Legislative Council

ADJOURNMENT ...... 7246 ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE ...... 7208 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT ...... 7210 BAPTISTCARE SERVICES...... 7247 BHP CAROONA AND SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINES ...... 7234 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 7208, 7209, 7210, 7211, 7219 CLIMATE CHANGE HEALTH IMPACTS ...... 7209 COMBINED SERVICES CLUB OF BALLINA ...... 7210 CYCLEWAYS ...... 7237 DEVLINS CREEK WATER QUALITY ...... 7237 DRUG POLICY AND LAW REFORM ...... 7246 DRUMMOYNE SEWAGE OUTFALL ...... 7235 FOSSIL FUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 7249 INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY AND NANCY WAKE ...... 7247 INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY BALLINA ...... 7210 JETSKI RESTRICTIONS ...... 7240 KESONEMALY CHANTACHAK ...... 7247 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATIONS ...... 7241 M4 TOLL ...... 7239 M5 EXITS TOLL ...... 7241 MENINDEE LAKES ANIMAL SANCTUARY ...... 7232 MINING ACT 1992: DISALLOWANCE OF MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016 ...... 7211, 7214 MURRAY-DARLING BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT ...... 7238 PARLIAMENTARY EMERGENCY EVACUATION EXERCISE ...... 7214 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT ...... 7236 PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) ACT 1991: DISALLOWANCE OF PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016 ...... 7211, 7214 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 7232 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA NORTHERN RIVERS COMMITTEE DON PAGE APPOINTMENT ...... 7233 SCREENING OF THE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY...... 7208 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 7211 SYDNEY ARCHITECTURE FESTIVAL ...... 7219 SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ...... 7232 SYRIAN AND MIDDLE EAST CHRISTIAN REFUGEES ...... 7248 TENANTS' UNION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ...... 7209 TOWN HALL LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE ...... 7239 UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION ...... 7208 WOOL GROWING INDUSTRY AND MULESING ...... 7230, 7242 YOUTH FRONTIERS PROGRAM ...... 7242

7208

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 10 March 2016

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

The PRESIDENT: Order! I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Governor:

David Hurley Government House GOVERNOR Sydney 2000

General David Hurley, AC, DSC, Governor of New South Wales has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that he has reassumed the Government of the State.

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION

Motion by the Hon. ERNEST WONG agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Friday 9 October 2015, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO] agreed to 47 new inscriptions, including a request by Beijing to mark documents recording the events of atrocity committed by Japanese troops after the fall of the Chinese City of Nanjing in 1937;

(b) the documents list the Japanese military invasion of China in the 1930s, where the two countries fought a full-scale war from 1937, until Japan's defeat in World War II in 1945;

(c) the UNESCO decision is most welcomed and comes as the result of a two-year process during a meeting of experts who were tasked with studying nominations from 40 different countries;

(d) the new inscriptions were agreed to at a meeting that ran from Sunday to Tuesday, prior to the announcement, and was held in the United Arab Emirates; and

(e) the Memory of the World register was set up in 1992, aimed at preserving humanity's documentary heritage, and currently holds 348 documents and archives that come from countries all over the world.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 558 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

SCREENING OF THE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY

Motion by the Hon. ERNEST WONG agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Sunday 15 November, 2015, the Federation of the Australian Guangdong Community launched the official premiere screening of its documentary The Change, which attracted some 200 VIP guests and dignitaries as well as 1,000 eager viewers, and was hosted at The Star Event Centre; and

(b) this is the first documentary about the early settlement of Australian-Chinese, produced by the Chinese community to mark the history of Chinese Australians.

10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7209

(2) That this House:

(a) acknowledges the collaborative efforts of all involved in this fantastic initiative, from the producers, director, sponsors, researchers, volunteers, and of course all those who willingly shared their stories both on and off the camera;

(b) notes that the purpose for producing this documentary is to preserve the oral history of second, third, fourth and fifth generation descendants of Chinese Australians, and whilst many of these Chinese descendants have an Anglo-Saxon appearance, they are every bit as proud of their Chinese ancestry and make a committed effort to preserve their family history;

(c) congratulates all those who, through their perseverance, talents and determination, successfully turned an idea into a powerful and accurate documentary, where history tells the story; and

(d) extends special thanks to the executive producer, Mr Xiangmo Huang; producers, Patrick Wong, and Claude Wan; director, Alex Chan; and creator, Phillip Wu.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business items Nos 636, 650 and 651 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

TENANTS' UNION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Motion by the Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Tenants' Union of New South Wales celebrates its fortieth anniversary this year, having represented the interests of residential tenants in New South Wales since 1976;

(b) to commence the celebration of their fortieth anniversary, on 11 February 2016, the Tenants' Union of New South Wales held a community barbecue with staff, board members, stakeholders and tenants on the grounds of the Northcott public housing estate in Surry Hills; and

(c) the fortieth anniversary celebration was attended by the Hon. Shayne Mallard, MLC, representing the Minister for Social Housing, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, MP; the member for Newtown, Ms Jenny Leong; and the member for Bankstown, Ms Tania Mihailuk.

(2) That this House congratulates the board, executive and staff of the Tenants' Union of New South Wales for their fortieth anniversary and their continued work representing all residential tenants including boarders, lodgers and private tenants, public and social housing tenants and residential park residents.

CLIMATE CHANGE HEALTH IMPACTS

Motion by Ms JAN BARHAM agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that the Climate Council's recent report entitled "The Silent Killer: Climate Change and the Health Impacts of Extreme Heat" stated that:

(a) climate change is a serious health threat for many Australians, with Australia's mortality data indicating a steady increase in the number of deaths in summer compared to those in winter over the past four decades, suggesting that climate change may already be affecting mortality rates;

(b) as extreme heat events worsen, the risk of adverse human health impacts is increasing;

(c) heatwaves can put intense pressure on health services, with evidence from the January-February 2009 heatwave in southeast Australia indicating that emergency call-outs jumped by 46 per cent, cases involving heat-related illness jumped 34-fold, and cardiac arrests almost tripled in Victoria;

(d) while the health sector has made significant steps in improving resilience to heatwave events, more needs to be done, with current approaches focusing primarily on immediate reactive capacity, rather than incorporating exposure reduction strategies to build the long-term resilience of communities to cope with worsening heat; and

(e) reducing greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and deeply is the best way to protect Australians from worsening extreme heat events.

(2) That this House notes that following the Australian Summit on Extreme Heat and Health which involved 24 experts representing a wide variety of disciplines who met in Melbourne on 2 and 3 March 2016, the Summit Co-Chairs, Dr Elizabeth Hanna, Professor Lesley Hughes, and Professor Fiona Stanley, issued a communiqué stating that "All the 7210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

experts agreed that extreme heat is a critical and growing health issue for Australians. While the health sector is key, it is only one part of the response.", and that the three key actions that are needed to more effectively address the health and health sector impacts of heatwaves are:

(a) "Prevent and Prepare" by mitigating, adapting and building resilience, and incorporating climate-sensitive urban design into city and town planning;

(b) "Respond" with a whole of government response, including all levels of government across all states and regions; and

(3) That this House acknowledges that:

(a) heatwaves are a significant and growing hazard to health that particularly affects vulnerable groups including older people, children, people with existing health conditions and outdoor workers; and

(b) it is essential to address the issue of extreme heat in order to, as the Summit Co-Chairs' communiqué states, "reduce the impact of heatwaves on Australians' health and on the health and community sectors and, ultimately, to save lives."

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY BALLINA

Motion by Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM agreed to:

That this House:

(a) acknowledges International Women's Day, celebrated on and around 8 March every year around the world;

(b) notes the 2016 Ballina Coast and Hinterland International Women's Day Lunch that was co-hosted by the Ballina Chamber of Commerce and Ballina Shire Council on Friday 4 March 2016 at the Ballina RSL;

(d) congratulates the organisers on an outstanding event and in particular Ballina shire councillor, Ms Sharon Cadwaller, for her tireless work supporting equality for women in the region; and

(e) notes the excellent keynote address given by internationally renowned author and speaker, Dr Libby Weaver.

COMBINED SERVICES CLUB OF BALLINA

Motion by Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM agreed to:

That this House:

(a) notes that the Combined Services Club of Ballina Incorporated held their annual awards night at the Ballina RSL on Wednesday 2 March 2016;

(b) notes the member for Ballina, Ms Tamara Smith, MP, was the guest of honour;

(c) acknowledges the year 11 students who received the Vi Postle-Keith Barlow awards this year and the outstanding way that students presented themselves at the event;

(d) notes the ongoing and significant contribution of the volunteers who make up the Combined Services Club of Ballina: members of Ballina Rotary; Ballina on Richmond Rotary; East Ballina Lions; Ballina Lions; Ballina Scope Club; and Alstonville/Wollongbar Quota Club; and

(e) acknowledges the philanthropy and generosity of the late Mr Keith Barlow who bequeathed a generous donation to the Combines Services Club of Ballina which has continued to be kindly donated each year by his daughters, Mrs Margaret Smith and Ms Jennifer Barlow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 659 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Acting Auditor-General entitled "Managing Unsolicited Proposals in NSW: Department of Premier and Cabinet", dated March 2016, received and authorised to be printed this day. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7211

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT: I inform honourable members that as the sitting day calendar was adopted by resolution of the House in November 2015 there is now no need for a special adjournment to be moved each Thursday and it has been removed from today's proceedings. A special adjournment motion will only be required when the House is adjourning to a Friday or a Monday or other unscheduled day or time or for a long adjournment at the end of a sitting period.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith relating to the conduct of business of the House this day.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Dr PETER PHALPS agreed to:

That the order of Private Members' Business for today be as follows:

(1) Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Mallard relating to the Sydney Architecture Festival.

(2) Private Members' Business item No. 477 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Pearson relating to sheep mulesing.

(3) Private Members' Business item No. 649 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Mookhey relating to new tolls on existing roads.

MINING ACT 1992: DISALLOWANCE OF MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016

PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) ACT 1991: DISALLOWANCE OF PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That these matters proceed as business of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion by the Hon. Adam Searle agreed to:

That the matters proceed forthwith.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [10.17 a.m.], by leave: I move notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 on today's Notice Paper in globo:

1. That, under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the following lines within item [21] of Schedule 2 of the Mining Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016, published on the NSW Legislation website on 26 February 2016:

(a) Section 12 (4) and (6) 750 —

(b) Section 12B 2,500 —

(d) Section 235C (3) 750 1,500

(e) Section 248S (1) (in relation to failure to comply with requirement 1,250 2,500 under section 248E (2) (i))

(f) Section 248S (1) (in relation to failure to comply with requirement 500 — under section 248N)

7212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

(g) Section 248S (3) 2,500 5,000

(h) Section 291 (1A) 2,500 5,000

(i) Section 292C (3) 500 1,000

(j) Section 365 750 —

(k) Section 378C 1,250 2,500

(l) Section 378ZFE 2,500 5,000

(m) Clause 12 (1) or (2) 750 1,500

(n) Clause 37(8) 750 1,500

(o) Clause 38 750 1,500

(p) Clause 45 (7) 750 1,500

(q) Clause 52 (7) 750 1,500

(r) Clause 64 750 1,500

(s) Clause 78 750 1,500

2. That, under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the following lines within item [22] of Schedule 2 of the Petroleum (Onshore) Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016, published on the NSW Legislation website on 26 February 2016:

(a) Section 7 (1) 2,500 5,000

(b) Section 78A 2,500 5,000

(d) Section 94C 500 1,000

(e) Section 97C 1,250 2,500

(f) Section 104O (1) (in relation to an failure to comply with a requirement 1,250 2,500 under section 101, 104, 104C or 104F)

(g) Section 104O (1) (in relation to failure to comply with a requirement 500 — under section 104H (1))

(h) Section 104O (3) 1,250 2,500

(i) Section 125C 250 —

(j) Section 125D 1,250 2,500

(k) Section 125ZM 1,250 2,500

These new regulations made on and from 29 February as published in the Government Gazette on 26 February do a number of things. They emerge from the cluster of mining bills passed by this House towards the end of last year that had as their principal object not only to modernise and update the laws that regulate mining licenses and the like in this State but to harmonise, and I use the Government's terminology, the regulation of all extractive industries in the State, whether it is petroleum—gas, that is—or other resources under a common legislative regime rather than the patchwork of laws that we had previously.

These regulations provide many of the moving parts of that new legislative regime. In many respects these regulations remade a number of existing regulations. The disallowances relate to the penalty notice offences under both the mining regulation and the petroleum offshore regulation. The Opposition does not in principle have a difficulty with a system of penalty notices. We understand that the maximum penalties provided for offences under law are quite high. It makes administrative sense, and provides convenience and a great deal of expedition to have a regime of penalty offences where inspectors can issue on-the-spot fines and the like for less serious offences against the legislation and regulations.

We have no problem in principle with that approach. In moving these disallowances we have not sought to disallow the entirety of the penalty notices regime. If those matters were disallowed there would not 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7213

on this occasion be a legislative void; instead, the previous regulations would be revived. Much of the vices that we see in the penalty notice regime that we seek to disallow existed with the previous regulations. We do not seek simply to throw our hands in the air and say it is all bad, and throw it out. What we have attempted to do in relation to both is to identify where the regulations are new and where they provide for a penalty that we think, having regard to the maximum available under law, is too low.

These regulations form much of the moving parts of this new legislative regime. They are very important, they are very detailed, but I do not know that they were the subject of extensive public consultation. I would hope that the Government at least consulted the stakeholders most directly affected, the Minerals Council of Australia and its constituent members. Equally, because of the wider public importance I would have thought it behoved the Government to have at least published draft regulations for the purposes of public consultation and feedback before making them. I do not believe that occurred.

What we have here is a series of remade regulations and new regulations that set money penalties by way of penalty notice that we think are too low having regard to the maximum. For example, in schedule 11 the penalty available for an offence under section 5 of the Mining Act—prospecting without an authority— previously the penalty available was $1,250 for an individual. That has been increased in this regulation to $2,500. The previous penalty for a corporation was $2,500. That has been increased to $5,000. There has been an increase in what was the case. We do not seek to disallow that. We note that is too low but we know the effect of disallowing that would be to go back to the even lower penalty.

Similarly, with penalty notices able to be given in relation to breaches of section 6—unauthorised carrying out of a mining purpose—the penalty there for both individuals and corporations is the same as it was; they have essentially been remade. We do not seek to disturb that, not because we agree with it but because we think all that would happen is the previous regulation would be revived. There is a series of breaches of orders made by the Minister, such as obstruction, where what is happening is simply that the regulations have been remade.

There are new matters that are being regulated for the first time. Having regard to the maximum penalties available at law, those money penalties are simply too low. This creates a problem with administration and undermining the integrity of the regime. When we look at the petroleum onshore regulations, previously the regulations dealt only with breach of mining titles. We seek to disallow all the new regulation, but for breaches of section 125E (1)—a contravention of a condition of petroleum title—because if the penalties against an individual for that breach of $2,500 and $5,000 for a corporation were repealed all that would do is return to the penalties under the previous regulation of $1,250 for an individual or $2,500 for a corporation if it related to environmental management.

A breach of section 7 concerns prospecting without authority, which was an existing provision before the mining bills were passed. For a natural person fines are up to $110,000 or $11,000 per day; for a corporation it is $555,000 or $55,000 a day. For the first time this regulation introduces the ability to have a penalty notice. This offence has been in place for a long time under the petroleum (onshore) legislation and never before have breaches of that section been able to be dealt with by way of a penalty notice. Previously matters would have gone to court. Relatively minor infringements would go to the lower court, which has a smaller jurisdiction, and more serious offences would go to the higher courts. That is the appropriate course for those serious breaches of this provision. The Government has introduced the ability for inspectors to issue administrative fines, which is unwarranted given the high penalty available under law for such a serious offence. If the Government was planning to introduce a series of money penalties for such a matter, they should have been the subject of more public consultation and discussion, and a better and more appropriate penalty reached.

A breach of section 78A of the petroleum (onshore) legislation, which is a new provision in the mining bills that were passed, concerns a failure to comply with a directional notice issue. The maximum penalty for an individual is $220,000 or $22,000 a day and $1.1 million for a corporation or $110,000 a day. The regulations introduce a penalty infringement option of $2,500 against a natural person or $5,000 against a corporation. A similar regime is put in place for breach of the new section 91A, which is a failure to pay a royalty. There is a series of new provisions, including 104O, which is a failure to provide information and records to an inspector, a failure to provide an inspector with reasonable assistance and facilities as specified in the notice, and a failure to answer questions put by an inspector, or to attend at a specified place and time to answer questions. There are similar provisions in relation to a failure to provide inspectors with a full name and residential address and impersonating an inspector, or a breach of 125C, which is obstruction of the holder of a petroleum licence, or 125D, which is providing false or misleading information. These are new provisions that were enacted with the passage of the cluster of mining bills last year. They are new matters in law and contain significant updates. 7214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

Apart from dealing with infringements by way of going to the appropriate court, depending on the level of seriousness, the Government has introduced penalty notices. The Opposition does not have a problem with the penalty notices in principle, but given that the maximum penalty under law is up to $1.1 million for corporations for serious breaches, the $5,000 penalty by way of a penalty notice presents a range of problems. First, it introduces a risk of corruption in the system. There is also an administrative burden. Government departments and agencies have been cut back and so there is increasing pressure on inspectors charged with enforcing the law to not undertake difficult investigations or prosecutions, particularly of important, powerful companies. It will be much easier to proceed by way of a relatively small on-the-spot fine.

Whether we are dealing with companies engaging in coal seam gas [CSG] exploration or extraction or mining exploration and extraction generally, we are talking about heavily capitalised companies with massive turnovers. In the scheme of things, a penalty of up to $5,000 is nothing. It is no deterrent to a breach of the law. The administrative convenience of issuing a fine as opposed to undertaking time-consuming, difficult and expensive investigations that may not proceed to court presents a significant risk of undermining the good intentions that were achieved by enacting those laws last year. Whether we are talking about CSG or other forms of mining, those laws set up an important new regime to regulate and enforce standards in the mining industry.

We think there is a risk of corruption, where officials of departmental agencies effectively will be directly or indirectly leaned on. Even if officials are not directly leaned on there will be pressure to go down the path of least resistance, the path of administrative convenience, to issue the much smaller on-the-spot fines as opposed to prosecuting in a court of law. Certainly, the pressure to do that would be too great over time. These regulations come at a time when the Government seeks to introduce measures to crack down on those engaging—

[Business interrupted.]

PARLIAMENTARY EMERGENCY EVACUATION EXERCISE

The PRESIDENT: Order! An emergency exercise to evacuate the building will now be conducted. Members are asked to follow the instructions of the wardens. I shall now leave the chair until the ringing of the long bell.

[The President left the chair at 10.30 a.m. The House resumed at 11.00 a.m.]

MINING ACT 1992: DISALLOWANCE OF MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016

PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) ACT 1991: DISALLOWANCE OF PETROLEUM (ONSHORE) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) REGULATION 2016

[Business resumed.]

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: As I indicated earlier, Labor does not oppose an administrative regime of penalty notices. We have moved these targeted disallowances to the regulations because there was not adequate public consultation about the appropriate level for each set of money fines. In relation to the most serious offences, the gap between the minimum and maximum in money penalties able to be applied administratively is too great. The gap is so great that it would create a corruption risk or certainly an administrative inconvenience risk to the point where, along the path of least resistance, enforcement will occur mainly at the lower end.

These regulations are being introduced at the same time as the Government is moving to promulgate laws to crack down on legitimate and peaceful protests. There is a risk of giving the community the impression that the Government is the political arm of the mining and the coal seam gas industries. On the one hand, it is cracking down on inconvenient public protests; on the other hand, it is going easy on the enforcement of law in relation to the mining industry. It would be most outrageous if the Government were perceived as the political wing of the mining and CSG industries. I certainly hope that is not the intention, but that is the impression this Government is giving through its collective actions.

To assist the Government out of its difficulties and to restore public confidence in government and the administration of justice in this State, Labor has sought to introduce these targeted disallowances. If these disallowance motions succeed, the Government can go back to the drawing board and consult widely, not only 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7215

with industry stakeholders but also with the broader community about the content of an appropriate penalty notice regime for all extractive industries in this State, including mining and coal seam gas. We earnestly ask all members to vote for these disallowance motions.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.05 p.m.]: For most of the time I have been in Parliament the Hon. Adam Searle has been here too. He came into Parliament a month or two after I did. I have to give him his dues: He is usually erudite, informed and passionate. I have listened to him for 10 or 15 minutes in this debate and it was like being struck with a piece of wet lettuce. The member's heart is not in these disallowance motions. I think we are witnessing a competition between The Greens and the Labor Party. I have heard many disallowance motion debates and I have heard good speeches from the Hon. Adam Searle on Acts of Parliament, amendments and so on. His heart was in those speeches, but his heart was not in the speech on these disallowance motions. He was just going through the motions.

In his speech the Hon. Adam Searle spent a lot of time congratulating the Government on including a new tool in the toolbox, the penalty notices, and then he was grasping at straws. The member talked about the risk of corruption and the lack of consultation, those sorts of things, but it was not his finest effort. It was as if he was thinking, "We've got to do something. The Greens are making mischief and putting out misinformation, so we had better get ahead of the pack."

The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: Mr Scot MacDonald well knows that if he wishes to reflect on a member of the House he should do so by way of substantive motion. I have sat quietly while he has laboured his points but he is now straying beyond the subject matter of the disallowance motions and engaging in reflections on me. I ask that he cease and desist, and that he address the subject matter—that is, the disallowance motions.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I apologise because I was not listening to the member.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Mr Deputy-President, no-one could criticise you for that because it was complete and utter rubbish. Nevertheless, I press my point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I will not uphold the point of order because I have to own up to not concentrating. Mr Scot MacDonald has heard the point of order. I will listen more closely to further debate.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I will return to the issue of penalty notices. As I said before, this is a new tool in the toolbox. This is about getting harmonisation between the petroleum industry and the mining industry, and that is a great step forward. There will be no diminuation in the maximum penalties against corporations. As was previously said, a person can still be prosecuted and can receive a maximum penalty of $1.1 million. So there has been no diminuation in any of that.

The Hon. Adam Searle: I think the member means there has been no diminution. "Diminuation" is not a word.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! We get the drift.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Mr Deputy-President, I am not sure the honourable member does.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: As I have said, the honourable member's heart was not in the disallowance motions. The warning notices are still available. The prosecution pathway is still available, with a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I hope the point of order is relevant.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: "Diminuation" is a word. 7216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The Hon. Adam Searle: Not in the context in which the member is using it.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: There has been an insinuation that the Government is somehow reducing its capacity to take—

The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: It was not an insinuation. I stated the case quite clearly and explicitly. I am being misrepresented.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! Although the debate is proceeding with good humour, I ask members to follow the rules of debate and not take frivolous points of order.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I will refer to some of the penalty notices that are available. They include prospecting or mining without an authority, an executive liability offence: for a person, $2,500 or for a corporation, $5,000; section 78 (a) breach of notice or direction: $2,500 for a person, or $5,000 for a corporation; failure to pay a fee or levy: $500 for a person, $1,000 for a corporation; failure to lodge a report: $1,250 for a person and $2,500 for a corporation; impersonating an inspector: $1,250 for a person or $2,500 for a corporation. There is nothing about impersonating a member of Parliament; that is not in the regulations. Continuing with the penalties, obstruction of the holder of a petroleum title: $250 for a person; and breach of section 125 (d), providing false or misleading information: $1,250 for a person.

These penalty notices are now available to the regulator. They are stronger than a warning notice and are able to be issued quickly. Instead the involvement of expense, time and risk in taking it to prosecution, where there may not be a win and where the maximum penalty may not be awarded, the Government is giving this capacity, or extra tool in the toolbox, to the regulator. The mining industry is on notice that the Government has increased the fines massively, by a factor of roughly 10. Before we came to government, there were slaps on the wrist. There had been a very cosy relationship between the previous Government and the mining industry. This Government does everything in its power to regulate strictly and fairly. This new capacity to deliver a penalty notice gives the regulator greater ability to reach a quick resolution with respect to a breach.

Mining companies will have the right to contest the penalty infringement notices. This is a media beat-up by Labor and The Greens. As has been seen in the last few days, The Government has been portrayed as jumping into bed with a particular sector of the industry. It has not. This Government has been tougher on the industry and is putting the industry on notice. The Environment Protection Authority [EPA] still has the right to impose significant fines.

The Hon. Adam Searle made a lukewarm contribution that was difficult to understand. He was going through the motion. These disallowance motions reflect a bit of one-upmanship on The Greens as to who can get more hits on social media. These motions do not reflect the facts. The regulations give significant powers to the Government to keep the industry in line, and that is the message we need to send. The regulations also address harmonisation with the petroleum industry being treated in the same manner as is the mining industry. That also is important. This Government is intent on making regulations easier to understand and fairer for the people of New South Wales. The Government will oppose these disallowance motions.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [11.10 a.m.]: The Greens support Labor's motions to disallow statutory rules in the Mining Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016. I listened intently to the contribution of the Hon. Adam Searle and I agree with everything he said and his arguments about schedule 2 of the Petroleum (Onshore) Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016. The Greens will not seek to amend these disallowance motions and, in good faith, will withdraw our proposed disallowance motion. As they say, great minds think alike. The Hon. Adam Searle and I came to the same conclusion when we looked at these regulations.

It is clear that the community welcomed the amendments to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act under which the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] had principal responsibility for overseeing this industry, which has caused so much concern. The exploration area is still handled by the Department of Industry, Division of Resources and Energy, and new penalties have been set. However, the Government has immediately undermined that regime by introducing these regulations. It has destroyed the integrity of the new penalties associated with offences, two of which were in the original Act. Another half dozen or so are new offences. Those offences were introduced for good reason after the coal seam gas and mining industries had routinely breached the titles. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7217

The community welcomed the new regime and its significant penalties for breaches, especially for breaches such as failure to pay a royalty or wilfully supply false information to avoid the payment of royalties. Breaches in the original Act included mining without authority and prospecting without authority. A key new penalty is in section 125D—providing false or misleading information. The community expects companies that are found guilty of breaching these regulations to be summoned before the appropriate court and fined. These companies are massive corporate entities, such as AGL Energy, Santos Limited and Arrow Energy, which is really a front for Royal Dutch Shell, and they have huge capitalisation and capacity to cause damage to the taxpayer and the environment of New South Wales. The penalties reflect the seriousness of offences.

One reason the Greens support these disallowance motions is that the gulf between the penalty infringement notice [PIN] and the legislative penalty is so massive that it undermines the force of the law and gives bureaucrats significant subjective powers, which is a potential corruption risk. Bureaucrats will be faced with the option of taking a huge corporate entity, like AGL, to court, to prosecute the company through a series of court hearings over many months and face an armada of lawyers, or serving the company with a penalty infringement notice. The Greens believe serving a penalty infringement notice would be a better course of action. We would welcome penalty infringement notices being served if they reflected the fines available to the EPA, which are $15,000 or $7,500.

However, a PIN for providing false or misleading information is just $1,250—about the same as a fine for littering. If a company such as AGL denies to have been knowingly prospecting for coal seam gas in the wrong spot but it is established to be true, the PIN is a fine of $1,250. That is nothing to these companies. Eastern Star Gas and Santos' Pilliga operations are multibillion dollar operations with recurrent expenditure in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A fine of $1,250 would be seen by them as just a bug on the windscreen. A fine of just $1,250 does not reflect in any way, shape or form the expectations of the community and the penalties enshrined in the Act. That is why The Greens agree with the Hon. Adam Searle that these regulations should be disallowed.

Significant penalties should be available to create a disincentive to breach regulations. These penalties create an incentive for companies to break the law. Section 125ZN concerns contravening an enforceable undertaking. That is when a company has behaved so badly by routinely breaching conditions of a title or an approval that the company has to enter into an arrangement for an enforceable undertaking. AGL was in that very situation in Camden. The company routinely breached the requirement to control and report its emissions, and as the company was repeatedly reported for these breaches it was forced into an enforceable undertaking with the Government. The fine is $1 million. Strangely, the Government has not put a penalty infringement notice in place. That is good; an enforceable undertaking is an endgame for polluters. When companies have enforceable undertaking it means they are at the end of the line. Why does "false and misleading information" not receive the same attention?

As I said, The Greens support Labor's disallowance motions and will withdraw our proposed disallowance motion. We accept the arguments of the Hon. Adam Searle as to the distinction between the motions. We say to the Government that it should do better. The Government should have a series of penalty infringement notices that reflect the severity of the offences. This Government has created a path of least resistance for coal seam gas companies while introducing a new regime of penalties for protestors. Those penalties include new section 201, which introduces a $5,500 penalty or seven years jail for aggravated trespass. That is an abomination. The community understands and will weigh up the dichotomy of the Government's actions. The Government is sending the wrong message. The penalty infringement notices should reflect the penalties in the Act.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [11.20 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to this important debate. To allay the concerns of Mr Scot MacDonald, there is no lack of passion on this side of the House about pursuing the integrity of the administration of the system of mining and other extractive industries licences. The laws are intended to safeguard environmental and public safety and public revenue, as well as to ensure that the system of licensing for extractive industries in this State, by which our mineral and other resources are exploited, is done fairly, properly and in accordance with the law. Labor reiterates its concern that many of these regulations provide for administrative fines that are far too low given the seriousness of the offences to which they are attached.

The Labor Party is not opposed to a sensible balanced system of administrative fines. Labor believes that has great utility. The fines need to be graduated and at a level that reflects the objective seriousness of the different levels of offending. At the moment, given the maximums available in law, that can be done by going to 7218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

the appropriate court in the appropriate jurisdiction. The Opposition understands the need for administrative convenience and the ability to pursue some matters by way of administrative fines. The Opposition supports that. There has been no public consultation about these regulations. The fines proposed are, in the main, far too low. They are so low that they create a corruption risk, and they will undermine public confidence in the integrity and utility of the laws. The fines are so low that they will simply not constitute any deterrence to any of the persons or entities that may breach these laws from time to time.

Labor is not saying throw everything out. We have selected certain parts of the regulations. We know that in the main all of the penalties are too low, but the effect of repealing some of the penalties will be to go back to even lower fines. We invite the Government to revisit the system, to engage in meaningful public consultation with industry stakeholders, environment groups, farmers, community organisations and the wider community, and to settle on a system of administrative fines that is more appropriate and better directed to safeguarding public, community, environmental safety and the public revenue. That is the responsibility of a responsible Opposition, which we are. Labor is holding the Government to account for its poor decisions.

Last year Labor supported, with amendments, the passage of those mining bills because despite their imperfections they represented a significant modernisation of the laws governing extractive industries in this State. Those bills held out a great deal of promise and hope. That has faltered with the Government's implementation of the penalty notices regime. Labor is holding the Government to account and asks the House to disallow the selected regulations and to send the Government back to the drawing board, back to the community and to return with a better and improved system. That is what we stand for and we ask the House to support us.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: As a matter of clarification, will the House be voting on these motions seriatim?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Adam Searle moved the motions in globo. Does the member anticipate the House will vote on them as one or they will be put seriatim?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My understanding is that when moved in globo they are dealt with on one vote. If there is an administrative process that requires them to be voted on seriatim I do not cavil with that.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): As they are disallowance motions, it is appropriate to vote on each motion separately. The motions will be dealt with seriatim.

Question—That the motion regarding disallowance of Mining Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016 be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 16

Ms Barham Mr Pearson Mr Veitch Mr Buckingham Mr Primrose Ms Voltz Ms Cotsis Mr Searle Dr Faruqi Mr Secord Tellers, Mrs Houssos Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Mookhey Mr Shoebridge Mr Moselmane

Noes, 21

Mr Ajaka Mr Farlow Mrs Mitchell Mr Amato Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Taylor Mr Borsak Mr Green Mr Brown Mr MacDonald Mr Clarke Mrs Maclaren-Jones Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Mallard Mr Franklin Ms Cusack Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7219

Pair

Mr Wong Mr Pearce

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Question—That the motion regarding disallowance of Petroleum (Onshore) Legislation Amendment (Harmonisation) Regulation 2016 be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.

The House divided.

Ayes, 16

Ms Barham Mr Pearson Mr Veitch Mr Buckingham Mr Primrose Ms Voltz Ms Cotsis Mr Searle Dr Faruqi Mr Secord Tellers, Mrs Houssos Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Mookhey Mr Shoebridge Mr Moselmane

Noes, 21

Pair

Mr Wong Mr Pearce

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 3 withdrawn on motion by Mr Jeremy Buckingham.

SYDNEY ARCHITECTURE FESTIVAL

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD [11.40 a.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Sydney Architecture Festival is an annual event presented by the Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter and the NSW Architects Registration Board;

(b) this year the event was held across four days, from 2 to 5 October 2015 and included talks and presentations from a number of celebrated Sydney architects, drawing and yoga classes as well as a short film competition held at the recently opened "Goods Line" in Ultimo;

7220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

(c) the Sydney Architecture Festival enables the community to participate in and enjoy the history and architecture of Sydney and helps promote Sydney's cultural identity as a contemporary city of quality architecture; and

(d) the event was attended by City of Sydney Councillor Jenny Green; the member for Sydney, Mr Alex Greenwich, MP; and the Hon. Shayne Mallard, representing the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Rob Stokes.

(2) That this House congratulates:

(a) the festival directors, being Lucy Humphrey, Claire McCaughan and John O'Callaghan, for successfully bringing together a variety of creative activities and discussions for the festival; and

(b) festival sponsors, supporters and partners including Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, City of Sydney Council, the German-Australian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, AMP Capital, and the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences.

I am proud today to move this motion and speak about the Sydney Architecture Festival, which I attended on behalf of the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Rob Stokes. I would like to touch on the importance of good architecture to our State and the centrality of architecture to good government in New South Wales. I invite members to reflect upon the architecture in New South Wales that moves them or the aspects of the built environment they feel have an important role to play in our lives and the lives of our citizens. This motion notes the role that the Sydney Architecture Festival has in enabling the community to participate in and enjoy the history and architecture of Sydney and how it helps to promote Sydney's cultural identity as a contemporary city of quality architecture.

The motion congratulates all those involved in bringing the festival to life: the festival directors, Lucy Humphrey, Claire McCaughan and John O'Callaghan, and the hosts, the Australian Institute of Architects and the New South Wales Architects Registration Board. I note the festival sponsors and supporters, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, the Council of the City of Sydney and the German-Australian Chamber of Commerce. The University of Technology Sydney with its well-known architecture facility is to be congratulated on not only sponsoring the event but also providing wide coverage and encouraging participation in the festival by its students and graduates.

The Sydney Architecture Festival was held across four days from 2 to 5 October 2015 and included talks and presentations from a number of celebrated architects as well as a short film competition held at the recently opened Goods Line in Ultimo, a new space I will return to later in my speech. With some small amount of trepidation I attended the evening outdoor short film festival competition, which had some interesting and eccentric entries. The winner of the competition, Boxing Day 2040: William's Story—which can be found at vimeo.com—was particularly interesting. The hand sketches of Alex Symes, a talented local young architect, filmed in stop motion portray a fictional Sydney Boxing Day in 2040 from the perspective of William, a 26-year-old solar thermal engineering graduate. The ideas portrayed in his short film are a mix of a quirky daydream about what the future of Sydney could look like and projects currently on the drawing board of the New South Wales Government, such as the renewal of Parramatta Road—which in his film he called Parramatta Street.

My favourite aspect of William's future is his uncle's cyclable restaurant, a pushbike restaurant, which had enough room for a family of five to cycle all the way to Mrs Macquarie's Chair whilst dining—I note I do not think they were wearing helmets in the video. The film shows that the architectural festival is not only an opportunity to showcase the city but also a unique moment for the community to imagine what the future of Sydney might look like—to dream. We all on some level connect with the built environment. Whether we like it or not we must accept that we live in, around and between buildings, as the Danish architect Jan Gehl said famously in his 2006 book Life Between Buildings, which redefined how cities look at the public spaces. This is why it is so important that the New South Wales Government gets architecture and urban design right and it is why for 200 years this year we have had a dedicated Government Architect's Office at the very centre of the State's built environment agenda. As an aside, to commemorate the 200 years there is an exhibition at the State Library with drawings and history of the Government Architect's Office. I commend that exhibition to members; it continues until May.

Governments have always played a vital role in shaping our built environment. Most of the important buildings in our city—the ones that the public interacts with on a daily basis—are key social and institutional buildings that by and large have been built by government; buildings such as parliaments, town halls, museums, schools, hospitals, courthouses, libraries, and, dare I say, prisons. If we look at Macquarie Street alone we can see a collection of civic and public buildings that some would argue—and with which I agree—form the best civic boulevard in Australia. From the Hyde Park Barracks to the Sydney Opera House we have a street 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7221

containing a diversity of architectural styles that should be the envy of the world. We have the Georgian colonnades of the Rum Hospital, which evolved into separate precincts—the Mint building, the Victorian grandeur of the Sydney Hospital, and this building, the State's Parliament.

Opposite our Parliament in Martin Place is the Reserve Bank of Australia building, an eminent example of the international style, clad in white marble, designed specifically to reflect the bank's prestige and its leadership of the Australian financial system. Further down the road the Chief Secretary's building, designed by the colonial architect James Barnett, sits proudly. It was described in 1891 by a Sydney newspaper as a poem in stone. These are just a few of the many significant works of architecture in the civic streetscape of Macquarie Street. I think we could do more to celebrate it. We could widen the footpaths and introduce more open spaces to give visitors and residents the opportunity to stop, reflect and learn the history of our State and country from Macquarie Street.

These buildings embody architecture centrality to the governance of New South Wales, a tradition that goes back to the earliest days of the colony when architecture and buildings were required to promote the power and authority of a distant government. Governor Lachlan Macquarie's passion and insistence that emancipists be treated as social equals with free settlers was matched only by his insistence on building new public buildings. It was the criticism of his liberal policies and the extent of his public works program that forced him to board a ship back to Britain in the 1820s.

Many believe it is probable that Governor Macquarie and his wife even designed the old Rum Hospital—the building that now forms part of this Parliament House—with only minimal input from the Government Architect of that time, an emancipated convict himself, Francis Greenway. This somewhat aggressive public works program goes some of the way to explaining that in this period of Sydney's history the State was a primary patron of architecture. The architecture of the day would primarily serve the State's purpose of protecting its status in this still fragile, infant colony, where the authority, discipline and rule of law from distant Britain was always under threat. Francis Greenway accordingly designed barracks, forts, lighthouses and prisons, buildings that projected the overwhelming power of the State, or at least an image of that power.

Sydney is no different from the rest of the world's major cities when it comes to the evolution of its skyline. Being a young nation we missed out on the grand European era of the church steeples. But we still have a few notable examples: St James' Church, St Andrew's Cathedral, and more recently the faux steeples at St Mary's Cathedral. Then came an era of the State, which I have just described. Following that era was the exciting era of commerce around the world where buildings and cities grew vertically above the steeples and government buildings. It was an age of financial capital from the skyscrapers of the 1960s, such as the AMP Tower, helped by Harry Seidler, to Barangaroo today.

For many of us the intoxication of the 1980s is something we would rather not remember. This was an age when entrepreneurs like Alan Bond became the patrons of architecture in order to project a different kind of power: the power of ego, the power of financial capital, and ultimately the power of debt. A great example of this can be found at Chifley Tower, which was to be called the Bond Tower. To paraphrase Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the most valuable capital in the twenty-first century is no longer financial capital, it is human capital. If this is true, then our cities must also be designed for human capital to human scale, which takes us back to Jan Gehl's seminal work. Governments continue to have a key role to play and the New South Wales Government, in particular, has a good track record in supporting projects that approach public design in this way such as the Goods Line, which played host to the Sydney Architecture Festival. Nothing embodies the renaissance in our appreciation for quality public space more than the Goods Line. The landscape architect of the scheme, Sacha Coles, perfectly sums it up:

What was once a conduit for trade has been reinterpreted to carry the precious cargo of a thriving neighbourhood: culture, creativity and community.

It has rightly earned the moniker of Sydney's High Line. More importantly, it shows what can be done with the thinnest wedges of public places within densely populated urban centres. As Sydney grows and moves towards high-density living, the lesson of the Goods Line could be applied to other spaces in the city. For example, the controversial and not much loved Cahill Expressway easily could become the perfect space for an urban park, carrying pedestrians and even a eucalypt forest but not necessarily excluding vehicles. The Goods Line is an example of an issue that the Government is already addressing, which is the need for our central business district to be more pedestrian friendly.

Last century, Sydney, like most major western cities around the world, capitulated to motor vehicles, giving away public space around the State Library and the Royal Botanic Gardens to freeways, removing 7222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

cyclists as well as pedestrians from the city. If, as acclaimed urban designer Jan Gehl says, we spend the majority of our lives between the buildings, then we have lost a major proportion of this space to motor vehicles rather than people. I acknowledge the work that the City of Sydney has done in past years in creating spaces between buildings and planning spaces that are more suitable for pedestrians. The work that was done by the City of Sydney and Jan Gehl in the Sydney 2030 project has been taken up by this Government, which has resulted in the light rail project in George Street, rebuilding of the convention centre, and building over the top of the rail lines at Central station and the Eveleigh precinct.

Those projects were part of the master planning document. I am proud to be a member of this Government that has once again placed people front and centre in the design of our city streets. The light rail project will reinvent George Street, which is one of the great boulevards of the world. We know that people friendly cities are more sustainable, more liveable and more commercially viable. For some members in this place it might seem like utopian thinking, but as the Minister for Planning in the other place has said, the benefits of a more prosperous, thriving, liveable Sydney will in turn flow through to regional New South Wales in the form of people, goods, services and capital. Therefore, what is good for Sydney is good for New South Wales and ultimately for Australia.

The days of buildings being solely designed, procured, built and owned by government are over, as is its monopoly on the provision of those services. Government should not let go of the leadership role it plays in the championing of good public design. There are far too many examples of what happens when governments of all persuasions abandon the role of chief advocate for quality public space and public buildings. It is a testament to the rich architectural tradition that has developed in Sydney over time on the back of Australian architects such as Harry Seidler and Glenn Murcutt, and international maestros such as Renzo Piano and Jorn Utzon that we no longer need to rely on governments to provide good public design. Instead, governments now need to be the expert client commissioning and enabling design excellence. It is the policy makers who will continue to determine the drawing boards on which the architects of this century will operate. Many of those architects will be young women from Australian universities.

This is where agencies such as the Government Architect's Office must play a vital role in helping governments to lead by example through supporting higher quality urban design outcomes. Without a robust Government Architect who is prepared to give frank and fearless advice to the Government, public architecture will be in danger of being left to simple political expediency of the day, short-term agendas and the vagaries of Treasury. That is why I am a supporter of the restructure that has occurred at the Government Architect's Office. The current occupier of this distinguished post, Peter Poulet, is spearheading a new era and revitalising the role of the Government Architect.

Members will know the office has been relocated from the finance department to the Department of Planning and Environment under Minister Rob Stokes, who is passionate about better urban design and higher quality holistic community outcomes. The transfer has focused the office away from competing with the private sector to design buildings for the Government, because there are many excellent architects and firms that can now do that, to being central to the better designs across the spectrum of government activity. Based in the planning department it will intersect with the planning reforms that are aimed at driving better outcomes for our State, including the Greater Sydney Commission, which is chaired by former Lord Mayor Lucy Turnbull. The office wants to emerge as a thought leader and commentator on design in our city, our State and our society. I strongly support the evolution of the role.

However, I would take it further. The Government Architect's Office should be a statutory body that reports to Parliament and that is fearless in providing public advocacy for our planning and architectural activities. The office should have the mandate to range across all of government, providing advice and commentary on design excellence, similar to that of the Heritage Council of NSW, which is chaired by heritage architect Stephen Davies. I make mention of the Sirius building in The Rocks. The Heritage Council of NSW has called for it be listed and preserved for the future. It is a good example of late brutalist architecture with an attractive cubist form made of preform concrete. A lot of people hate it, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have always admired it from the Harbour Bridge, and would like to see it preserved and incorporated into future development.

The Government has a big infrastructure and development agenda. The Government Architect should be central to the design and assessment of proposals such as the light rail, public housing renewal, and building projects such as Barangaroo and the new convention centre. Whilst I have confidence that Minister Stokes will not shy away from an independently minded Government Architect, that cannot always be said about Ministers. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7223

I was on the Central Sydney Planning Committee with the Government Architect of the day, assessing the Fraser development, or what is now Central Park, which is opposite the University of Technology Sydney at Broadway. I remind members that the Labor planning Minister of the day, Frank Sartor, amended the City of Sydney Act and removed the Government Architect from the prestigious and powerful Central Sydney Planning Authority because they would not do the Minister's dirty work and approve overdevelopment of the site. Labor put a stain on the history of the Government Architect's Office.

I acknowledge that some elements of the building facing Broadway are attractive and the garden walls make a difference, but the argument between the Government Architect and the Minister was that much of the brewery heritage buildings would be demolished. I am surprised that Labor supported what happened because the history of the brewery and its workers is part of Labor's history. Frank Sartor demolished the brewery buildings and replaced them with ordinary buildings, which are now used for student housing. That example reinforces the need for a strong, independent Government Architect.

Not every building must be a masterpiece or the Sydney Opera House, but the role of the Government must be to encourage the emergence of a market that stimulates architectural competition and buildings that make our cities more liveable, sustainable and commercially viable. The Sydney Architecture Festival is an example of an event that champions this approach to our cities. It allowed for frank discussions and reflection on our city's architecture from architects, non-architects and architecture students. It brought the community together for a moment to think about and enjoy what the built environment has to offer. I am sure such events will continue to be successful in the future. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.59 a.m.]: I would like to make a few points about the statements of the Hon. Shayne Mallard. While I appreciate that the Sydney Architecture Festival—which is usually held over a month but was condensed to a week in October 2015—has some interesting ideas, I did not hear from the honourable member about anything outside the central business district [CBD]. He spoke about Parramatta Road, but he did not talk about anything to do with architecture and design in the redevelopment and renewal of Parramatta Road. Indeed, the Government removed the transport plan from the Draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy and closed down community consultation on it.

We know that 28 per cent of the proposed residential apartments on Parramatta Road will be in the electorate of Granville, yet we did not hear one word about anywhere outside the city. Employment areas on Parramatta Road at Granville will be replaced by residential properties. I do not know where the jobs are going and how much further people will be travelling to get to them. I also do not know how the Government will be able to fit 19,000 more people into that part of Parramatta Road at Granville. It will be interesting to learn whether the Hon. Shayne Mallard would like to see the Government Architect have a role in the renewal of Parramatta Road. That would be hugely important. Maybe he could suggest to his Government that it become involved—

The Hon. Shayne Mallard: I just did.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: No, you did not. Maybe the member should become involved in the gateway process, which his Government is using to deal with State significant developments, which are no longer dealt with by local governments. These matters have been taken out of the hands of local government and sent to the Department of Planning and Environment. I congratulate the Australian Institute of Architects on holding the Sydney Architectural Festival. Maybe next year the institute could go to Parramatta and look at some of the important heritage sites, such as the Parramatta Female Factory, that are under threat from this Government.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW [12.01 p.m.]: I did not intend take part in this debate. However, after the Hon. Lynda Voltz's outburst I think it is time for me to give the House a bit of a history lesson in respect of what the Labor Party has done. I remember the Parramatta Road strategy that the Labor Party had when I was on Strathfield Council and when I was the Mayor of Strathfield. We had meetings about the Parramatta Road strategy when we said, "If there are 20,000 extra people going into Strathfield where are you going to put the schools?" Members of the Labor Party would say, "There is a school there—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Where is your plan for schools?

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: That is a good question: Where are the schools? Under this Coalition Government a school has been set up in Strathfield to accommodate some of that growth—the Marie Bashir 7224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

Public School, which was opened by the Premier in the last term of this Government. Members of the Labor Party have double standards because they come into this Chamber and say, "This Government doesn't care about architecture, planning or anything outside the Sydney metropolitan region." That is absolute rubbish. This Government is focused on Western Sydney and on the redevelopment and revitalisation of our city. As the Hon. Shayne Mallard has said, this Government is putting the proper processes in place. This Government is looking at what is important and making sure that there is no political interference in the processes, as the Hon. Shayne Mallard mentioned.

This Government believes that we need to get planning in this city right. When it comes to problems in Sydney we cannot just put up our hands and say, "Sydney is full," as Bob Carr did. This Government says, "This is a global city—a city on the move." We will have to work out how to accommodate more and more people in this city and in this State. The Government is being led by Rob Stokes in that endeavour; he has been a fantastic Minister for Planning. As the Hon. Shayne Mallard mentioned, architecture, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the buildings that the Hon. Shayne Mallard may see as masterpieces, I may see as eyesores. The great thing about architecture is that it can unite and divide. When it comes to design we are all motivated in different ways. We can admire the beauty of some buildings, while we see some buildings as eyesores. I acclaim architects for their inspiration, their creativity and their designs, but I am somewhat reluctant to think that governments should demand what that design should be.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY [12.04 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Shayne Mallard for noting the wonderful Sydney Architecture Festival. I am a connoisseur of urban design. I love nothing more than talking about agglomeration and public spaces, and how we can combine the two to create wealth. I also like talking about the records of governments, include Liberal governments. I draw particular attention to the list of wonderful public buildings cited by my good friend the Hon. Shayne Mallard. He made the point about the Chief Secretary's Building and the Department of Education Building, which sits at the end of the street. He said that they are wonderful city buildings that have served the public well since their construction. They would continue to serve the public well if they continued as civic buildings. But the member omitted to mention to this House that the Government is selling them; that the buildings will be turned into hotels. The Government is flogging off these buildings to the highest bidder. That was an aspect of the Government's agenda that the member omitted from his speech.

Ironically, the decision to sell those buildings has been condemned by the Australian Institute of Architects many times, but the honourable member failed to mention that point. He talked about the wonderful legacy of Francis Greenway, the ex-convict who built much of our public spaces and public buildings. Greenway was the first architect to practice a distinctly Australian architectural style. The Hon. Shayne Mallard spoke about the Female Prison Factory in Parramatta and the other buildings in the heritage precinct. The Female Prison Factory is dear to the heart of the Labor Party because it was the site of the first form of industrial action taken by anyone in the colony. That industrial action was taken by women—we should mention this because it was International Women's Day two days ago—to get more rations. They were not protesting to get more wages; they wanted more food.

The architecture in that area should be celebrated—it has been—by the Architecture Festival of Sydney. The Hon. Shayne Mallard failed to mention that his Government is putting 4,000 residents in high-rise towers right next door to the Female Prison Factory, despite the opposition of the entire community and the Royal Australian Historical Society, which, incidentally, has just secured nomination for World Heritage listing for those buildings. It is unbelievable that a Government would put up 4,000 residents in massive new 30-storey apartment buildings right next to the very architecture that he extols.

Members in this Chamber should celebrate Sydney's architecture. My colleague the Hon. Lynda Voltz has made multiple references to architecture outside the centre of Sydney, which are equally worthy of celebration. Worthy architecture is not limited to the city. If people go out to Broken Hill they will see the first heritage-listed town and the beautiful buildings built by the trade union movement—something we should note. I noted the Hon. Shayne Mallard's motion and his contribution to the debate on it, but much of the heritage architecture that he talked about was, many decades ago, under threat by a Liberal Government that wanted to construct massive highways through those areas. The member failed to mention that the wonderful streets through Glebe to The Rocks form another fantastic heritage precinct where a Liberal Premier once wanted to build a massive highway. That was stopped by the green bans, led by Jack Mundey, of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union—the demonised CFMEU.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Good friends of yours. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7225

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: They are friends of mine—and friends of Sydney architecture and the people who are responsible for preserving our heritage. The honourable member failed to mention that history. I will conclude by saying that it is well and good to move these types of motions and to use them to get invitations to the latest glitzy opening. It is wonderful for the member to do this to ingratiate himself with the architecture glitterati of the city. I do not begrudge him that; I congratulate him. It is good to see that we still have members of the Liberal Party who are prepared to be forward looking and forward thinking; there are not many of them. If passing motions like this strengthens the honourable member's arm so that he can save these buildings, I say, "All power to him." The reality is that much of Sydney's architecture has been saved not by Liberal governments but by Labor governments and the industrial wing of our great movement. That is why we are able to have these celebrations and sell ourselves as a global city reminded of our past, which is expressed through our wonderful buildings.

Ms JAN BARHAM [12.08 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Shayne Mallard for moving this motion on the Sydney Architecture Festival. It is a pleasure to have a member of this place who is willing to initiate a discussion about the importance of architecture to the way we live, something that is rarely discussed in this place. I am disappointed I did not get to the festival. Hopefully this year I will make it, but I acknowledge that it was an important event to bring together some leading thinkers on architecture and its role in our health, wellbeing, the landscape and the future. I note that the event started on World Architecture Day, 5 October, and its theme was "architecture, society and environment". Those are important words about how we live. Often architecture is set aside from who we are and how we live when it actually engages with all our senses and experiences.

Another theme of the festival was "architecture, building and climate". As members are aware, I have talked about climate quite a bit. It is important to acknowledge that architects give us an opportunity to present a world of not only beauty but also function to deal with changing climate and likely future changes. We should engage with architects to explore how best to manage the way we live in the future. A lot will come from the festival and I hope that the Government plays a role in supporting forward-thinking views adapting to climate change in architecture. If we embrace these changes we could adapt to the future, and architects are well placed to lead a discussion on better design to meet the challenge of climate change.

I take this opportunity to raise topics of interest I have raised previously in the House, in particular the grand old architecture that the Hon. Shayne Mallard referred to in his contribution. These buildings are as old as they get in Australia, but they are young compared to some great European buildings. These grand civic buildings are beautiful and they reflect on the architecture of Europe. They speak of the importance of our democracy and institutions. I feel special and excited when I walk up the steps to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The style of the building makes you feel as though you are entering a special place full of secrets and exciting experiences, and that comes down to design. Architects are important because they know how to create that experience.

One of my favourite Sydney buildings is the Sirius building, although I know many people think it is ugly. It reflects brutalist architecture and people love to hate it. Some of us love to love it because it is a rugged, strong building that challenges us. Its functionality scares some people because it does not play to a sense of beauty, in the common sense of the word. Sirius does not have frilly bits and a warm, fuzzy feeling about it. It is strong and solid because part of its function is as social housing for the future. It had to be practical and low maintenance. It was one of the first prefab buildings with its concrete slabs manufactured offsite. When they were delivered the building was fitted together like a Lego set. It is still in perfect condition today because it was designed by an architect, Tao Gofers, who understood the new technology of the time. Gofers was trained in the Bauhaus tradition by some of Europe's finest teachers, such as Le Corbusier.

Gofers brought to Australia the skills to deliver a new style of architecture. We know it did not catch on and people did not warm to it, but its legacy is a building of great importance. The Heritage Council has recommended that it must be preserved, and we would be mad if we did not heed this advice. Sirius is in a perfect location. I used to enjoy looking at it when I travelled across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on my way to work. I enjoyed the novelty of it being a stepped building. It was inhabited by people and housed their possessions—photographs, signs, Buddhist prayer flags—showing the human side of this strong, solid building. The Heritage Council has advised the Government to protect this special building. Sirius was built to last at least 100 years. Why are we tempted to tear down such buildings and waste all those materials? In so doing we also waste the opportunity for our city to have a diversity of design. Sydney would make a mistake by not preserving and protecting our heritage and so become homogenised in design with only contemporary buildings. We must keep bits that are relevant. 7226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

I recognise that the site on which Sirius was built is important, but why does the Government feel the need to sell it? I do not agree with selling it, but I accept that it is a decision to be made by the Government. Allowing Sirius to be destroyed so the site can be redeveloped with a higher density because of the value of the site would be shocking. We would lose a building of great importance. I do not believe the Government is so short of a buck that it has to sell this building, because we have the proceeds of selling the electricity poles and wires and the fact that New South Wales is the number one State. We seem to be pretty loaded at the moment, but if the Government believes it has to sell this building, I ask that it not be ruined. This building could be recognised as being an iconic building in Sydney, as I have said in conversation with the Hon. Shayne Mallard.

Sirius is like no other building and it could be repurposed as a tourist attraction. Tourism is an important industry for this State and an iconic building would cause such a buzz internationally. It could become the celebrity place of choice. Some years ago I travelled to Venice Beach, which has kept its Art Deco design. Every celebrity and rock star wants to be in Venice Beach and pay huge money to be in these fabulous buildings because it is about the experience of being in an original building like nothing else we can create today. These buildings are of another time, with detail and finishes you do not see in modern buildings. I call on the Government to rethink its position on Sirius: It is an important building for all of us and if the Government needs to extract a financial return from the site, I ask that the Government think creatively. The Hon. Shayne Mallard has shown that he thinks creatively and we need more of that, particularly when thinking about the Sirius building that is a State treasure. I hope this gives members an idea of how I feel about the building.

I turn to architecture in general. When I was young I was fortunate to meet some of the country's greatest architects. One in particular has become a lifelong friend, Mr Peter Stutchbury. Last year I moved a motion to acknowledge that Mr Stutchbury was recognised as the Australian Institute of Architects gold medal recipient, after a lifetime of work watched by many. Mr Stutchbury has been consistent in his commitment to a sense of place, understanding the important role of designing for place and people in that place. Peter Stutchbury has maintained a commitment that is often referred to as intense, romantic, unbending, fresh or beyond our times. That commitment is about creating buildings that speak about the place they inhabit and the importance of understanding place.

This ideation is the product of time he has spent with Aboriginal people, together with one of his teachers, and another great Australian architect, Richard Leplastrier. They do not just design; they stay through the seasons to gain a sense of place and to understand what a building or structure will feel like in that setting. It is important to know the breezes and the direction of the sun. This is what architects do—they understand how we live in nature and best inhabit that place. Whilst I did not get to the festival, I attended the final talk of his international tour in recognition of the architect's gold medal at Tusculum House. He slipped his leash and started talking about the things that really matter: the need to respect Aboriginal people and what we can learn from them about place, nature, and the way we protect and preserve heritage.

Mr Stutchbury spoke about climate change. If we do not face up to the reality of how we live with nature and plan for it now, step up to the mark and recognise that we are living in a time where we have a foreseeable risk, we are negligent. I tried to move a motion about climate change this morning. As elected members of Parliament it would be a breach of our duty of care if we did not face it. It is real. I am sure if we asked people who do not believe to put up their hands no-one would do so. Even if people do not believe in climate change, the chances that it is real are very clear, so why not at least plan for it? Architects have an important role to play in planning sustainable buildings. The motion I tried to move this morning referred to heat. Buildings can be designed to keep us cool without having a huge energy impost. I did it with the library in Byron Bay, where we have green walls. In the city we are now seeing green walls and roofs that cool the city down. We know it is hot. We are feeling it now and we will feel it into the future.

It is important to engage with architects because they can help us meet that challenge to adapt. To be fearful of it is a bit silly. Let us at least hedge our bets and go with it. It is important that we make that commitment to the future and design for climate change adaptation. There are many people now employing sustainable infrastructure. I invite the Hon. Shayne Mallard to participate in a forum that will start a conversation about what we can do and the ways we can adapt. I know that one of the festival participants in Sydney last year, Scott Ludlam—winner of awards for design in planning and future ways of dealing with architecture and how we house people—would be an eager participant. It is now possible to design modular buildings for high-density living that do not detract from people's experience in a city in a natural environment. We need to start the conversation. I thank the Hon. Shayne Mallard for moving this motion. I look forward to future motions and opportunities to enliven this place with challenging discussions about art, beauty, sense of place, the challenge of the future, and how we can meet that challenge and be responsible members. We must take on board what the future will bring. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7227

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN [12.24 p.m.]: I will comment on the remarks made by the Hon. Jan Barham. I agree that the advances and focus on greening and environmental architecture is terrific and is something that we should focus on to a greater degree. I support that. I appreciated her discussion about the importance of a sense of place and that architecture is bigger than a building here or there; it can start to define our own identities. I appreciated that. I am not sure we are on the same page about the Sirius building and its objective appeal. Sydney's architecture, especially inner Sydney, is a collision of the old versus the new. Sydney is often called "the unplanned city" due to its ad hoc expansion dating back to early settlement. In 2007 the inaugural Sydney Architecture Festival was located in the forecourt of Sydney's Customs House. In 2015 the Sydney Architecture Festival returned to Customs House for key events. Customs House was built in 1844 and epitomises the fusion of rich history and modern creativity. In fact, the Customs House site is where the Eora people are said to have witnessed the landing of the first fleet in 1788.

Sydney truly is a global city. Interestingly, the Sydney Architecture Festival culminated on World Architecture Day and took place at the Sydney Opera House. Along with the Sydney Harbour Bridge, it is the single most recognisable landmark in Australia. We sometimes see through a lens of city versus country. There is no denying the importance of Sydney to our regional communities. Many of the products from primary industries that come from the regions are consumed by our ever-growing city. When children from regional areas finally make it to the big city the architecture is the very first thing they notice. I remember as a child that on the rare occasion that we would venture to Sydney from Barham I was always struck by the sheer size of the central business district's [CBD] buildings and the mix of historic and modern architecture. There are not many cities that have modern megastructures towering over old Victorian terrace houses that have somehow survived the modern era. Seeing Customs House nestled in amongst skyscrapers in Sydney's famous Circular Quay is a fine example of the juxtaposition.

The Sydney Architecture Festival is a celebration of the fact that Sydney is on the cusp of a creative boom. The festival aims to enable the community to participate in and enjoy the history and architecture of Sydney, tackle the hard questions about Sydney's sustainable growth, and ultimately promote Sydney's cultural identity as a global city. The centrepiece of the Sydney Architecture Festival was the recently opened Goods Line, a brand-new pedestrian and cycle network from Railway Square and Ultimo to Darling Harbour. The Goods Line, as the Hon. Shayne Mallard has noted, is similar to New York's High Line. It is a triumph of urban renewal, having won an Australian award for urban design in 2014. It is the restoration of a defunct piece of infrastructure for community use and a textbook case study in urban regeneration.

For nearly 150 years the Goods Line served as the main artery of Sydney. It is a short stretch of railway that moves between Central Station and Darling Harbour. Most of the CBD's goods were transported along the Goods Line that went to Darling Harbour and connected it to everything to the west. All regional produce like wool, grain and meat made its way to inner Sydney along the Goods Line. It is a historic piece of infrastructure that would have been a tragedy to lose. It is now a new urban hub that connects more than 80,000 tertiary students, locals and tourists to Sydney's iconic Darling Harbour. Its platforms are now used for public entertainment, recreation, study and other activities. It further connects arts, education and cultural institutions in Sydney's cultural district. With the goods line south soon to be redesigned it forms part of a larger project.

It is a great concept to redesign and reutilise defunct infrastructure. As our State grows and old infrastructure is replaced by new technologies, it inevitably leaves well-engineered projects behind. On the Northern Rivers the disused Casino to Murwillumbah rail line has been the focus of many proposals for a Northern Rivers rail trail. I have expressed my unequivocal support for the Northern Rivers rail trail. Like the former member for Ballina, Don Page, I acknowledge the substantial economic and other benefits to the local community. Tourism is an immense part of the economy in the Northern Rivers. The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport literally carries hundreds of thousands of passengers in and out of the region every year and a significant proportion are tourists. Tourism is and will continue to be an important contributor to the lifeblood of the region. Rail trails are becoming more and more popular among tourists in Australia and their popularity has been demonstrated around the world. The proposed Northern Rivers rail trail would be a fantastic use for that corridor, as was the redesign of the goods line in Ultimo.

Our concept of history, our understanding of the world and even our identity as individuals are strongly shaped by our built environment, the places where we live and work. The Sydney Architecture Festival acknowledges this importance. It acknowledges our past, celebrates our present and builds innovation and excitement for our future. I commend this motion of support for the Sydney Architecture Festival and I hope that one day soon we may also be able to celebrate a regional architecture festival as an acknowledgement of the extraordinary buildings and infrastructure that exist in every town throughout our State. 7228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [12.29 p.m.]: I remind The Greens in this Chamber and everywhere else that architecture is the story of the triumph of man over nature. If we were to listen to The Greens and their supporters we would think that mankind should remain cringing in our hovels, pleading for mercy from Gaia, begging that we might be able to fit in with a broader existence. But architecture defies nature; it does not seek to accommodate itself with nature. It says, "We shall overcome some day. Deep in my heart I do believe that we shall overcome some day."

In 1788, when Australia was young, we cut through the wilderness, we chopped down the trees, we broke the rocks. We did not succumb to what we found here. We took it and turned it into something greater. That is what architecture does. It is the triumph of man over man's base existence. It is the apogee that we seek: the highest in ourselves, not the basest that nature will allow us to become. When any rational man thinks about architecture his mind immediately turns to Ayn Rand's masterpiece from 1943, The Fountainhead, which contains the immortal words, a phrase by which I live: It is not about who will allow me but who will stop me.

The Hon. Ben Franklin: "Who is John Galt?"

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: "Who is John Galt?" actually comes from Atlas Shrugged. And of course everyone knows that The Fountainhead was merely the prelude or precursor to Atlas Shrugged. I repeat, it is not about who will allow me but who will stop me. In this regard, it is worthwhile mentioning the importance of the private sector—private investment, private enterprise and private vision—which has built this nation. If we wish to look alternatively, we need look no further than the disastrous housing estates created in the 1960s and 1970s under the Radburn design principles, ostensibly created in the United States as a variation of the British garden suburb ideal. It may well have worked in an America of middle-class prosperity, but the government of those times when it sought to build new housing commission estates took these principles and plonked them into areas that were completely unsuited to them.

It was always done on the basis that government knows best and that the best government can do for those seeking housing is to tell them how they should live, how they should structure their suburbs, how they should design their houses, where they should locate their roads and parks, how much private land they should have and how much communal land they are expected to look after, presumably through some sort of socialistic osmosis of love for communal land. We know the net consequence of that idea: failure. Once again, it shows what happens when government thinks it can impose architectural decisions on communities with no consequence.

Contrast this with what this Government is doing in places like Minto, Claymore and other areas where we have said, "Let the private sector give people what they want." And it does. And not only does it accommodate the private needs of people but the government housing component is far better utilised because there is no ghettoisation of poverty. Instead, there is a salt-and-pepper approach which allows people to walk out of their homes each morning and see their next-door neighbours as they go to work. That does not exist under the socialistic notions of the ghettoisation of properties which was so prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s.

It must be remembered that our physical environment has an effect on our lives. I am surprised that Ms Jan Barham sings the praises of the Sirius building, which is an example of the sort of brutalism that could be seen on a Stalinist estate in central Asia. That may well explain The Greens' affection for such buildings, given the core component of its organisational wing and some of its senators. I can understand that reinforced concrete Stalinist architecture may resound in their hearts as they think back to their misspent youth travelling through the steppes of Russia, admiring the happy peasants at work. The simple fact is that architecture is the triumph of man over nature. In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand said:

Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man had no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.

Any savage can live in a cave or in a hole or under a tree, but it is man's rational mind that builds bridges, towers, houses, roads, dams and everything that separates us from animals. Ayn Rand also said in The Fountainhead:

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7229

their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

The triumph of architecture is the triumph of man over barbarism, poverty, fear, ignorance and want—the triumph of man over nature. The Greens say we must accommodate ourselves with nature. Even such a brilliant architect as Frank Lloyd Wright would acknowledge that Fallingwater did not seek to subsume itself into the landscape but to integrate itself, and nonetheless remains a very human component that dominates the landscape. Nature is nice but I would give up the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of Sydney's skyline, in particular, not the details but the shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over Sydney and the will of men become visible. What other religion do we need?

People talk about pilgrimages to some dank pest hole in a jungle where they pay homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius that they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to Sydney and stand at Circular Quay. Let them look around and let them kneel. When I see the city from my window on level 11 of Parliament House I do not feel how small I am; I feel that if war came to threaten us I would throw myself into space over the city and protect these buildings with my body. That is what architecture is about, the triumph of man, and that is why it is important to recognise the architecture of New South Wales.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.40 p.m.]: I add my congratulations to the Department of Community Services on its efforts to dispose of the Sirius building. I believe it is the greatest eyesore not only in the central business district [CBD] of Sydney or in the whole of Sydney but throughout Australia. It is an embarrassment. It is, as the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps said, an example of brutalist architecture. I say this as someone who has been a member of the National Trust of Australia (NSW) longer than I have been a member of the Liberal Party. I have been a member of the National Trust for 40 years.

The issue of heritage led me into politics—to try to save buildings from being demolished when Bob Carr was the Minister for Environment and Heritage, carving a swathe through Sydney's historic buildings, arguing that they were rubbish and stating that he loved the modernist era. Members only have to look at The Rocks, for example, Mary Reiby's home which has been encased by huge tower monstrosities. I have passion for our architecture and our heritage. The Heritage Council, which I strongly support, is not doing our cause any favours by arguing that the Sirius, that eyesore, needs to be preserved. I want to place on record and share with the House—I will be open about it; this is Wiki research—a marvellous quote in relation to the brutalist period. I note the writer used the Tesco Shopping Centre in Slovakia, which is a big concrete case, as an example of a brutalist building. The writer states:

Brutalists have had some severe critics, including Charles, Prince of Wales. His speeches and writings on architecture have excoriated Brutalism, calling many of the structures "piles of concrete". "You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe", said Prince Charles at the Corporation of London Planning and Communication Committee's annual dinner in December 1987, "When it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble."

Those with a passion for history and architecture rue brutalism. It became a style popular with government. It is a cheap style of building that uses exposed concrete. It does not weather very well, particularly in a climate like Sydney's. It uses reinforced concrete, which crumbles and stains and exhibits rust marks, and it attracts mould and concrete cancer. It is a disgrace to use that style of architecture for public housing. It is a heartless and cold form of building. The Sirius building is located right in the middle of that amazing triangle which includes the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the most iconic spot in Australia. Coming up through the middle is the brutalist Sirius building. In my opinion, knocking it down and selling the land would be the much better option. I call on the Heritage Council to seriously reconsider its decision. For those of us who are passionate about Sydney's heritage, the Heritage Council is doing our cause a great disservice by trying to argue for a building like that.

I also congratulate the Government on the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum to Western Sydney. In 1988 when the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, which was associated with Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, was being relocated by the Greiner Government to Westmead there were howls of opposition and condemnation from the Labor Party and people in the community that this would destroy the health and future of our children and it was a terrible thing to do. The Greiner Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the purpose-built children's hospital at Westmead, and it is a magnificent facility. That was done in spite of the howls of opposition.

As to the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum, I look forward in years to come to complete silence amongst all its critics when this magnificent facility opens. The people of Western Sydney deserve to have this 7230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

facility. The Powerhouse Museum will continue to function. The building was not built as a museum; it was built as a powerhouse. The building will continue on its journey being reused and preserved in another new and I hope glamorous form of life.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You are going to knock it down and put units on it.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: We are not knocking it down, don't be ridiculous. The museum will bring benefits to the people of Western Sydney. I applaud this Government as the only government that is truly committed to relocating services and infrastructure out west.

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD [12.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have spoken on the motion: the Hon. Lynda Voltz, the Hon. Scott Farlow, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, Ms Jan Barham, the Hon. Ben Franklin, the Government Whip the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, and the Hon. Catherine Cusack. The beauty of private members' motions on a Thursday is that one does not know in which direction the motion will go. It is like letting your child free, with a great deal of apprehension. My intention was to collate the speeches and present them to the Sydney Architecture Festival as a memento. Architects in New South Wales are very excited that the Parliament is talking about architecture.

As I noted on the record last October, architects have told me that this is the first time of which they are aware of a parliamentary debate on architecture. As Ms Jan Barham said, it is a good sign when the Parliament is prepared to talk about architecture. I am not aware of a member of Parliament who is an architect. I have served on councils with architects and they have contributed greatly to council discussions around urban design. I move back to the core message in my speech about Jan Gehl and the issue of people and spaces, which is now the focus of architecture and great design. Healthy communities and cities are not just about the buildings but also about the people and how the two interact. The Government Architect's Office has transitioned over 200 years from building buildings, which I acknowledge, to planning and design. I raised the Sirius building and I have listened to the debate on the Sirius building with concern. I recall in the 1960s the call by politicians and most of Sydney to demolish the dilapidated Queen Victoria Building [QVB].

The Hon. Ben Franklin: You are comparing the Sirius building to the QVB?

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: In the 1960s the QVB was thought to be an ugly building from an ugly time. That is a matter of history. If members do not like brutalism let us tear down the High Court building in Canberra and the National Art Gallery at Lake Burley Griffin, both fine examples of brutalism. When I ran for Lord Mayor I was part of a debate about heritage listing the Sydney Tower. The tower, which is located in the centre of the city, reflects the 1970s—an era in which I grew up. A lot of architects wanted it torn down. I am glad it still dominates our city. With those few words, I thank members for their contributions. I will take up the challenge of Ms Jan Barham that we discuss this issue more often in Parliament and that Parliament becomes involved in the next Sydney Architecture Festival. I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

WOOL GROWING INDUSTRY AND MULESING

The Hon. MARK PEARSON [12.48 p.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House commends the 80 per cent of Australian wool growers who are:

(a) breeding sheep to be resistant to flystrike by breeding out skin wrinkles; or

(b) using pain relief when mulesing sheep.

(2) That this House calls on the remaining 20 per cent of wool growers to begin breeding sheep to be resistant to flystrike, and in the interim, providing pain relief to sheep when mulesing.

(3) That this House congratulates Dr Meredith Schiel and the Australian Wool Growers Association for developing and promoting Tri-Solfen, an economical local anaesthetic and antiseptic gel spray for use on lambs to provide pain relief following mulesing, which also reduces blood loss and infection to improve wound healing.

(4) That this House commends Laurence Modiano, a leading European wool-buyer and distributor for facilitating the uptake in the textile industry's demand for non-mulesed wool and for encouraging the Australian wool industry to move towards pain relief.

10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7231

(5) That this House congratulates world renown fashion designer Count Zegna for, in the past two years, awarding his prestigious Wool Trophy for the best superfine Merino fleece to wool growers who have bred out the wrinkles in their sheep and adopted other management practices and therefore ceased mulesing their sheep.

Many years ago the economy of Australia was built on the back of the merino sheep through the development of the wool industry. It grew and became the fundamental platform of the first major economy for Australia. The industry, which has an important and interesting history, is now alive and robust but it also has the attention of the world. This motion calls upon the House to commend various activities conducted by people in the wool industry and various growers. The motion is about a win-win-win situation. The view of the Animal Justice Party is that it is a win for the almost 23 million lambs that are born every year in Australia. Many of the lambs undergo a surgical procedure called mulesing, which is the removal of skin and subcutaneous tissue around the vulva, tail and breech area of the animal.

Twelve years ago I filmed this procedure and I sent the footage to organisations around the world so that the true story behind the production of wool in Australia could be observed. It was not exaggerated or highlighted. The document showed a procedure that is common in Australia. Over the past 25 years the Federal Government has appointed standing committees on animal welfare which have reviewed this procedure. Those reviews have resulted in the industry, through the research of the Australian Wool Innovation, addressing the mutilating procedure that is performed on animals without any analgesia or pain relief. As a result, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in Australia was required to include a provision to exempt sheep and lambs from this particular procedure where a prosecution would otherwise have been brought for unnecessary, unjustifiable and unreasonable cruelty to an animal. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

The second win would come from this House commending the work of proactive and progressive growers, people in the industry and retailers who want to introduce a change in the industry. The world is now looking at what we do in our backyard. Buyers such as Abercrombie and Fitch, Zegna, Armani and Hugo Boss are looking at what we are doing with our animals when producing various products such as wool. There was an international crisis when consumers and retailers of Australian wool became alarmed and concerned about what they saw. I will give an example. I was in London attending a meeting between the Australian Wool Growers Association and a senior executive of Armani. The conversation was critical. The Australian Wool Growers Association representatives were trying to convince a senior executive of Armani—a major importer of Australian wool—that mulesing is necessary for the wellbeing and welfare of the animal. That is the complexity of this issue.

It is not like the argument about battery cages for hens where the cage is an instrument of cruelty. The procedure of mulesing is about preventing flystrike, which results in the lingering and painful death of an animal. However, the procedure is invasive and it is a mutilation. Veterinarians and wool buyers are highly critical of the procedure when it is performed without pain relief. The Australian Wool Growers Association representatives were trying to explain this point to a senior executive of Armani when he said, "Stop. I am a wool buyer. I have customers. Beautiful soft merino wool for my beautiful suits—bleeding horrible wound. Stop it. Fix it or I go to Spain or South America."

The message was clear. Our problem is flystrike. Armani's customers do not want blood on the Armani label. The argument has moved to a new chapter. We have to fix the problems associated with the necessity for mulesing. It will continue to occur, but if changes are made by growers to breed out wrinkles so that after 18 months or two years the animals no longer require mulesing to avoid flystrike, then that will be more acceptable to buyers around the world. The motion calls on this House to commend the work that will result in a win-win-win situation: a win for the animals; a win for the wool growers who are progressive and visionary and, therefore, taking the industry forward in the world; and a win for Australia's economy and world image. We will not be condemned or attract criticism that creates a crisis for the industry because we have not caught up with world's best practice and acknowledged that animals must be protected.

This motion is not about condemning the industry; it is about moving the industry forward. A recent petition signed by 38 wool buyers from around the world—from China, Europe and America—showed that wool buyers fear that wool from lambs that have been mulesed without pain relief will be mixed with wool from lambs that have been mulesed with pain relief when it is being washed, spun or knitted in China or other countries. This will cause serious blight and risk and liability to the wool industry in Australia if we do not give an absolute guarantee to wool buyers that we will make pain relief mandatory. That guarantee is important to wool buyers, particularly Count Zegna, whose company is at the upper aspect of the wool-buying industry. 7232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

When Count Zegna was in Australia a couple of years ago he said that a trophy would be given to a wool grower not only on the quality of their wool but also on the basis that the wool grower was using pain relief or had stopped mulesing.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

MENINDEE LAKES ANIMAL SANCTUARY

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that WaterNSW is the administrator of leasehold land under dispute with the Menindee Lakes Animal Sanctuary, will the Minister confirm that WaterNSW is evicting the sanctuary?

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the second or third most senior shadow Minister opposite. I apologise, I thank the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber. I am aware of some opportunistic use of structures on lands adjacent to the Menindee Lakes, which is administered by WaterNSW and currently under lease. I am advised that the leaseholder is aware of the use and has taken action to assert its right.

SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on yesterday's incident on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and other issues of State significance?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for a very important question. Yesterday highlighted how fragile the Sydney road network can be, particularly during peak hour. It also highlighted the importance of incident response processes when a serious road incident occurs. The motorbike and car incident that happened yesterday on the Harbour Bridge occurred at 5.55 a.m.—exactly at the start of peak hour. Within 10 minutes the Transport Management Centre and the traffic specialists had messages on variable message signs [VMS] across Sydney and had sent alerts to every media outlet, spreading the message to commuters that there was undoubtedly going to be delays and to consider re-timing their commute or to choose another form of transport.

There were some delays to clearing the incident and reopening all the lanes on the bridge because of the late arrival of the police Crash Investigation Unit, which resulted in longer than usual delays for commuters. Quite frankly, that is not good enough, and the NSW Police Force has acknowledged that. More than 200,000 commuters sat in traffic for hours and arrived at work late. The queues were up to 12 kilometres long. We are a customer-focused Government. We want to clear critical road incidents in the fastest possible time and get motorists to their destinations. If there was something that we could have done better, I need to know about it and implement new processes. That is why I have asked Transport for NSW, following the usual protocols, to launch and lead an internal review into yesterday's traffic management, working closely with the NSW Police Force, the Transport Management Centre, the CBD Coordination Office and emergency services.

The report will look at what worked yesterday and what could have been done differently. We need to ensure that the police and transport responses to these types of incidents are dynamic and responsive to the needs of the network, particularly at the time of yesterday's incident and where it happened. Relying on the Sydney Harbour and Anzac bridges as the only routes into the central business district might have been enough for those opposite, but frankly it is not good enough for us. The Government is not only getting on with the job of improving incident response times but is also building world-class infrastructure, such as the Western Harbour Tunnel and the North West Rail Link, to accommodate a rapidly growing city and provide capacity where incidents like this occur. The Premier, quite appropriately, apologised, as I did yesterday and do again today, to motorists who were held up in that tragic situation. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7233

The traffic was tragic yesterday but today there has been tragedy on another scale. The Opposition, in announcing its new shadow Cabinet has put out three different press releases and three different lists. There have been winners and losers, and losers and winners.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Walt Secord takes a point of order.

The Hon. Walt Secord: I am sorry, I was seeking the call.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I see that the Minister's time has expired.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. Walt Secord: Someone was injured. I cannot believe you, Duncan. Actually, I can believe you.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I can hear the member opposite bleating. He has been the winner, the loser and then the loser again. This morning, when the new shadow Cabinet was announced the honourable member was in position 5.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was specifically about a tragic accident yesterday and other significant State issues. The Minister has started some needless, mindless rant about a shadow Minister list. That issue was not included in the question. I ask you to bring the Minister back to the relevant traffic accident in which someone was injured, and significant State issues.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: I believe the question included the words "and other issues of State significance". If the Opposition's front bench is insignificant then the Opposition members should indicate the level of their insignificance.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The main part of the question related to the serious accident yesterday and the major congestion problems for Sydney, and other matters of State significance. To give completely different information in response to that question makes the Minister's answer irrelevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I took no issue with the original question as there was no clear indication of what the "other issues of State significance" were. However, it would seem that the Minister moved to these issues at the end of his substantive answer and that that is the part of the answer he proposes to elucidate. I make the general point that applies to every question and answer: Under Standing Order 64 a member may put questions to a Minister in relation to the public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. With the best intentions in the world, I cannot see how any of this material relates to any public affairs to which the Minister is officially connected. If the Minister has anything else he wishes to add he should do so. His line of answer was clearly out of order.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: During that time the Hon. Greg Donnelly used a term in relation to the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council which President Primrose ruled offensive on 23 October 2007. Mr President, I ask that you ask the Hon. Greg Donnelly to withdraw his comment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I presume that comment was made while the Hon. Lynda Voltz was taking her point of order. I was listening to the Hon. Lynda Voltz, as all members should have been. I do not know what term was used. It was not mentioned in the member's point of order. It will not assist matters if it is mentioned now. I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA NORTHERN RIVERS COMMITTEE DON PAGE APPOINTMENT

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water, representing the Minister for Regional Development. Given the announcement by the New South Wales Minister for Regional Development, the Hon. John Barilaro, of the appointment of the 7234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

former member of Parliament for Ballina Don Page as chair of Regional Development Australia's Northern Rivers Committee for a three-year term, what is the Government's response to community concerns that Mr Page did not meet the selection criteria? Will the Government release all correspondence with the Federal Government relating to this appointment?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I note is directed to my colleague in the other place the Hon. John Barilaro. I will take the question on notice and refer it to the Minister for a response in relation to the process of the appointment. When talking about passionate people who are strong advocates for development on the North Coast and who look out for the interests of the region, most members would say that Don Page represented his community for a long time and left this Parliament with his head held high and well regarded by members of both Chambers.

The Page family has made a significant contribution to New South Wales, both at a State and Federal level, through the representation of Don Page and his grandfather Sir Earle Page. When Don Page retired from Parliament before the last election, he was applauded by all sides of politics as a man of significant standing who was a strong advocate for the North Coast. I believe the process for the appointment of a person to a Regional Development Australia committee would have some Federal involvement as well as State involvement. I will refer this part of the question to my colleague and come back to the member with his answer. I would hate to think that there is any suggestion that Don Page is not worthy to represent the North Coast in such a position because the Page family has dedicated decades of service to the people of New South Wales.

BHP CAROONA AND SHENHUA WATERMARK COALMINES

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. In recent meetings I have had with farmers when I visited the Liverpool Plains, I was told that uncertainty about the future of the BHP Caroona and Shenhua Watermark coalmines is stopping investment in agriculture. What is the Government's response to these farmers' concerns and for how long does the Government think it is acceptable for this uncertainty to continue?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank Mr Jeremy Buckingham for his question and ask him whether he has ruled in or out that he is running for the Federal seat of New England. I want to make sure because his answer about whether he is going to be a candidate may skew my answer to his question one way or the other. One thing I will say in relation to certainty for farmers, whether on the Liverpool Plains or anywhere else in the State, is that we on this side of the Chamber are working very hard to bring certainty for our producers right across New South Wales. The member has raised one example of land-use conflict, but as the Minister for Primary Industries I am not responsible for approvals of applications for mining leases.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Yes, you are.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I do not approve those applications; that is done by the Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy. But when it comes to providing certainty for our farmers in this State—

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Do you remember water?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: —it is not just mining that is an issue.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Point of order: The member asked a question and is now engaging in heckling. He should allow the Minister to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: There are some other issues, whether land-use conflict or other policy settings, that are creating uncertainty for farmers in this State. Rather than being a fairweather friend of farmers, the member may want to address some of these issues and so give certainty to the farming sector about his position, for example on irrigation. Some farmers in parts of the State are facing the impact of windfarms, for example on the Southern Tablelands. Mr Jeremy Buckingham will have a good opportunity to show his support for providing certainty for farmers when the biodiversity legislation is debated. A fairweather friend does not create certainty for farmers of this State. Farmers want someone to stand with them on a whole range of issues. Rather than The Greens' approach of trying to attack farmers on a range of policy settings, farmers want consistency to provide certainty. That is what this Government does for farmers of this State. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7235

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: It is relevance. I do not think it can be argued that this contribution from the Minister is generally relevant to my question about a specific project and how long uncertainty around that project can continue. It is a broad rant about agriculture in the State.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is making a debating point. There is no point of order.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: It is not a rant when you talk about providing certainty for farmers. When the member talks about the Liverpool Plains—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The industry action plan that this Government has developed is another way to provide certainty for the farmers. The $300 million drought assistance package to the farming sector is another way to provide certainty. The member wants to know about a project that is not, as far as I am aware, before any assessment process. I do not deal with the approvals process. My departments do provide some advice, but as the Minister for Primary Industries I do not deal with the assessment process. In relation to providing certainty for our farmers, they want consistency and a suite of policies, not cherry picking one or two issues—and that is what they are getting from this Government.

DRUMMOYNE SEWAGE OUTFALL

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. What is the Minister's response to community concerns that official minutes from the community consultation held with residents regarding the new sewage outfall near Drummoyne wharf excised the concerns and objections raised by residents at that meeting?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the honourable member for his question. The New South Wales Government is committed to protecting public health and the environment. Sydney Water's wastewater system is designed to cope with four times the amount of dry weather flows. It would not be economically viable to build systems so large that they would never overflow. In regard to overflows in the Drummoyne area and conducting work to help prevent wastewater drainage problems in 23 homes in St George Crescent and the adjoining streets in Drummoyne, Sydney Water has been in close consultation with the affected customers in the area since November 2012. Sydney Water has also consulted with the City of Canada Bay, Roads and Maritime Services, NSW Fisheries, NSW Health and the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] to develop the best solution for customers who are experiencing this problem.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The position of the wastewater emergency release structure minimises any impacts to human health, aquatic species and vegetation habitat during a rare occurrence of a wastewater overflow during heavy rain periods, which is expected to occur on average twice per year.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The emergency release structure will have an outlet eight metres into the Parramatta River to help with dispersion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the second time.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The wastewater release during extreme weather is highly diluted and around 99 per cent water. Sydney Water has a network of emergency relief structures across its area of operations that are regulated by the EPA. They prevent the backflow of wastewater into customers' bathrooms and laundries during extreme rain events which minimises impacts to customers and the environment. Emergency relief structures are widely used in all wastewater networks across Australia and around the globe. Sydney Water is investing around $700,000 on this project in the Drummoyne area to prevent wastewater drainage problems. Last financial year Sydney Water's expenditure on wastewater infrastructure alone was over $358 million and since the financial year 2010-11 it has invested over $2 billion in capital expenditure.

This is not new; it has been around for a long time. I hear those opposite criticising the fact that we have overflow structures, yet between 1996 and 2011 the Labor Government constructed no less than 7236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

177 emergency relief structures for wastewater overflows. That was during the millennium drought when one could not blame the overflows on wet weather. Controlled overflows ensure excess water is directed to the point of least impact. Sydney Water's wastewater system is also impacted by excessive stormwater in the sewer, mostly from private property and illegal connections. Those opposite are happy for Sydney Water to do this because they know it is regulated by the EPA. The alternative is to have the sewer backing up in storms and coming up in residents' properties. I would ask the Hon. Mick Veitch—I cannot because he is no longer the shadow water Minister. It is something the EPA regulates.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask a supplementary question. I listened carefully to the Minister's response. Will the Minister elucidate by confirming that he is not aware of the community's concerns about the doctoring of the minutes?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: That is a new question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not believe it is a new question. It was certainly a part of the original question. Whether it is seeking an elucidation of an aspect of the answer is less clear. If the Minister wishes to add anything he may do so.

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister update the House on what the New South Wales Government is doing to increase employment for people with disability?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for her question. As mentioned in the House a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet an incredible individual at St George Leagues Club. Twenty-year-old Adam Jamgotchian is a graduate of the Transition to Work program which helps young people with disability get a job after school. Adam told me how much he enjoys his job and how great it has been for him to get to know other people at the club while making some money. When you talk to people like Adam it is obvious that a job is more than just a pay cheque. A job helps us feel connected with those around us, to feel more fulfilled, and it gives us greater power over our own life. From time to time people with disability have said to me that one of their dreams is to pay income tax for the first time. It means they have a job; it helps them feel like they are contributing to their community and that they are connected and inclusive.

The simple truth is that everyone has a right to take part in all aspects of life. No one should be deprived of employment because of their age, gender, race, religious belief or disability. Helping people with disability get and keep a job is essential. It is essential not only from a human rights perspective but an economic perspective. The research is clear: diversity is not a "nice to have" for business or the public sector, it is a "must have". It is imperative that businesses and Government attract and retain a diverse workforce that mirrors the community. At present the employment participation rates of people with disability, including in government, are too low. Speaking frankly, they are not good enough. If we are to give more jobs to people with disability we have to do more. Words and good intentions are not enough, we need action and concrete plans.

I am pleased to say the New South Wales Government is determined to bring about change. We are walking the talk and committed to boosting the employment of people with disability. Access to employment and participation in economic life is embedded in the New South Wales Disability Inclusion Act 2014 and the New South Wales Disability Inclusion Plan. Significantly, all New South Wales government agencies have been working hard to create tailored disability inclusion action plans. Flowing from these plans are more than 100 separate, tangible and practical actions that will directly impact on employment of people with disability. In addition, Family and Community Services working with the Public Service Commission have established a New South Wales Disability Employment Advisory Committee to identify the best actions for driving even more growth in this area.

Today I had the pleasure of launching Upholding the Rights of People with Disability, an innovative new program. At the core of the program is understanding. It is a matter of changing the mindset. Intensive full-day sessions will be led by people with lived experience of disability who will share their experiences while helping others understand some of the barriers that people with disability face. In 2016 the New South Wales Government will fund up to 10 face-to-face training sessions, which will be open to key New South Wales government staff with responsibilities in broad areas of employment. I congratulate everyone who has helped 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7237

put together this brilliant, innovative program. As I said earlier, we need to do more, we must do more and we will do more to ensure that people with disability have the right to employment and have the right to pay income tax, which I have been told on many occasions is what they want.

DEVLINS CREEK WATER QUALITY

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for the Environment. What have been the results of Environment Protection Authority [EPA] investigations into the cause of the significant number of dead fish and eels at Devlins Creek near Cheltenham, including the possibility of pollution coming from a construction site in association with the Epping to Thornleigh third track?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for her question. I am advised that the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] received reports regarding water pollution in Devlins Creek near Epping station on 29 February 2016. I am advised the EPA inspected the site that afternoon and the following morning. I am further advised that a small number of decomposed eels and small fish were identified during the inspections. There is no obvious source of pollution that could have caused these dead eels. I am advised that the nearby Epping to Thornleigh third track and north-west rail line construction sites were also inspected to assess whether they could have caused the pollution that resulted in the eel death.

I am advised that following receipt of additional information on 7 March the EPA conducted a further site inspection on 8 March. I am advised that no obvious sources of pollution were identified during this third inspection. I am also advised that live eels were observed during the inspection. Water quality samples were taken for laboratory analysis to identify whether creek pollution may have caused the eel deaths. Results from the EPA laboratory will be available shortly. I am advised that due to the decomposed state of the eels and fish it is not possible to do toxicity testing to identify whether the eels and fish were killed by chemicals in the water. I am further advised the EPA is continuing to investigate and look for possible contaminants that may have caused the eel and fish death and is working with the local council to identify potential contaminant sources. Local residents with any information which they believe may be helpful to the investigation are encouraged to contact the EPA's Environment Line on 131 555.

CYCLEWAYS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given the recent central business district [CBD] road changes and construction of new separated cycleways, will the Minister accept an invitation from local bike groups to take a ride with them so that he can better understand the impact of these changes?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The short answer to that question is absolutely not. I have too much respect for those groups—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: And the general public.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —and the general public to allow them to see me in lycra. What I am pleased about is that last Tuesday, Bicycle Network—not a friend of the Government in most instances but a group that worked with us in developing the new laws—had a survey of how many people are using bicycles in the city. Members will remember that during the past couple of weeks Bicycle Network has been saying that there will be fewer people cycling in the city because of our new rules, yet it said the numbers are up. Congratulations to the Government, because what it has been doing is making the streets safer for the cyclists of Sydney. It is about mutual respect. It is about the metre that matters—one metre under 60 kilometres an hour and a metre and a half over 60 kilometres an hour.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Why don't you come and join us for a ride then?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Penny Sharpe she is on two calls to order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They do not like it. They got the jargon out there. That is a win. That is a real win. There have been some losers today. The Hon. Walt Secord started the day up the list above the Leader of the Opposition, but I am pleased to say to everyone that the Leader of the Opposition is back where he should be in the latest list. The Hon. Lynda Voltz was not on the list that I saw. 7238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister should resume his seat.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is relevance. The question specifically related to a request for the Minister to join cyclists on a ride. It had nothing to do with any other lists he wants to come up with today.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has been directly relevant in most of his response and I am sure he will be through most of the time remaining to him.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have concluded my answer.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister update the House on regional water issues?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for his question. Tomorrow I will represent the New South Wales Government at a meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. However, before I outline our priorities in this space, I need to update the House on a critical incident that is unfolding—an outbreak of the potentially toxic blue-green algae along several hundred kilometres of the Murray River, including Lake Hume.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: We cannot hear the Minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask all members to allow the Minister to give his answer in silence.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: A multi-agency response led by the Department of Primary Industries— Water is now underway, which includes representatives from the Victorian Government. Since the first algal alert was issued on 23 February, covering a section of the river from Cobram to Barmah, the algal bloom has progressively spread to the point where it now extends from Lake Hume to Barham. At this stage, local water supplies are not impacted by the outbreak and drinking water supplies remain safe for towns right along the Murray River. I will update the House as this situation progresses.

As I have said before in this place, the New South Wales Government's firm position regarding the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is on ensuring that we achieve a triple bottom line outcome for our communities. The New South Wales Government has always been upfront about this aim. It comes down to looking at how we can achieve the environmental objectives of the basin plan using a scientific and evidence-based approach, while ensuring that any impacts upon on our Murray-Darling Basin communities are minimised. At the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting tomorrow in Melbourne I will reiterate that the basin plan must deliver real outcomes rather than being implemented with a dogmatic focus on modelling.

The Ministers who sit around the table of this council need to recognise that they are making decisions about real communities, real businesses and real environmental outcomes. I will not stand by the theoretical, academic fairyland that the modelling from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority represents. The South Australian Government's only consideration is on getting flows to South Australia, with no care for how this might impact upon the regional communities of New South Wales. We need to achieve a sensible focus on outcomes through the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism for the southern basin. We need to achieve the same for the northern basin through the northern basin review. The adjustment mechanism must be able to capture all the environmental benefits we are achieving and can achieve through non-flow related measures—this is everything from improved water management through to practical measures such as reducing cold water pollution, better riparian natural resource management and the introduction of the carp virus.

Ministers must consider all information at hand, including ecological, social and economic science, rather than just relying on modelling. This Government is spending more than $1 billion to address regional water security in this State. It is fighting every step of the way to ensure that the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan does not kill our regional communities. I note that there have been some changes to the portfolios of those opposite. One thing that I am concerned about is that we need to have support from all sides of this Chamber as we stand up for our regional communities when it comes to the impacts of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and reiterate that triple bottom line approach. I was able to get such support from the 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7239

Hon. Mick Veitch when he held that portfolio. He understood the impact on those regional communities because he is from regional New South Wales. I only hope that the new shadow Minister in this field is as supportive and can understand the issues as quickly as he did.

TOWN HALL LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health. Given the recent reports of the outbreak of legionnaire's disease at Town Hall, will the Government update the House on whether the source of the disease has been found and contained? What is the Government doing to stop further incidents of these outbreaks?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his important question—one that I am sure all honourable members are concerned about. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, seek a response and come back to the honourable member.

M4 TOLL

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given the Minister has justified the reintroduction of a toll for the widened M4 in statements on Monday on the basis of time savings, why is he introducing the toll seven years before the time savings will occur?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was going to share the sympathy of many people here that the honourable member did not make it into the shadow ministry. I guess we now know why.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: It would have been a pay cut. Is that the best you can do?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I can do a lot better than that. You know that.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: He is confused.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am not confused. Apart from anything else, the member is dangerously close to a motion that is on the Notice Paper for today, but I am happy to bring that debate on. I am happy to answer this question. In case the honourable member had not noticed—probably, like a lot of his colleagues, he does not travel in Western Sydney—a lot of work is currently happening on the M4.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question. He has been speaking for almost a minute and is not being responsive to my question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order: The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know the honourable member is embarrassed about the question, but the answer is that we are working on the M4 at the moment. We are adding the lanes to the M4 that should have always been there. There is a pinch point there that has been slowing traffic down for 20 years or more. We are spending the money as the first part, part 1A of WestConnex, to widen the M4 and remove that pinch point. It will go to four lanes each way. I recommend the honourable member—together with some of his colleagues who do not know where Western Sydney is—take a trip out there and see the work.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I urge him to go out there to see the work and the improvements that are happening, and to see the jobs that are being created in Western Sydney. If we move from two lanes with a pinch point to four lanes we will improve the flow of traffic.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. My question was: Why is the Minister introducing the toll seven years before the time savings will occur?

The Hon. Ben Franklin: To the point of order: It is very tough to hear anything the Minister is saying because of the constant interjections from those opposite. 7240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's answer was directly relevant. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Opposition members have not had a good day. There have been no winners, for a lot of reasons. It should be obvious to those opposite that the improvements to the traffic flow and the amount of money being spent on the M4 warrants putting a toll in place. As we have always said, when a toll is put in place there will be a free alternative. When the toll comes into operation on the improved M4, motorists will be able to make a choice as to whether it is value for money or they go somewhere else. That is up to them. Plenty of other roads can be used as an alternative. That is the choice that they will make. This is part 1A of a $16.8 million project to improve this city.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They do not like it. We are fixing—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the second time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They do not like it because we are fixing something that they did not fix. [Time expired.]

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in regard to how long time savings will occur from when the M4 widening takes place?

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a supplementary question. That is a new question.

JETSKI RESTRICTIONS

The Hon. LOU AMATO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time.

The Hon. LOU AMATO: Will the Minister update the House on the new measures to tackle the problem of hoon jetskiers on the Georges River, Botany Bay and Port Hacking?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. It makes a refreshing change to be able to acknowledge that at least one of the Opposition has asked a question on this topic, the recently elevated Hon. Lynda Voltz. I do not know how the Opposition could have overlooked her for so long. The Hon. Robert Brown has also shown an interest in this topic. As I have said in answers to members opposite, jetskiers who flout the law have been put on notice. Speed limits, irregular riding and safe distance rules are in place for a reason. Breaking the law is downright irresponsible and there are serious consequences. In December 2015 I announced a crackdown on dangerous and antisocial jetski riding in and around Georges River, Botany Bay and Port Hacking in response to legitimate community concerns.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is difficult for me to hear the Minister because of the level of interjection on both sides of the Chamber. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to update the House on some key actions that we have already implemented. NSW Police, and Roads and Maritime Services have stepped it up a notch this summer already. They have been more active and visible than ever, targeting rogue jetskiers on the Georges River, Botany Bay and Port Hacking. On 1 January eight knots speed limit zones were extended two kilometres along Georges River near Picnic Point.

A dedicated complaints hotline—13 12 36—enables community members to report incidents of dangerous or antisocial behaviour. Around 120 reports have been made so far and more than half the reports concern Georges River and Botany Bay. This summer, boating safety officers have checked more than 1,400 jetski riders and have issued more than 160 penalty notices in the Georges River and Botany Bay alone. I am advised that 35 repeat offenders will receive warning letters and some can expect to have their licences suspended as a result of their behaviour. If those people will not or cannot comply, they should simply be off the water. We do not accept this sort of behaviour on our roads and we should not accept it on water.

Other important measures have been advanced. Police and maritime officers cannot be everywhere on the water all the time. We are investigating other measures to deter illegal activity and catch offenders, including 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7241

global positioning systems, drone technology, and increasing the number of closed-circuit television cameras in and around the problem areas. We will also consider additional jetski exclusion zones in parts of the Georges River around Revesby, Port Hacking, Bonnie Vale and Botany Bay over the next six months in consultation with the local communities, water users and police. We are also strengthening the laws to enable immediate suspension of boat licences for reckless, dangerous and negligent behaviour. New powers to enable seizure and empowerment of jetskis will be introduced in Parliament, so serious offenders will lose their toys. Our waterways are to share and enjoy. There is plenty of space for jetskiers to have fun without impacting on the safety and amenity of other water users.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATIONS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, representing the Premier. Is it a fact that a number of councils opposing forced amalgamations, such as Woollahra Municipal Council, have announced plans for legal action in the courts? Is it a fact that other councils, such as Kogarah and Rockdale, are planning to use section 218E of the Local Government Act to block the Government's proposals? How will the Government respond to those proposed actions to prevent forced amalgamations?

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Bring back your bill, Duncan. Remember that one?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They were lucky to have me as a shadow Minister; they are even luckier they do not have me as a Minister. They have a great Minister rather than me.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I indicate that the Government is committed to transforming the system of local government to ensure the best possible outcomes for communities across New South Wales. The proposals for merging councils are informed by four years of consultation with councils and additional analysis of economic and other benefits that are available. These important changes were properly considered by the Government in connection with the Local Government Act 1993. Under the Act, the Minister has referred the merger proposals to the chief executive officer of the local government for examination and report, who has delegated this function to certain people.

The Act sets out the process for examining and reporting on merger proposals, including the holding of public inquiries and the factors that delegates must consider. The reports of the delegates will be submitted to the independent Local Government Boundaries Commission for its review and comment. Once the Minister has considered the reports and comments of delegates from the boundaries commission, he will consider whether to make recommendations to the Governor or any new local government areas. He also indicates that he received advice from Woollahra Municipal Council on court action and he is currently taking advice on this matter. I will refer other issues in the question to the Minister for a detailed response.

M5 EXITS TOLL

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will tolling be ruled out on the King Georges Road exit or Bexley Road exit from the M5?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There will not be tolling on King Georges Road, but I think the question was with regard to—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the exits of King Georges Road and Bexley Road.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Give me a moment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is not whether the exits will be tolled; it is whether the roads will be tolled. The M5 is currently tolled.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer as to whether motorists who currently do not have to pay a toll to exit on King Georges Road will be charged to exit at either King Georges Road or Bexley Road?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It does not matter whether it is the entrance or the exit; motorists are already paying a toll on the M5. 7242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

YOUTH FRONTIERS PROGRAM

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister outline what the New South Wales Government is doing to recognise the achievements of young people who participate in the Youth Frontiers program?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: On 17 February 2016 I had the privilege of hosting the inaugural Youth Frontiers award ceremony at Parliament House. In 2015 more than 1,000 students in years 8 and 9 across New South Wales participated in the Youth Frontiers mentoring program. The students were supported by a volunteer mentor who worked with them to improve their skills and confidence by developing their own community project, which was focused on a chosen theme. The themes were Community Harmony, Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing, Engaging in Sport, Empowering Young Women, the Centenary of Anzac, and Environment and Conservation, or a general category for a theme that interested them.

The students who developed outstanding projects in each of the categories were invited to Parliament House to receive an award in recognition of their efforts. I was joined by many of my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House, who congratulated young people from their electorate who received awards. The projects, developed as part of the Youth Frontiers mentoring program, show this Government's continued investment in our youth and demonstrate how young people can engage and play a key role in addressing issues they see in their community.

Sarah Ewers from Vincentia High School received the Environment and Conservation award. She found there was a lack of awareness about the eastern pygmy possum, which is an endangered species in her local area. With the guidance of her mentor, Angela Jenkins, and the support of her local member, the Hon. Shelley Hancock, Sarah created a project to research and spread the word to other young people about how to protect this unique species. Bishar Al-Sheikh from Liverpool Boys High School inspired those around him with a beautiful and simple message: Everyone is family. He received the Community Harmony award after taking this message to schools in his community and speaking to other students about the importance of helping others. Working with his mentor Fetu'u Kautoke, he collected 40 bags of clothes for the Smith Family. The young people I met had clearly benefited from their experience in Youth Frontiers. They were empowered to think outside the box, to try different ideas and to have the courage to speak up for what they believe in.

Kurt Wassink from Snowy Mountains Christian School decided to revive a billycart race that had not been held in years. He saw it as a way to encourage parents and children to get out and get involved in community activities. With the guidance of his mentor, local business and community leader Tony Nassar, and the incredible support of my colleague the Hon. Bronnie Taylor as well as Minister Barilaro in the other place, he organised and ran a very successful billycart derby. The local paper described it as a roaring success, and it is now being reinstated as an annual event. Of course, volunteers are vital to the success of the program. I commend each and every mentor for dedicating their time to support a young person. It is exciting to see the creativity, passion and determination to make a difference that comes from young people collaborating with their mentors.

The New South Wales Government is investing around $5 million into the Youth Frontiers program over two years. It is rewarding to see the positive impact it has had on young people as well as their school and community. I am grateful to the award supporters, including Telstra, SBS, Taronga Zoo, Sydney Legacy, Cricket NSW, ReachOut Australia, and the Black Dog Institute, for getting behind Youth Frontiers and offering the award recipients some fantastic work experience opportunities within their organisations. The New South Wales Government engaged YWCA, Raise Foundation, MTC Australia and Southern Sydney Business Education Network, which successfully recruited more than 1,000 volunteer mentors and 1,000 mentees to participate, all within the space of a few months.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If members have any further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

WOOL GROWING INDUSTRY AND MULESING

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. MARK PEARSON [3.32 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting paragraph (2) and inserting instead:

(2) That this House encourages all woolgrowers to breed sheep to be resistant to flystrike and, in the interim, they should provide pain relief to sheep when mulesing.

10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7243

Research in Australia has put us in a position of world leadership on the use of pain relief and analgesia for farm animals. This has been an issue throughout the world because previously young farm animals have been perceived not to feel pain as much as other animals. This has come about because most farm animals are prey animals and, therefore, they experience pain in very different ways to predatory animals such as dogs, cats or hawks. Some outstanding work has been done in Australia looking at analgesia in relation to mulesing and other mutilations. The studies have been quite visionary and have helped bring the world forward in understanding pain in farm animals.

The studies have examined mulesing procedures on sheep with and without pain management and have looked at nostril flaring, pupil dilation, movement of the eyelids and movement of the abdomen. Sheep do not writhe in pain or cry out, so researchers had to look at other symptomatology which showed whether the animals were in pain and the degree of pain. The study clearly showed that farm animals, lambs and calves, probably experience as much pain as predatory animals, which express pain by screaming, crying or writhing. Prey animals have evolved not to show pain or distress in order to avoid the wolf that may be watching to take out weak, sick or injured animals. They have evolved to cover their pain and distress so that they appear not to be in that state. But that does not mean that they do not suffer as much as other animals.

Another aspect of this study is leading the way in pain management. Young animals—under six months or 12 months—under current legislation across Australia are exempted from being given pain relief. It has now become clear, through veterinary scientific and technical knowledge, that just because an animal is young and is less likely to demonstrate the symptomatology of pain does not mean it is not experiencing pain. Paediatrician Dr Meredith Schiel developed Tri-Solfen, a topical analgesia which contains three different types of analgesia: fast acting, medium acting and slow acting. In her work as a paediatrician she was alarmed to discover that not long ago the view was held that human children, because they were so young, did not feel pain and distress. This has been very clearly proven not to be the case. In fact, this belief is a serious embarrassment to the medical fraternity.

Progress is such that the cattle industry, rather than waiting to be stung or experience an international crisis such as that experienced by the wool industry, is now proactively adopting analgesia and pain relief for surgical procedures, such as castration, tail docking and branding in cattle. It has put proposals before the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA] to adopt analgesia for those procedures. As well, the European Union has looked at what is happening in Australia and has sought to adopt the measures in drug regulations so that analgesia is used when piglets are castrated or having their teeth clipped.

Australia has shown world leadership over the past eight years in relation to progress on farm animals' pain, young farm animals' pain and the application of analgesia. I commend this motion to the House, which notes the progressive work by the farming community, the researchers who have developed the analgesia and the industry that will take this work forward. I also commend this motion to the House as it encourages all wool growers to adopt humane and progressive ways of treating farm animals.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) [3.40 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I contribute to debate on the motion relating to the wool growing industry which was moved by the Hon. Mark Pearson. This motion has been on the Notice Paper for some time because it contained elements that the Government did not support. The Hon. Mark Pearson has now moved an amendment to his original motion. I doubt the debate will conclude today but will be adjourned to next week. In the intervening period I will look closely at the amended motion but for now will reserve my right as to whether the Government supports it. I do say that the motion appears to be heading in the right direction.

The Government supports much of the motion before the House. Over many years members on both sides of the Chamber have been involved in debate on farm animal treatment. I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Mark Pearson and I am sure members from both sides will want to contribute to the debate. The motion recognises the progress of the industry in the treatment of farm animals. That is worth celebrating. However, I indicate that the Government had issues with the underlying intent of the member's original motion. The prevention of flystrike is a key priority for the Australian sheep industry. Flystrike is a horrific disease, as anyone who has worked with sheep will tell you. The sight of maggots eating away at the flesh of a live animal is not something that can be forgotten. When the Hon. Mick Veitch makes his contribution to this debate, I am sure that he, as a former shearer, will touch on this point.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: We hope in not too graphic detail. 7244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I acknowledge the interjection of the Government Whip. It is important to talk about the graphic details. It is not just the sight but also the smell that sticks in one's memory. That is an issue that needs to be raised. As well as the obvious commercial benefits gained from the prevention of flystrike in sheep, the industry has been proactive in working towards the ultimate goal of flock flystrike resistance. The Government supports our sheep and wool industries. The Government does not support the mandating of sheep industry standards in New South Wales because it is not necessary. The industry is already doing a good job in setting sheep standards and wool growers continue to make improvements, particularly in areas such as flystrike.

As the Hon. Mark Pearson's motion states, 80 per cent of producers already use pain relief or are breeding sheep to be resistant to flystrike. I see that as the glass being 80 per cent full, not 20 per cent empty, and that is due to the work of the industry and those within government who have advocated for this industry. Members will recall the efforts of the Hon. Duncan Gay, as the shadow Minister for Industry, and his support of Australian Wool Innovation [AWI] and the industry in their move towards better methods of flystrike control. One of the many reasons the Hon. Duncan Gay has been a champion in this space is that he saw the advantages for the industry as a whole. As a sheep farmer, he knows firsthand the horrors of flystrike and the need for improvements. I also look forward to the Hon. Bronnie Taylor contributing to this debate as she comes from a renowned sheep-breeding and wool-producing property in the Monaro.

The industry has made and continues to make improvements. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Government to mandate the wool industry in New South Wales. The Australian wool industry is on the front foot in tackling the issues and has made world-leading progress in the management of flystrike. The Hon. Mark Pearson, in his contribution, said that the Government should mandate standards because of the possibility of the mixing of wools in offshore processing. The Government disagrees because it considers that the industry is heading in the right direction.

The industry has made great advances in non-invasive management and improved welfare practices. For example, with regards to pain relief, already 77 per cent of lambs being mulesed each year are treated with pain relief. This massive on-farm change, which has occurred in less than a decade, has been led entirely by industry members. I commend them for this change. It did not occur as a result of the Government taking a big stick approach and mandating; it occurred as a result of leadership within the industry—as has been acknowledged in the amended motion. Further, producers in New South Wales have introduced other husbandry practices to improve flystrike management, such as double crutching, lambing times, pasture management and strategic use of chemicals.

The producer-funded marketing organisation Australian Wool Innovation invests in research and development to increase the profitability and sustainability of all production in Australia. The industry has undertaken genetic research and development to breed sheep with flystrike resistance. There is no doubt that this is the long-term goal that everyone is striving towards. Some of the most recent developments for sheep producers include tools to score sheep breech traits. Sheep most susceptible to flystrike have a higher degree of skin wrinkle and wool coverage in the breech region. Sheep producers can now use a nationally consistent set of breech trait scoring charts to increase the resistance in their flock by selecting sheep with greater natural resistance to flystrike. Breeders can also use a national set of merino sheep breeding values for breech wrinkle traits to identify sires with enhanced natural resistance.

The industry is confident that these breeding tools will accelerate the entire industry's progress towards a more naturally flystrike-resistant flock. By the use of research and development in genetics, the industry has identified about 50 per cent of the causes of flystrike and has determined the genetic correlations and heritability of them all. Practical tools have been developed to reduce susceptibility to flystrike, such as the development of the Australian Sheep Breeding Values which growers are now using basically to fast-track natural breeding programs. The entire blowfly genome has been mapped and is now being used to develop new target chemicals for treatment and prevention. Commercially the industry has introduced the National Wool Declaration to allow choice in the marketplace for buyers and processors. Latest figures show that 49.5 per cent of the total wool clip is now classified under the declaration, and that is in all categories.

The industry, through AWI, the woolmark company, works the entire supply chain, including the retail sector. In recent years the industry has witnessed a significant upswing in interest in wool, with increased usage and demand for wool in key apparel markets. Wool continues to be on trend and recognised as a fabulous natural fibre. The industry is on the front foot in combating this issue. This is another opportunity to say to the people responsible for animal husbandry practices and the management and welfare of their flocks that we 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7245

appreciate what they are doing and the money that is being invested by industry and the producers in research in order to achieve better outcomes. The industry is willing to work within the different levels of the supply chain to achieve better outcomes for wool producers in this country.

The Hon. Mark Pearson has another motion on the Notice Paper in relation to mulesing. It goes further and congratulates a wider range of people within the industry. As I have stated, the work of Dr Meredith Sheil and the Australian Wool Growers Association to develop products for pain relief is to be applauded. The work that the industry has done also should be applauded and is worth recognition by the House. In consultation with the Hon. Mark Pearson, I will look at the amendment and when the debate is called on again next week the Government will state whether it will support the motion. I thank the Hon. Mark Pearson for bringing this matter before the House and allowing us to note the achievements of this industry.

Although we come to this debate from different sides of the argument as a result of our different experiences, we all want similar outcomes. We are in agreement that we want to make sure that Australia continues to ride on the sheep's back into the future and is able to service the demand for wool products. Our farmers must be supported and celebrated. They should be at the centre of all conversations around animal husbandry practices and the operation of their businesses. We may differ on how to achieve good animal welfare outcomes but the intent is the same. I applaud elements of this motion. The industry is looking at how to achieve better outcomes while maintaining a viable industry which is a large employer in regional New South Wales. We must hold true to the values of the family farm and our primary industries. I again thank the member for bringing this matter before the House and look forward to listening to the contributions of other members to the debate.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [3.54 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on this motion moved by the Hon. Mark Pearson. I congratulate the member on bringing this matter before the House. It is a matter that should be debated by the House. I have not had many opportunities to talk in the Chamber about my history in this area. I grew up on a farm and during the school holidays my father would take me to the shearing sheds. It was a great place to spend time and to listen to the yarns of the shearers. Some of them were capable of spinning a good yarn.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Unlike yourself.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Unlike myself. I learnt a lot about looking after sheep in those shearing sheds and I learnt from the graziers about their practices in looking after the sheep on their properties. Some school holidays I spent on the back of a horse going from paddock to paddock. I grew up on a farm called "Coorumbene", which was on the Yaven Creek in the beautiful Ellerslie Valley. Dad worked for Michael Roche and John Reynolds. We would regularly muster the sheep into a corner of the paddock and then let them run past one at a time as we looked for indications of flystrike. That was done regularly in order to pick up flystrike in the early stages so that we did not have the ugly scenes of heavily struck sheep.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You spent your school holidays looking at sheep bums.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Interestingly, they strike in more areas than the breech region. Quite often it is around the flank and neck. It is a common mistake for people to focus on the breech region. They will strike in other regions. Flystrike is horrific regardless of where the sheep are struck. As a shearer I had the misfortune of seeing a lot of sheep in agony. We would have to shear the wool away to get to the wound. In some cases we were too late and we would shear the dead sheep. I can think of many bad ways for an animal to die but to see a sheep die from flystrike never, ever leaves you. It is a horrendous way for an animal to die. The Minister spoke about the sights and smells that stay with you. As a former shearer I can remember the smells of the shearing sheds. A lot of things bring back memories of the shearing shed.

The Hon. Niall Blair: Smoko more than anything.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I used to love the smoko, the billy tea and the cold dog's eye. The one thing that I particularly remember about flystruck sheep is the smell. When the shearers, roustabouts or shed hands were shearing a flock of sheep that were heavily flystruck they would be covered in maggots. The maggots would be up your arms and inside your clothes and you would smell. The facilities to clean yourself or to have a smoko or lunch were limited—shearers generally ate in the shed. Those memories do not leave you. It is a very hard way to make a living but that made it even harder. To make a living by picking up the boggi and putting on the dungas is admirable and I acknowledge the hard work of those individuals. It is probably one of the hardest ways to earn a crust in Australia. 7246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

The Hon. Niall Blair: Although working for me is pretty hard.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: What was that, Minister? Did you say working for you is harder? What I will say though is the processes that we have to put in place to stop that are really important. I understand that people have issues around mulesing and it too is quite an aggressive way of preventing flystrike. This resolution is talking about the industry's progression away from mulesing. If we can move away from mulesing, then that will be a good thing. I know every shearer in this country would relish the day when they do not have to shear flystruck sheep. That would be a good thing. For the producer, the wool of flystruck sheep is lost income and a lost asset.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

DRUG POLICY AND LAW REFORM

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [4.00 p.m.]: It is undeniable that the "war on drugs" has comprehensively failed. It has failed families, it has failed young people, it has failed the justice system and it has failed the taxpayer. We need to change course, and urgently, before we unnecessarily lose more lives. Australia still spends more than a billion dollars annually on policing and imprisonment associated with illicit drugs. In New South Wales hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on sniffer dog operations each year. Despite these invasions of privacy, in the vast majority of cases there is a false identification. Even when drugs are found, they are in very small amounts. This results in the arrests of a large number of people who use drugs rather than drug dealers or manufacturers.

Expert organisations such as the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the New South Wales Bar Association's Criminal Law Committee and Australia21 all recommend that resources should be diverted away from detection, prosecution and incarceration towards prevention, education, social services and health care to reduce both demand and the harm caused by drug abuse in our society. Last week the Canberra Declaration of the Australian Parliamentary Working Group on Drug Policy and Law Reform made similar recommendations.

The world is rapidly moving away from failed drug policies. Most famously, Portugal decriminalised personal possession of drugs in 2001. Their experience has conclusively demonstrated massive improvements: more people in treatment, fewer drug overdoses and less crime. Some states in the United States of America— progressive states like Oregon and Washington and conservative states like Colorado and Alaska—have even voted popularly to move away from the prohibitionist model for cannabis, with Colorado directing more than $60 million of tax revenue into its education system and public programs aimed at preventing, treating, and regulating cannabis use. On my recent trip to the United States I met with experts and activists, visited dispensaries that provide cannabis for medicinal purposes and adult recreational use, and toured testing labs and growing facilities. It opened my eyes to how different the debate on drugs is outside Australia. They have enacted changes based on the principles of keeping people safe and making treatment freely and readily available to those who need it.

Recent tragic incidents of drug-related deaths and overdoses at music festivals are another indication of why we need a different focus—and quickly—to prevent needless loss of young lives. Unfortunately the reaction of the New South Wales Premier and Deputy Premier to these incidents indicates their persistence with an outdated and dangerous approach to drug policy based on the same old thinking of "cracking down" on drugs. They want people to stop using drugs. Did prohibition stop people from drinking alcohol? Will they stop smoking tobacco if it is declared an illicit substance? History tells us: of course not. So why drugs?

Harm reduction also means checking drugs at festivals for adulteration and impurities to identify unsafe pills that can then be discarded. Pill testing does reduce the risk of harm and also provides an opportunity to provide support, information and education to people about the adverse effects of using drugs. The current 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7247

Government has ruled out this way of reducing harm in our society, even while admitting, for example, that it does not know the "science behind it". Admittedly there is no silver bullet or perfect remedy, but there are tested and proven drug policies based on reducing harm and minimising risk that treat drug use as a health and social issue. Instead of stigmatising and stereotyping we must listen to and work with drug users and their families. The first step towards this change will be admitting that the prohibitionist and punitive "law and order" model is not working. Let us make sure that in 2016 we are big enough to accept this and embrace a new approach that improves safety, provides treatment and saves lives.

BAPTISTCARE SERVICES

KESONEMALY CHANTACHAK

The Hon. LOU AMATO [4.05 p.m.]: Currently there are more than 342,800 Australians living with dementia, with the number of sufferers expected to rise to 400,000 in under 10 years. By 2050 it is estimated that 900,000 Australians will be suffering with dementia, with 7,400 new cases being diagnosed each week. Presently medical science is unable to cure or slow the progression of the disease. Dementia is the single greatest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 years or older and is the second leading cause of death in Australia. Dementia is an incapacitating disease which means many sufferers require full-time assistance either in special aged care facilities or in their own homes with ongoing professional support.

There are many great organisations that offer professional care services to sufferers of dementia. One such organisation is BaptistCare. BaptistCare is a not-for-profit Christian-based organisation that has been providing much-needed aged-care services since 1944. BaptistCare is one of the largest providers of aged care in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, including both residential care and home services. The organisation boasts more than 160 facilities and programs. It employs more than 4,000 staff and a further 1,000 volunteers.

BaptistCare provides residential aged-care facilities, which are home to almost 1,800 residents across 19 facilities. The organisation is committed to continual improvement, with the completion of a 160-bed centre in Griffith and the Australian Capital Territory. In March this year the organisation commenced building a new residential aged-care facility at Kellyville. BaptistCare is committed to housing for seniors and operating retirement living villages as well as community housing for seniors on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness across New South Wales. Of particular importance is Hope Street, which is a specialised community centre recognised for its great work amongst the homeless community of Woolloomooloo in Sydney.

BaptistCare services provide highly trained staff, who, through dedication and commitment, make it possible for many incapacitated people to live in their own homes. The many services provided include showering, feeding, dressing and maintaining the personal hygiene and dignity of patients. Some patients are completely incapacitated, with various types of disabilities such as dementia, mental illness and other debilitating illness. The organisation's home care services have undergone recent changes with the introduction of the YouChoose service. The YouChoose program is a consumer-directed care model that allows those receiving home care a choice in the delivery of services. Presently, BaptistCare has more than 9,000 home service customers, 38 per cent of whom are living alone in their home. Customers of BaptistCare's retirement villages also have access to the additional support provided by BaptistCare Home Services and residential care if required.

Finally, I make special mention of a particular staff member of BaptistCare Home Services, Kesonemaly Chantachak, known to her customers as Maly. The great work and tireless dedication of Maly, a professional home-care provider, is known to me as she assists in the home care of my staff member's father, who is suffering final stage Lewy Body dementia. Earlier this year Maly was awarded a certificate of outstanding service, which is given to individuals who have consistently demonstrated role model behaviour or who have displayed extended effort that is widely recognised. Maly was awarded the prestigious certificate entitled "Exemplary conduct exceeding even the most critical of expectations". I applaud organisations such as BaptistCare that provide much-needed community support, not only to dementia patients but to many aged Australians. You never know, one of us could be there.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY AND NANCY WAKE

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [4.09 p.m.]: I acknowledge International Women's Day and the continued struggle for women in the two portfolios for which I now have responsibility on behalf of the State Labor Party, 7248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

Sport and Veterans Affairs. I acknowledge those women who have served in the Australian defence forces, both in war and peace. Since 1987 when women were first allowed to serve in some field force units the defence force has taken tremendous leaps forward in opening up opportunities long denied to women. In particular, I acknowledge the leadership of General Peter Gration who, as Chief of the Defence Force from 1987 to 1993— the same years that I served in the Australian Regular Army—was instrumental in changing access to the defence force for women.

I ask the House to note that in 1993 it was General Gration who abolished the prohibition of any person identifying as gay from serving in the forces. I acknowledge also the former Chief of the Army, David Morrison. His efforts to shift the culture of the Australian Army towards women should not be underestimated in modern Australia. He sends a very strong message on egalitarian Australia and what we stand up for.

The person I acknowledge most today is Nancy Wake, perhaps one of the bravest Australians ever to walk this land. She is the manifestation of that ideal that women are not inherently passive or peaceful; they are not inherently anything but human. Having witnessed the violence of the Nazis in Vienna, Nancy Wake set about ridding Europe of them with a passion. If that meant killing them with her bare hands, learning how to mix chemicals to undertake demolitions—a particularly dangerous undertaking—or slipping through enemy lines undercover, Nancy Wake could do it all.

She did not care about the social constrictions placed on women by men. According to Peter Fitzsimons in his biography on Nancy Wake when she was running for the Liberal Party in the seat of Barton against "Doc" Evatt, despite the views of conservative party members she never wore stockings and hats, was quite happy to cross her legs in public and if she wanted to have a beer in a beer garden she did so. As she stated:

What did I care about trying to be a lady? After what I had been through the thought that I would worry about whether or not I wore stockings or a hat was completely ludicrous.

Whilst I understand that the male statues that surround us in this Chamber are all previous members of the Legislative Council—and I acknowledge Dr Mehreen Faruqi's idea for a statue of a woman to be placed here— let it not be another politician, no matter how highly thought of; let it be Nancy Wake. Let every woman and girl who walks into this Chamber ask, "Who is that woman?" Let us tell them she is one of our finest warriors and one of our bravest Australians, and she teaches us every day that girls can do anything and no woman should ever be left behind in our society.

In relation to sport, perhaps the Victorian Parliament would like to consider a statue of Michelle Payne in a similar mode. Her blunt dismissal of all those who doubted the ability of women with the immortal words "get stuffed" should sit eternally on a plaque beneath her statue. This year Australian women have dominated the sporting field: The Matildas' undefeated run through the qualifiers for the Rio de Janeiro Olympics; the Australian Women's Rugby Sevens team, undefeated in the 2016 tournaments and also on the run to the Rio de Janeiro Olympics; the domination of our netball team, the Diamonds; the Hockeyroos' win over Great Britain in Perth and our women cricketers who, despite a bit of a touch up by the New Zealanders, have come out fighting.

However, our sportswomen still struggle for the recognition they deserve. Whether it is fighting for a living wage or more women's sport scholarships, there is still work to be done. Some sports have been leading the charge—Cricket Australia and the Sydney University Women’s Sports Association, to single out just two. Others are catching up and some have a long way to go. When the major codes come knocking on the Government’s door asking for funds let us say, "We want to have a look at your record on women before we hand them over."

SYRIAN AND MIDDLE EAST CHRISTIAN REFUGEES

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.13 p.m.]: The theme of my adjournment speech is rescuing Christians from the killing fields in Syria and the Middle East. Many people would believe that as the Australian Federal Government has agreed to take 12,000 refugees based solely on humanitarian grounds without giving any preference to Syrian Christians or Middle East Christians, Australia is doing its share in finding a solution to this crisis. I do not agree with this policy. I support positive discrimination for Syrian and Middle East Christian refugees.

One of the circumstances making our support for Syrian Christians necessary at this time is that the population is 22 million, with Islam being the main religion. There were 1.1 million Christians in Syria. 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7249

Historically Christians in Syria have always suffered some degree of persecution from the Muslim majority. They have been treated as second-class citizens in that nation. Persecution of Christians in Syria is ranked as fourth in the world. However, with the civil war with the Islamic State this persecution has increased dramatically. Consequently, Christians are now frequently attacked, abducted and killed. One Muslim cleric has declared that "Raping Christian women is not contrary to the precepts of Islam". The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has stated that Syrian Christians:

… are being hunted like dogs by their Islam oppressors, their property stolen, their men beheaded and their woman raped.

He has urged the British Government to prioritise Christians among the Syrian refugees "because they are a particularly vulnerable group". When the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] forces take a town they find the Christians and paint the Arabic letter "N" for Nazarene on the door of their houses to indicate they are followers of Jesus the Nazarene. The Christians in such houses know that they have then three choices facing them when ISIS returns; convert to Islam, flee with all their belongings, or die. I see the situation being very similar to what happened in Germany when the National Socialist party seized power and painted the Star of David on the doors of Jewish residents. This identified those Jewish people destined for execution.

The same extermination fate is now intended for the Christians in the lands controlled by ISIS. When Syrian Christians flee from their intended executions the conditions in many refugee camps are horrendous. They have to leave their possessions and assets in Syria and are dependent on others for food, shelter, clothing and medical facilities, which are in very short supply. Apart from this, most United Nations [UN] refugee camps pose very real threats to the safety of Christian minorities. The British Sunday Express recently reported:

The fanatical jihadis are sending teams of trained killers into camps disguised as refugees to kidnap and kill vulnerable Christians.

A Christian family who had fled Iraq only to suffer again at the hands of the Syrian Islamists in a refugee camp in the German town of Freising eventually returned to Iraq when they could take no more. The same has happened to other refugees in United Nations camps. German authorities in the state of Thuringia have enforced a policy of separating refugees according to their religious background as soon as they arrive. Other states may soon follow suit. If this is the situation in Europe how much more anti-Christian persecution is happening in the Middle East? A United Nations aid worker in Jordan reported that Islamic State jihadis are active in the Middle East camps killing and kidnapping young girls and women to be sex slaves.

Western governments that continue to insist refugees will only be rescued from UN camps in the Middle East fail to understand that most Christians are too fearful to live in the United Nations camps because of the threat of anti-Christian attacks. Instead many are taking shelter in schools, churches or apartments or with relatives where possible. As Christians, we should note the words of the apostle Paul who said that Christians should care for their immediate family and if we do not we deny the faith and we are worse than an unbeliever. We should care about our brothers and sisters who are suffering in the Middle East. I call on the Government to do more to rescue and assist Christian refugees from Syria and the Middle East before it is too late.

FOSSIL FUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.18 p.m.]: I speak about the pleasure I had recently of reading an essay compiled by Mr Robert Bryce, a Senior Fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute. Mr Bryce has written many articles on energy, politics and a range of other topics that have appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Bryce's essay is entitled Fossilized Thinking: Back to communal horse and water powered farms to save the climate. In this essay Bryce reviews a publication he describes as a "simplistic and tedious new book" by Andreas Malm, author and human ecology teacher at Lund University in Sweden. The book is entitled Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. Malm devotes approximately 75 per cent of the text to discussing why English manufacturers abandoned waterwheel driven machines in favour of the new technology of coal-fired steam engines, which he describes as "little more than a ploy by those evil capitalists to subjugate workers" with the end result that we will now all die from global warming. 7250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2016

Bryce describes a discussion in Malm's book where he quotes an economist by the name of Richard Jones who compared the cost and efficiency of water power with steam power. Jones concluded that water power was cheap but uncertain, while the steam engine was costly, powerful, certain and continuous. In his essay, Bryce says of Malm:

For some reason, Malm prefers the days of yore, when production had to be shut down because of drought, or flood, or frozen rivers. He attempts to explain the complex world of energetics by marrying Marxism with climate-change catastrophism. By doing so, he puts himself squarely in the camp of the climate doomsayers … who have claimed that the solution to climate change is to abandon modern society and organise a socialist, organic-agriculture economy, where we can all, no doubt, have free yoga classes.

Bryce goes on to explore the concept of power density, the ability to concentrate the flow of energy from a given area, volume or mass, and the relationship between higher power density solutions and more efficient production systems. He uses the example of agriculture and how the human race has been corralling more energy since we began walking upright. We moved from being hunters and gatherers to planting seeds and growing crops. The very first farmers tilled the soil, planted crops, harvested and hauled the grain using the only power they had corralled—their own personal energy. They soon learned that if they harnessed the power of their large animals such as horses and cattle they could till, plant, harvest and haul so much more grain in a day than they could by doing all the work themselves.

This argument is easily expanded to agriculture today. In 1892 the first petrol-powered tractor was developed and fossil fuel powered farming commenced. In 1921 the first Lanz Bulldog tractor was built. It was a 12-horsepower single cylinder 6.3 litre oil burning engine, which heralded the start of mechanical agriculture. Nearly 250,000 Lanz Bulldogs were built in various configurations until the company was bought out by John Deere in 1956. The concentration of power density continued. A single man now has the energy capacity to provide food for tens, hundreds and thousands of people rather than just providing for himself and his immediate family. Bryce notes that over the past seven decades we have moved from electricity hungry vacuum tube computers to highly efficient nano circuits that are millions of times more efficient than the original models. Yet Malm insists that every joule and British thermal unit we use is infected with class struggle. He ignores how the development of steam power led to a revolution that allowed even unskilled workers the opportunity to travel and search out better employment prospects in more distant abodes.

Malm condemns all hydrocarbons yet he ignores the perfection of modern combustion engines and the contribution they have made to the concentration of power density and the development of our modern society. Bryce identifies that Malm decries coal and steam in 13 of the 16 chapters of his book and finally suggests that the solution lies in central planning with major carbon dioxide emitting nations setting up a special ministry to control greenhouse gases—à la Leon Trotsky. I am sure members of The Greens have all read, as Robert Bryce describes it, "Professor Malm's Climate Gulag", and use it as their policy template because it appears to reflect the ideological nonsense those members tend to promulgate in this House.

SYDNEY ARTS

The Hon. WALT SECORD (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.23 p.m.]: Today I make my first adjournment speech as the newly appointed shadow Minister for the Arts. Few members would be aware that my first university degree in Canada was a Bachelor of Arts, specialised honours in film, art history and fine arts. In June 1987 I was awarded the university's playwriting prize. Between 2007 and 2009 I was an elected board member of the Sydney International Film Festival. Life after university takes wonderful and unusual turns and I became a print journalist, a political staffer and now a parliamentarian. Regrettably, I accepted that my contact with the arts had disappeared or been delayed due to family and work commitments. However, over the past two years my love for the arts has been reignited by Sydney's diverse theatre and opera scene. This is partly due to my partner, who studied costume design at a Moscow university and worked in professional theatre in Russia and Europe. She designed costumes for opera, and sets and costumes for many productions for state theatres, including a Russian production of The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams.

Over the past two years, I have been fortunate to see more than 40 different plays, operas and musical productions in New South Wales. Many of those were at our leading venues, such as the Sydney Opera House, the Belvoir St Theatre and the Sydney Theatre Company. I was delighted to find that some of the most interesting productions are occurring outside the mainstream theatres in smaller venues. This included the Hayes Theatre, independent productions at the Seymour Centre, the Griffin Theatre Company in residence at Sydney's historic SBW Stables Theatre and the Darlinghurst Theatre Company. A performance of Gogol's 10 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7251

The Government Inspector by the Actors Centre Australia in Leichhardt and The Dapto Chaser at the SBW Stables Theatre both leap to mind. Plays such as The Dapto Chaser show that local talent is impressive and essential to enhancing our nation's theatre and literary scene.

Unfortunately, funding cuts to the arts at the State and Federal levels mean that New South Wales theatres will be more conservative in their approaches to staging new or edgy productions. They are forced to be less willing to take chances with new Australian plays and will resort to the classics or ones already tested overseas. In 2014-15 the Federal Government cut $100 million from the Australia Council for the Arts, but there have been some bright spots recently. On 29 August I had the honour of attending the second annual Lysicrates Prize, which was established by John and Patricia Azarias and the Griffin Theatre Company, to encourage Australia's playwriting talent. I had the privilege of seeing 20-minute excerpts from the three finalist plays: Saint Theo by Campion Decent, The Good Wolf by Elise Hearst and The Approximate Balance by Mary Rachel Brown, which won. The Approximate Balance was written by the same playwright who wrote The Dapto Chaser. It was a thoroughly enjoyable evening and it was reassuring to cast a vote for the winning play. Hopefully one day we will see it produced as a feature-length work. The leading-edge play readings I enjoyed thanks to the Azarias only add to a rich list of memories and images from other great productions that I have enjoyed in Sydney recently.

In dramatic theatre I have seen The Secret River, King Lear, Arcadia, Orlando, Of Mice and Men, A Christmas Carol, The Wizard of Oz, Venus in Fur, Jasper Jones, The Battle of Waterloo, The Wharf Revue in 2014 and 2015, Switzerland, Endgame, Jumpy, The Dog/The Cat, Three Sisters, Mother Courage and Her Children, Seventeen, lvanov, Mortido, The Blind Giant is Dancing and The Tribe, which was staged in a Surry Hills backyard. As for opera, I have been fortunate to see classics such as La Boheme, The Marriage of Figaro, Turandot, Madame Butterfly, Luisa Miller, The Pearlfishers, Don Carlos, and the gut-wrenching contemporary Australian work of The Rabbits.

In musical theatre, I have seen productions of Wicked, Little Shop of Horrors, Grey Gardens, Dog Fight, Violet, Anything Goes and the Australian classic by Bob Ellis and Michael Boddy, The Legend of King O'Malley. I visited Mr Ellis recently and sincerely wish him and his family well in his battle with cancer. On 15 February I attended a lecture by one of Australia's leading designers Stephen Curtis on set and costume design. Mr Curtis, whose design of The Secret River was truly breathtaking, talked about the weighty responsibility of set and costume designers and directors in Australia. In many cases, they may be staging the one and only production of some Australian plays.

I advise the Chamber that we purchased most of the theatre and opera tickets. However, I thank the Belvoir St Theatre for a select number of complementary invitations. I will end with the remarks of Howard Shalwitz, the artistic director at Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company, which develops new American plays. In 2011 he gave a lecture entitled "Seven Reasons Why Theatre Makes Our Lives Better", in which he said:

Theatre matters because it influences the way we think and feel about our own lives and encourages us to take a hard look at ourselves, our values, and our behaviour.

I agree that theatre lies at the heart of democratic life. It builds our skills for listening to different sides of an argument and empathising with the struggles of our fellow human beings, regardless of their views and how different they may be. I relish the opportunity I have been provided and eagerly look forward to serving as shadow Minister for the Arts alongside the talented team that Labor leader Luke Foley has assembled for the March 2019 election.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.28 p.m. until Tuesday 15 March 2016 at 2.30 p.m.

______