly Mr Farlow Mr Franklin Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr MacDonald Mr Mallard Mr Mason-Cox Mr Mookhey Mr Moselmane (teller) Mr Pearce Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Secord Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Ms Cusack Ms Houssos Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller) Ms Mitchell Ms Sharpe Ms Taylor Ms Voltz Reverend Nile

NOES Dr Faruqi (teller) Mr Buckingham Mr Shoebridge (teller)

Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (21:58): On behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (21:58): I move: That this House do now adjourn. THE NATIONALS GENERAL CONFERENCE The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (21:58): From 26 to 28 May, beautiful, sunny Tweed Heads played host to the New South Wales annual general conference of The Nationals. The conference is the home of passionate debate and grassroots democracy for The Nationals. It is a forum that enables everyday members and delegates to access members, Ministers and governing bodies of the New South Wales party cohort in an open, transparent and welcoming environment. The conference provides a unique forum for delegates to have their say about issues important to their community, and to do so in front of the most prominent figures in the State and Federal parliamentary teams. A wide range of motions were debated at the 2016 conference, including equitable access to palliative care, health funding to district level hospitals and our response to the homeless. The most debated motion over the weekend resulted in a successful vote to allow equal female representation on our Central Council at Federal Electorate Council level. As a party, we recognise that we need to do more to encourage women to become leaders in our party. We have elected only 10 female State and Federal members of Parliament in our history. That is not good enough. We need to take an active role in leading the community towards greater parity of representation in Parliament. The first step is to find talented women to become involved in our Central Council discussions and debates. Incredibly, we implemented similar rules in 1996, under the leadership of Doug Anthony, but a three-year sunset clause was imposed. I congratulate the Chair of the Women's Council and mover of the motion, Claire Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 55

Coulton, seconder the Hon. Duncan Gay and all those who spoke in favour of the motion. I acknowledge in particular our male Champions of Change who, like the Hon. Duncan Gay, spoke and voted in favour of giving female members of The Nationals a greater opportunity to become senior figures in our fantastic party. At the weekend we also heard from the incredible Kelly Foran, who spoke at the conference dinner. Kelly's story is one of heartbreak and unbelievable strength. While pregnant, Kelly began to experience headaches and nosebleeds. Assured by medical staff that it was part of pregnancy, she went home and tried to ignore the pain. Days later, upon returning to hospital, Kelly was diagnosed with a massive brain tumour. She gave birth via caesarean section. Kelly's son, Jake, was born with a hole in the lung, hyper-insulin anaemia and jaundice, and could not drink or suck unaided. Before Kelly underwent 16 hours of surgery on her tumour she took a course of steroids to shrink the tumour. This caused her to gain 22 kilos and become diabetic. Following surgery, Kelly suffered a stroke and was advised that she also had muscular dystrophy. Despite this, Kelly began to recover. Life dealt Kelly another blow when it was discovered that Jake also had a brain tumour. In order to prevent the spread of the tumour, Jake's right eye was removed. In typical Kelly fashion, she took the setbacks in her stride and created the Friendly Faces Helping Hands Foundation, which aims to link people from rural communities to major hospitals, health facilities and resources in cities. It provides a hub where people can access information on accommodation, parking, cheap eats, supermarkets and hairdressers located near each metropolitan hospital. Many of our members were moved by Kelly's story. I am pleased to report that there was generous bidding at the auction held to raise money for the foundation. It was great that The Nationals were able to help Kelly in a small way. Only 34 days before the Federal election, The Nationals candidate for Richmond, Matthew Fraser, launched his campaign at the conclusion of the conference, with the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Fiona Nash. The launch was attended by more than 100 supporters, including members of parliament, volunteers and party members. Matthew has been working hard for the local community for many years. He understands that locals want to see big banks and multinationals pay their fair share. They also want their parliamentary representatives to ensure that coal seam gas mining never returns to the Northern Rivers region. I am particularly proud of the stand that Matthew has taken on the ice epidemic that is destroying country communities. The Nationals have delivered a $300 million action plan to combat the ice epidemic. I wish Matthew the best of luck in the upcoming election. He will make an outstanding local representative in Parliament. He has the energy and drive to give his community a voice in government. At the conference The Nationals announced $25 million in funding for the proposed Dubbo Cancer Centre if the Coalition is re-elected at the next Federal election. The member for Parkes, Mark Coulton, has been at the forefront of efforts to locate the centre at Dubbo Hospital as part of its redevelopment. As Mark said, the tyranny of distance places too high a price on treatment for some in rural electorates, with emotional and physical costs. Many are choosing death over treatment. It is estimated that people living in western New South Wales have a life expectancy of eight years less than their metropolitan counterparts. The situation is untenable. The need for the cancer centre is obvious. Should the Turnbull-Joyce Government be re-elected, the centre will be included in stages three and four of the Dubbo Hospital redevelopment. I thank all at head office—in particular, Briony Ferguson and her team—for yet again organising such a successful conference for The Nationals. I look forward to the 2017 conference, when we will head out west to Broken Hill. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATIONS The Hon. MICK VEITCH (22:04): The hottest topic for discussion in southern New South Wales at the moment is council amalgamations. Indeed, it is a hot topic right across New South Wales. The Government commenced a number of processes from 2011 to review local government operations and sustainability. As each review was completed a new review would commence. It was almost as if the Government could not get the answer it wanted—that is, the case to amalgamate councils. Regardless of growing cynicism across regional New South Wales, councils continued to participate in each new process. They continued to invest time and money—valuable resources—towards these reviews. As the Hon. Peter Primrose stated in this Chamber recently: From 2011 to the end of June 2015 the Government spent more than $5.8 million on consultants' reports and reviews into local government, including the well-regarded Destination 2036, and the detailed if sometimes controversial report of the Independent Local Government Review Panel, chaired by the well-respected Professor Graham Sansom. These two reports alone cost in the vicinity of $2.07 million. People participated in good faith. The final process—the final review by KPMG—has been met with cynicism. The response to the proclamation of 12 May 2016 to dismiss 39 councils has been one of disappointment and anger across regional New South Wales. You only need to look at the articles in the local newspapers and the letters to the editors to get a real feel for the anger of New South Wales residents. On page 3 of the Tumut and Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 56

Adelong Times of 13 May the headline reads, "Tumbarumba 'distraught'". The article says that the now former mayor of Tumbarumba, Mr Ian Chaffey, has "slammed the State Government's decisions to merge Tumut and Tumbarumba councils into the Snowy Valley Council". In the article Mr Chaffey is quoted: "To be sacrificed at the altar of economic rationalism, it's shown community and people don't matter anymore." The article goes on to quote Mr Chaffey again: "I don't think the community reaction is going to be pretty, I believe it'll have a significant impact in the upcoming federal election." He said the outcome shows how ideology overrules common sense. The headline on page 3 of the Gundagai Independent of 16 May reads, "Residents 'shafted' by forced mergers". On the same pages there is a report about the NSW Farmers President Derek Schoen. It is titled, "Farmers lose in council mergers". The article says: "Our members are completely opposed to forced amalgamations unless specific benefits can be outlined. We have been consistent in putting that case to government," Mr Schoen said. On the front page of the Twin Town Times, which is a Harden-Murrumburrah paper, dated 19 May, the headline is "Hilltops or Helltops" in reference to the newly named Hilltops council. There is a letter to the editor in the paper on the same day from Ross Flanery. Nationals members would know Mr Flanery. In his letter Mr Flanery says: … our answer is to get rid of the Baird Government and particularly the Nationals as they abandoned us very early. No one who has any respect at all for the very basis of our political system, that is democracy, should vote for this untrustworthy lying lot, no one. On Tuesday 17 May the Tumut and Adelong Times mentions the Liberal member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Hendy. The heading is, "Hendy wants merger overturned". No doubt Dr Hendy has been to Tumbarumba and felt the sentiment. The article says: Dr Hendy said the decision was a blow to both shires— Tumbarumba and Tumut— and the proposal lacked community representation, community support and a strong business case. "We need to remember that Tumbarumba was found to be 'Fit for the Future' as a rural council," he said. But this Government still merged them. Dr Hendy should be worried because there was a lengthy contribution on ABC Riverina about a sign that has been put up at the front of Tumbarumba. The sign says, "If Tumba Council falls goodbye Peter Hendy." The people of Tumbarumba are not happy. On 13 May, the Save Tumbarumba Shire Facebook page said that the now sacked council would continue on the next day with functions such as the opening of the Tumbarumba Shire sewerage treatment plant, which would be renamed The Mike Baird Centre of Truth and Honesty. The Liberals and Nationals contesting the Federal election are distancing themselves from this disastrous exercise. Civic duty is not a job; it is a privilege. The former councils and mayors were fulfilling their civic duty to their local communities. The newly appointed administrators are fulfilling the requirements of a job. I cannot see the administrators attending all of the community meetings, sporting events, school functions, site inspections and the like. There is no reason for the administrators to continue in their roles beyond the September 2017 elections. I urge the Government to let democracy return to these regional communities. COALMINING AND PRODUCTION Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (22:09): I speak this evening on the parallel universe in which the NSW Treasury and the New South Wales Government seem to exist. In particular, I am talking about the New South Wales Government's figures on coal—the demand for it, its growth, coalmining and the royalties—as outlined in the NSW Treasury's Intergenerational Report released this week. We have all seen the glossy new brochure from the Government. Amongst the heroic predictions in the NSW Treasury Intergenerational Report were a number on coal, including that coalmining will grow by 1.2 per cent per year, year on year, until 2056. This means we will mine 10.584 billion tonnes of coal between 2016 and 2056, of which 9.238 billion tonnes will be thermal coal. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You are getting me excited! Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I note the interjection of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, the chair of the parliamentary friends of coal group. What a lonely group that is now. They have only ever had one meeting, and they are now defunct—because the world is moving on. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has not moved on, and the NSW Treasury has not moved on because to reach its prediction in the Intergenerational Report we would have to be digging up and shipping out almost one million tonnes of coal per day by 2056. The report estimates that Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 57

royalties will grow by a staggering 4.2 per cent per year to 2056. It is clear that Treasury is off with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. It has lost all sense of reality. It is predicting endless unlimited growth when it comes to coal, but no one believes it. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I do. Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Well, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps may be a believer. He is a zealot for coal. In this he has to believe, because it is a matter of faith not a matter of fact. For the past seven years Treasury has overestimated coal royalties by a factor of two. According to the NSW Treasury, we should be getting more than $2 billion a year in coal royalties. We are not even getting half of that amount. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: That is a function of price not quantum. Mr Jeremy Buckingham should know that. Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It is a function of both. What we know is that the NSW Treasury has failed time and again. According to the Department of Resources and Energy there are 18.192 billion tonnes of recoverable coal reserves in New South Wales, and it seems that Mike Baird wants to dig it all up. There has been a record number of licence approvals under this Government. There have been more approvals under this Government than under any other Government in our history. Sixteen mega mines have been approved. The Federal Minister for Trade and Investment, the Hon. Steven Ciobo, said last night on Q&A on ABC television that "global demand for coal is still going through the roof". What a farce. What a joke. China has stopped importing coal. It has started exporting coal. Demand is collapsing. In the United States it is a dead industry in absolute freefall. The Greens were right on this issue, and all the dinosaurs sitting opposite, those fossil fuel fanatics, are still bleating on. Josh Frydenberg said today that "coal is absolutely critical to our country". It is making a 2 per cent contribution to State royalties, if that; and it contributes just a fraction to employment. More people are employed in the solar industry here and the rest of the world now than in the coal industry. I note the Hon Rick Colless is frowning. This is news to him, because he made up his mind in 1965 and has not got the news that coal is over. The latest Reserve Bank of Australia statement on monetary policy says: … significant falls in coal prices and the relatively high cost of some Australian production suggest that further substantial growth in coal exports is unlikely. Coal is over. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and every credible economist in Australia and around the world is saying that coal is over. The Greens were right and the fossil fuel fanatics were wrong. CENTRAL COAST EDUCATION AND HEALTH FACILITIES The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (22:14): Tonight I will speak about the New South Wales and Federal governments' commitment to jobs, growth and innovation on the New South Wales Central Coast, particularly in Gosford. As all members will be very happy to hear, the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government have committed to the Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute. Earlier last month the New South Wales Government announced a commitment to allocating $20 million to the project. Earlier this month the Federal Government came to the party and announced $32.5 million to deliver this game-changer on the Central Coast. It will be a game-changer for both the health and education spheres on the Central Coast. The Central Coast has particular emerging health challenges that must be addressed in a meaningful way to ensure that the health needs of people who live on the Central Coast are met for the long term. Consecutive Federal Labor governments failed to deliver on those needs through policies that lacked meaningful investment in health care and education that the Central Coast requires. The largest employment sector on the Central Coast is in health services. The Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute, which will be within the Central Coast Health and Wellbeing Precinct, will leverage on the New South Wales Government's redevelopment of Gosford and Wyong hospitals and will bring more than $200 million in direct economic benefits to the Central Coast. It also will create more than 750 new jobs. How has that been made possible? The New South Wales Government's redevelopment of Gosford Hospital is being delivered four months ahead of the project's schedule, which has produced a $20 million cost saving. That amount has been reinvested in the Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute—with thanks to the hard work of a great State member of Parliament, Adam Crouch, who is the member for Terrigal, and the Federal member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks. I ask members to just think about that for a moment: $20 million is being saved through the New South Wales Government efficiently delivering a project four months ahead of schedule. That is something we would never have heard of during Labor's reign in New South Wales. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 58

The $20 million that will now be redirected to the Central Coast Medical School and Research Centre will deliver a huge health and education infrastructure investment to the Central Coast. The Federal Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham, in company with the Federal member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks, announced that the Turnbull Government also will commit funding to the project. I pay particular credit to Lucy Wicks, who has championed the project from the very beginning. The idea was very much Lucy's baby and Lucy has great dreams and aspirations for the people of the Central Coast—particularly through the establishment of the Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute—so that the best and the brightest people on the Central Coast can be trained on the Central Coast. Establishment of the centre will mean that a world class education system will be available on the Central Coast so that people will not have to leave home and travel to Sydney or Newcastle. The project is up and running with support from the University of Newcastle, which also is committing $20 million to the project. The centre will be integrated with the redeveloped Gosford Hospital and will be located in the Health and Wellbeing Precinct, bringing the internationally commended University of Newcastle's medical training and research program to the Central Coast and ensuring that residents of the Central Coast are receiving cutting-edge health care. The University of Newcastle already has some very exciting projects with institutions such as Harvard, Oxford University and New York University. Mr Jeremy Buckingham: I have never been more excited. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I am pleased that even The Greens are excited by the project. I am sure the centre will be visited frequently by Mr Jeremy Buckingham. The Central Coast Medical School and Research Institute will educate and train doctors, nurses, and allied health students, who will then work in Gosford on the Central Coast. The centre will grow over five years to enrol 150 medical students through the utilisation of the existing government-funded medical places held by the University of Newcastle. The Central Coast is undoubtedly a beautiful place in which to live. At just one hour's drive north of Sydney, this distinct region is known for its beautiful beaches and natural environment. Many people choose to live on the Central Coast for the lifestyle it offers. Now, due to this project, more people will be able to live and work on the Central Coast without having to travel to Sydney—all with thanks to the advocacy of both State and Federal members of Parliament, particularly the member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks, and the member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch. This project represents just part of the Baird Government's investment in Gosford, Terrigal and the Central Coast. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring economic growth and educational opportunities at a local level. When local communities thrive, national economies also thrive. CHINA STUDY TOUR The Hon. WALT SECORD (22:19): As is my custom, I have used the parliamentary recesses to examine other cultures, and I wish to update the House. These study tours are always structured around key political, historical and cultural interests. I believe understanding a diversity of backgrounds is key to being a representative in a diverse State like New South Wales. Over the past five years, I have visited the national genocide museum in Yerevan, Armenia; the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland, World War ll deportation sites in France; Jewish memorials in Berlin; Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and the national genocide genocide memorial in Iraqi Kurdistan where Saddam Hussein tried to exterminate the Kurds. Today I speak on my recent study tour of China, with specific reference to World War II and Jewish sites in Shanghai including a private visit to the historic Ohel Rachel Synagogue, which is closed to the public—it is one of the only two synagogues still standing in Shanghai out of an original of six—and is the largest synagogue in the Far East, and the world-renowned Nanjing massacre museum and memorial in eastern China, where I laid flowers out of respect to the 300,000 murdered by the Japanese during World War II. Incidentally, the Nanjing visit immediately followed China's Qingming Festival or Tomb Sweeping Day, where locals pay respect to their ancestors. In addition, my China trip was motivated in part by Labor's desire to foster and strengthen our Sino-Australian relationship. I remind members that at the February Australian Labor Party's State Conference the party adopted a policy of making languages compulsory for all primary school students. This is an intelligent investment in our future, as there are dozens of nations whose children learn English. Under a future Labor Government, every primary school student in New South Wales will study a second language. In New South Wales fewer than 40 per cent of primary schools have a language program, and the majority that do are in the Sydney metropolitan area. New South Wales lags behind other States in relation to teaching languages. Victoria has twice the number of primary school students studying Mandarin than does New South Wales. Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 59

But I digress. My visit to Nanjing was on the recommendation of my colleague the Hon. Ernest Wong, who is a strong advocate for properly remembering and commemorating those murdered in Nanjing. In September 2014 the Hon. Ernest Wong presented a petition opposing statements by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott who, in a ham-fisted way, on 8 July 2014 praised the so-called "honour" of Japanese troops during World War II. The Hon. Ernest Wong has also spoken on the subject in this Chamber. On 13 December 1937 Japanese troops captured Nanjing and over six weeks killed 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers who had laid down their arms, and raped 20,000 women. As of 1 January 2016 there were only 133 living Chinese survivors of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre. The memorial hall for the victims, which I had the honour to visit, was built in 1985, and was expanded and renovated in 1995. During the war, the site was used as an execution grounds and mass burial place. I believe that trips to places like the Nanjing museum assist in developing a better understanding of communities in New South Wales such as Sydney's Chinese community. This is a painful part of Chinese history and it must never be forgotten. I for one will never forget my visit to the museum. It was an honour to visit the memorial. In China I also visited: Shanghai's The Bund and the French Concession; the water town of Tongli; the city of Xi'an with its terra cotta warriors; X'ian's Muslim quarter and its bazaar; the city of Suzhou with its Buddhist temples, canals and Ming Tombs; as well as Guilin and Yangshuo on the Yulong River; and the ancient historic and still functioning X'ian Great Mosque set up in 742 AD during the Tang Dynasty on the Silk Road. Incidentally, the visit to the mosque was just before Friday prayers and it was one of the most impressive Islamic places of worship I have visited. And for the record, I have visited many spectacular mosques around the world including the Jami Ul-Alfar Mosque in Colombo; the Blue Mosque in Istanbul; the historic Mulla Effendi Mosque in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan; the beautiful and palatial Jumeirah Templewood Sheikh Zayed Mosque in the United Arab Emirates; and Jakarta's Independence Mosque. Another highlight was an official tour of Jewish Shanghai by Israeli journalist, Dvir Bar-Gal, who made a genuine effort to educate and inform his visitors. The tour included: the Hongkou Jewish quarter. a square kilometre that was home to 23,000 Jews fleeing the Holocaust; Huoshan Park where they gathered during the war; the historic Ohel Moishe Synagogue, which was restored in 2007; former sites of the office of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the place where Michael Blumenthal, the Carter United States Treasury Secretary, lived as a child refugee; and the Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum. For the record, I paid for all of my flights and accommodation, and there was no cost to the New South Wales taxpayers. However, I thank the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney for arranging with the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Division of Shanghai Municipal Foreign Affairs Office for my visit to the Ohel Rachel Synagogue. I thank the House for its consideration. ANIMAL RIGHTS The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (22:24): I speak tonight about the insidious growth of skewed animal rights ideology. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party know that hunters are the original conservationists. Collectively, responsible hunters and fishers care for our natural environment by protecting native flora and fauna through real and decisive action. Animals do not have intrinsic human rights—not even Mr Jeremy Buckingham has intrinsic human rights. Humans have been hunters and gatherers for the better part of our existence. Our bodies, minds and civilisations have developed and benefited from hunting, gathering and eating meat. Yet, extremist animal rights groups—many of whom engage in illegal actions, trespass and harassment—have far too great a say in public policy. Their disingenuous campaign against law-abiding hunters, recreational fishers and farmers has stifled the development of good public policy. The welfare of animals is important, very important, but humans have a right to eat meat if they choose to do so. It is as simple as that. Nobody, particularly farmers, hunters, and fishers, actively tolerate animal cruelty. We pride ourselves on accuracy when hunting—one shot, one kill—to prevent the target animal suffering needlessly. Whilst every group may have its bad apples, this does not reflect on the industry, or society, as a whole. I choose to hunt and gather my own meat because it is my right to do so. It is a clean, organic, and sustainable way to live. I choose to cull feral and invasive animals because culling protects our native species and habitats, and I consider myself a responsible and ethical hunter and fisher. Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Would you eat an elephant? The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: Yes. Recently, I was endorsed as the number one apparently "dirty" politician in the Animal Justice Party's "dirty dozen"—a list of twelve politicians, including Premier Mike Baird, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, and even The Greens leader, Richard Di Natalie. This so-called "dirty dozen" list ranks politicians according to how averse they are to the Animal Justice Party's agenda. Securing the number one spot on this list is something I will wear as a badge of courage and honour. The Animal Justice Party's policy on farming is that it: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 60

… stands by the technical knowledge and sound science that supports a plant-based diet for humans. Such a diet is best for human health, would be a major factor in reducing famine and starvation, would have a formidable impact to improve the environment and, of course, would virtually eliminate distress and suffering for farm animals. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about bacon? The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: I take that interjection. In other words, the Animal Justice Party's policy is a delusional nirvana that does not take into account two facts: Farmers love and care for their stock, and eating meat is healthy for humans. The Animal Justice Party and its supporters would have us convert virtually half the planet into a giant veggie garden, despite the fact that such a garden would still not be able to produce enough protein and nutrients to sustain our population. The party further states that: … shooting animals of any kind is invariably cruel and that there is no ethical justification for taking the irreplaceable individual lives of healthy sentient beings. I argue to the contrary. Shooting is the most ethical form of culling feral animals and hunting for food. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has long advocated and supported the value of recreational hunters and fishers in maintaining our land, marine biodiversity and health. In fact, recreational hunting is the most cost-effective and humane tool in dealing with feral animal populations. As celebrities and sportspeople continue to jump on the anti-hunting bandwagon, we will continue to provide the facts and add some balance in this space. The hypocrisy of these campaigns speaks volumes of how misguided and disingenuous their efforts truly are. Recently, I saw several images of well-known Australian sports figures holding dead ducks in opposition to duck hunting, while other images surfaced of those very individuals fishing, eating meat and participating in sports and the use of animal products. Lies, misinformation and scare campaigns form the basis of extremist animal rights ideology, but the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will continue to provide the facts and plain common sense. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 22:28.