New South Wales
Legislative Assembly
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
Fifty-Seventh Parliament First Session
Wednesday, 18 November 2020
Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements ...... 4853 Thought Leadership Breakfast ...... 4853 Bills ...... 4853 Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020 ...... 4853 First Reading ...... 4853 Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 ...... 4853 Second Reading Debate ...... 4853 Consideration in Detail ...... 4874 Committees ...... 4878 Legislation Review Committee ...... 4878 Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 ...... 4878 Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 24/57 ...... 4878 Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission ...... 4880 Report: Review of the Health Care Complaints Commission's 2017-18 and 2018-19 Annual Reports ...... 4880 Legislation Review Committee ...... 4882 Membership ...... 4882 Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety ...... 4882 Membership ...... 4882 Announcements ...... 4882 Australasian Parliamentary Administration Conference ...... 4882 Members ...... 4882 Representation of Ministers Absent During Questions ...... 4882 Question Time ...... 4882 Asset Recycling ...... 4882 State Budget and Health ...... 4883 Land Tax ...... 4884 State Budget and Agriculture ...... 4885 Land Tax ...... 4887 State Budget ...... 4888 Camellia Land Purchase ...... 4889 State Budget and COVID-19 ...... 4890 Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 4892 State Budget and Social Housing ...... 4892 Committees ...... 4893 Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety ...... 4893 Reports ...... 4893 Legislative Assembly Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development ...... 4893 Inquiry ...... 4893 Business of the House ...... 4893 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Petition Debate ...... 4893 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Christmas Felicitations ...... 4893 Petitions ...... 4894 Petitions Received ...... 4894 Bills ...... 4894 Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 ...... 4894 Consideration in Detail ...... 4894 Public Interest Debate ...... 4905 Government Performance ...... 4905 Motions ...... 4912 Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 4912 Reference ...... 4912 Bills ...... 4912 Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 ...... 4912 Consideration in Detail ...... 4912 Business of the House ...... 4917 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 4917 Motions ...... 4917 Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 4917 Reference ...... 4917 Bills ...... 4923 Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 ...... 4923 Consideration in Detail ...... 4923 Business of the House ...... 4928 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Divisions ...... 4928 Bills ...... 4928 Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 ...... 4928 Consideration in Detail ...... 4928 Third Reading ...... 4938 Bushfires Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 4938 Returned ...... 4938 Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2020 ...... 4938 Consideration in Detail ...... 4938 Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020 ...... 4942 Second Reading Speech ...... 4942 Second Reading Debate ...... 4945 Third Reading ...... 4954 National Parks and Wildlife Legislation Amendment (Reservations) Bill 2020 ...... 4954 Second Reading Speech ...... 4954 Second Reading Debate ...... 4954 Third Reading ...... 4956 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing
Private Members' Statements ...... 4956 Hornsby Relay for Life ...... 4956 Batyr Being Herd Pathways Program ...... 4957 Tribute to Ollie Hall ...... 4958 Dunmore Lakes Sand Mining ...... 4958 Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital ...... 4959 Ku-ring-gai Electorate ...... 4960 State Budget and Wollongong Electorate ...... 4961 Pancreatic Cancer ...... 4962 Hastings Secondary College Port Macquarie and Westport Campuses ...... 4962 Higher School Certificate Students ...... 4964 Salute to Dubbo Business Awards ...... 4964 Suicide Prevention ...... 4965 Penrith Electorate Infrastructure ...... 4966 State Budget and Lakemba Electorate ...... 4967 Federal Member for McMahon...... 4968 Education and Training ...... 4969 Tribute to Arthur Inglis ...... 4970 Tuggerah Activation Precinct ...... 4971 Community Recognition Statements ...... 4971 E A Southee Public School ...... 4971 NAIDOC Week ...... 4971 Gosford Men's Shed ...... 4972 Tribute to Mary Bulman ...... 4972 New South Wales Australian of the Year Shane Fitzsimmons ...... 4972 MacKillop Catholic College ...... 4972 Miranda Magpies Cricket Club ...... 4972 International Pathology Day ...... 4973 Weddin Shire Council ...... 4973 The Village Project ...... 4973 Empire Bay Public School ...... 4973 Wadalba Community School ...... 4973 Raymond Aspelt ...... 4974 Sixteen Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence ...... 4974 Will Hodges ...... 4974 Aboriginal Legal Service ...... 4974 David King ...... 4974 West Gosford Social Housing ...... 4975 St Mary's Catholic Primary School ...... 4975 Prophetic Relics Photo Exhibition ...... 4975 Lismore's Friendship Festival 'piazza in the Park' Celebrates Links to Italy ...... 4975 Commending Tenterfield Fire & Rescue's New Recruits ...... 4975 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing
Orange Palliative Working Group ...... 4976 Toongabbie Legal Centre...... 4976 Thank You ...... 4976 Matty Richards ...... 4976 Remembrance Day 2020 ...... 4977 Winston Hills Community Leaders Catch Up ...... 4977 Forster Mural ...... 4977 Kirsty Williams ...... 4977 Parents and Citizens Associations ...... 4977 Ballina Shire Meals on Wheels ...... 4978 Kathryn Dolby ...... 4978 City of Penrith RSL Sub-Branch ...... 4978 Tourism and Transport Forum ...... 4978 Light the Night Leukaemia Fundraiser ...... 4978 Dennis Perry ...... 4979 Sophie Clancy ...... 4979 Patrick Thomas Awarded Agwa NSW Apprentice of the Year Award ...... 4979 Diwali Celebrations ...... 4979 Fairfield Relay for Life ...... 4979 Order of Liverpool Awards 2020 – David Millott ...... 4980 Order of Liverpool Awards 2020 – Silvio Marucci ...... 4980 Remembrance Day ...... 4980 Barker Street Reserve ...... 4980 Mick Beckwith ...... 4980 Chennai Silks ...... 4981 Tenth Anniversary of Goactive...... 4981 Ashley Hill ...... 4981 Nigel Sweetnam ...... 4981 Camden Community Band ...... 4981 Tessa the K9 Therapy Dog ...... 4982 National Gelato Appreciation Day ...... 4982 Fairfield City Police – Movember ...... 4982 Walk Sydney ...... 4982 Australian Museum ...... 4982 Soft Landing Newcastle ...... 4983 Great Southern Nights ...... 4983 Coolamon Touch Association ...... 4983 Michelle Newman ...... 4983 Adla Coure's Contribution to the Community ...... 4984 Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club ...... 4984 Justice of the Peace 50 Years' Service ...... 4984 Community First Responders - Dangar Island ...... 4984 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing
Marilyn Cameron 25 Years of Service ...... 4984 North Sydney Demonstration School Upgrades ...... 4985 Mike Boadle and Brian Earsman ...... 4985 Private Robert Kearns and Private William John Murphy ...... 4985 New Fire Recruits ...... 4985 World AIDS Day ...... 4985 Settlement Services International ...... 4986 World Diabetes Day ...... 4986 Coogee Christmas Card Competition ...... 4986 Wingecarribee SES ...... 4986 Bowral Show 21 ...... 4987 David Jordan - India Australia Awards ...... 4987 Les Riley ...... 4987 Flag ...... 4987
Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4853
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday, 18 November 2020
The Speaker (The Hon. Jonathan Richard O'Dea) took the chair at 09:30. The Speaker read the prayer and acknowledgement of country.
Announcements THOUGHT LEADERSHIP BREAKFAST The SPEAKER: I acknowledge Anna Bligh, former Premier of Queensland and now Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Banking Association, who was our guest speaker at this morning's Thought Leadership Breakfast. I place on record the Parliament's appreciation of her contribution. Bills DRUG SUPPLY PROHIBITION ORDER PILOT SCHEME BILL 2020 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Council, introduced and read a first time. The SPEAKER: I order that the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for a later hour. [Notices of motions given] MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 Second Reading Debate Debate resumed from 11 November 2020. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (09:51:43): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020. The overview of the bill states: The object of this Bill is to establish a scheme under which a person (a third party) can be ordered to provide a blood sample for testing for blood-borne diseases if— (a) the third party's bodily fluid has come into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker as a result of the third party's deliberate action, and (b) the worker is at risk of contracting a blood-borne disease as a result. The scheme applies only to third parties who are at least 14 years of age. For third parties who are at least 14 years of age but under 18 years of age an order is made by the Children's Court. For third parties who have a mental health or cognitive impairment, an order is made by the Local Court. For all other third parties, an order is made by the worker's senior officer, who is usually the head of the agency that employs the worker. An order is a mandatory testing order and a third party must not fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a mandatory testing order. The maximum penalty is 100 penalty units, currently $11,000, or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. The Bill provides for the following matters— (a) the health, emergency and public sector workers to whom the proposed Act will apply, (b) the making of an application for a mandatory testing order, (c) the determination of an application for a mandatory testing order by a senior officer, (d) the making of a mandatory testing order by a Court, (e) the carrying out of the blood testing, (f) reviews of decisions about mandatory testing orders by the Chief Health Officer, (g) offences and proceedings, (h) the administration of the scheme and other miscellaneous matters, (i) consequential amendments to other Acts. I am conscious that the second reading of this bill has been moved in this Chamber; however, it is my understanding that it will not be dealt with by the Legislative Council until after the summer session. There is also an expectation that this bill will be referred to an upper House parliamentary committee for stakeholder feedback. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4854
Obviously there have been a lot of discussions in the community about this bill. The draft bill, which has been in the community for the past six months, has been significantly changed based on feedback from communities, in particular, organisations such as the AIDS Council of New South Wales. The two essential groups that have long argued for the need for mandatory blood testing are the NSW Police Force and Corrective Services NSW officers. At some Corrective Services facilities large numbers of officers are being stood down as a result of the actions of certain prisoners. At the moment there is no requirement for mandatory testing, which is causing significant distress to those workers providing frontline services. This measure will resolve that distress and the length of time officers are being stood down as a result of the abhorrent behaviour of some people. At the same time communities have significant concerns about the stigma that is attached to this type of testing and what that means to their communities within the public domain. That is why it is appropriate to refer this bill to an upper House committee in order to address all the issues, to place it on the public record and for everybody in the community to have a say. In that way both sides understand all of the concerns. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we will await the recommendations from the upper House committee and perhaps move amendments to the bill in the upper House. I understand that my colleague the member for Sydney may move amendments in this House. I do not know whether there will be general agreement to those amendments but they will have the support of the Labor Opposition. The Opposition wants to give all stakeholders a chance to put their view and to thrash out these issues in the upper House, where I foreshadow there will be further amendments. This is an opportunity for all members to put their view on the record in relation to this mandatory blood testing legislation. I thank everyone who has been involved in this long and hard process but there is still some way to go. At the end of the day we must protect our frontline workers and make sure they are not under significant stress. We also want to make sure that we hear from the people in the community who in the past have suffered significant vilification and vulnerability. Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Holsworthy) (09:56:47): I support the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 and thank the Hon. David Elliott, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for introducing the bill to the House. Being exposed to another person's blood, saliva or faeces is not just about the gross factor—although it certainly is that—but also it can be dangerous. It could lead to the transmission of life-threatening viruses such as HIV or hepatitis. This bill will support frontline workers to seek medical advice, arm themselves with knowledge about the risks of contracting a bloodborne disease and, where appropriate, obtain information about a third party's bloodborne virus status. I will focus specifically on the benefits of the scheme for police officers. Firstly, however, let me express my admiration for the brave and resilient police men and women who put their lives on the line to protect and support others in the community. I extend my sincerest thanks to them. The bill provides for mandatory testing of third parties who may have potentially exposed a frontline worker to bloodborne diseases such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C where the third party has not agreed to undergo voluntary testing. We in this Chamber and in the community often talk about how police have a tough job. A tough day at the office—or in the bear pit for us—is a far cry from what a police officer might call a tough day. And it does not get much tougher than being injured, assaulted or exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases whilst on the job. Frontline emergency services such as policing not only have a high incidence of injury due to the nature of the work but also, sadly, are open to deliberate attack from hostile members of the public. To put this into context, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research recorded around 2,537 incidents of assaults on police in the 2019-20 financial year. In that financial year, I am advised, there were around 490 incidents from which a NSW Police Force employee was exposed to bodily fluids, including from bites and needlestick injuries. This is higher than the average annual figure of 450 incidents, which was reported in the Government's 2018 Mandatory Disease Testing Options Paper. In quoting these figures, I am in no way suggesting that every police assault involved exposure to third party bodily fluids, nor am I suggesting that every bodily fluid exposure incident arose from a criminal assault or would fall within the remit of this bill. Police officers and other frontline officers put themselves on the line so that we in the community can feel safe and secure. Therefore, we owe it to them to have legislation in place to help make them feel a bit safer and a bit more secure if they come into contact with bodily fluids and there is a risk of a bloodborne disease being transmitted. It is important to remember that behind each of these statistics there is a real person who has been hurt on the job and who now faces the stress and anxiety of being potentially exposed to a life-threatening disease. For example, I have been told about an officer who was spat on whilst trying to stop a member of the public from self-harming. The person's saliva entered the officer's eyes and mouth. The officer was obviously not in a position to know whether or not there was blood in the saliva. The bill provides for this situation by supporting the exposed officer to access medical advice to help assess the exposure risk and to perhaps take the next step of seeking third-party testing. Another example I have been told about is an officer bitten and scratched whilst trying to arrest a person. Both the bite and the scratch drew blood, and the officer had no way of knowing whether some Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4855
of the person's blood entered their wounds, particularly via the bite wound. In that case, it was later found out that the arrested person had hepatitis C. Again, a scenario such as this might be covered by the bill and provide the exposed worker to medical advice and the option of third-party testing. Part of the bill process requires the third party first being asked to consent to voluntary testing. Where this is agreed to there is no need to enliven the next steps in the bill. There would be no need to pursue a mandatory testing order as the practical intention of the bill has still been achieved—that is, a test is taken and information obtained to help guide the care and treatment of the exposed worker. It is also important to remember that these incidents can affect not just the officer but also their family, friends and colleagues who are trying to support them. I can only imagine that these incidents could be quite daunting for the officers in question. To then go home and tell your spouse that you might have been exposed to a life-threatening disease would be incredibly overwhelming. We as legislators might not be able to heal their physical wounds or mental scars, or treat the diseases they might catch through their job, but the least we can do is provide a framework to help them access information that might assist. If a frontline worker is exposed to potential infection through contact with a bodily fluid of the third party, information is key to supporting their physical and mental recovery. Early information about any diseases will certainly inform medical decisions made by their treating doctor. The bill supports workers' access to information in a number of ways. Firstly, the bill provides that an affected worker contemplating a mandatory testing undergoes a medical consultation, preferably with a medical practitioner with qualifications or experience in bloodborne diseases. During the consultation, the relevant medical practitioner will inform the worker about the risk to the worker of contracting a bloodborne disease from the third party as a result of the contact, and the appropriate action to be taken by the worker to mitigate the risks of contracting a bloodborne disease from the third party as a result of the contact or on-transmitting a contracted bloodborne disease to another person. The medical practitioner can also advise the worker on the extent to which third-party testing will assist in assessing the risk to the worker of contracting a bloodborne disease. This information will be absolutely vital to the care, wellbeing and treatment of the worker, regardless of whether a mandatory order is sought. In many cases, this information might be enough to reassure the worker their exposure risk is low and they may not need to take the next step of seeking an order. Secondly, the bill provides an avenue for third-party testing in order to get more information for the worker. In many cases, the process of applying for a mandatory testing order may in fact result in the third party agreeing to undergo voluntary testing to obtain the needed information. Where the third party does not, or cannot, consent to voluntary testing a mandatory testing order may be applied for and, if justified in all the circumstances, it may be granted. It is important to emphasise that mandatory testing is about obtaining information that may help in the care and treatment of an exposed worker. There are safeguards in place to ensure an order is only made where justified. The bill also provides that third-party test results are provided to medical practitioners and not directly to the affected worker. This is important from a privacy point of view and also because the medical information should be conveyed to the worker by a doctor in the context of their treatment. This bill cannot mend the physical wounds our hardworking police and emergency workers might receive, but it will help them to access information vital to their medical care and mental wellbeing. Members in this Chamber are not out on the front line alongside our health and emergency workers, but we can use this Chamber to develop legislation that supports them as they serve and protect us. I thank the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, his department and all his staff for bringing this bill to the House. I know it will make a difference, particularly to the level of stress that our frontline workers face in these incidents. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (10:05:00): The Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 is retrograde, irresponsible and encourages stigma and discrimination of people who live with bloodborne diseases like HIV. It is not based on evidence and will do nothing to protect frontline workers. The bill should not be made law, and I call on all members of this House to oppose it. The bill has very few safeguards in it, and I will be proposing a number of amendments to put safeguards in the legislation. At the outset, I make it clear that this bill is not about COVID or COVID tests. Public health orders are in place regarding that, and the Government could strengthen those without legislation if it so wished. This legislation predates the pandemic. It follows the Leader of the Opposition jumping on a dangerous bandwagon for a headline to force—without evidence—HIV tests on vulnerable people at the behest of a police officer, which then sparked the Government to act to outdo the Opposition. I will outline why I, as a gay man, am so deeply concerned about this bill. When you come from a community that has been bashed by the police, has been body-slammed by police and whose safety was negligently ignored by the police for decades, you get very concerned with legislation that would potentially allow a police officer to weaponise an HIV test as a form of punishment against a gay person or someone from another Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4856
vulnerable group. In the height of the AIDS crisis this law was not needed. Why is it now needed when HIV spread has almost been eliminated in this State? Regardless of the history of police violence and neglect against the LGBTQI community, I will outline the work I have done to build and repair relationships between that community and the NSW Police Force. I have participated in recruitment drives for the police to encourage more LGBTQI people to join the force. I helped broker the Mardi Gras accord after a police officer body-slammed a parade marcher. I have taken police officers up on stages in gay bars and urged the community to trust and work with them. I have spoken at police leadership training about LGBTQI issues. I find this legislation—brought to this House as a result of a fearmongering campaign by the Police Association of NSW—personally insulting and extremely damaging to the work done by myself and people in the NSW Police Force itself to support good relationships between the LGBTQI community and the police. The Mandatory Disease Testing Bill would allow a frontline worker who has come into contact with a third person's bodily fluids as the result of a deliberate action to seek an order from a senior officer to force that third person to get tested for HIV and other bloodborne diseases. Mandatory tests go against all harm minimisation and evidence-based health principles—the policies that have helped New South Wales become a world leader in HIV management. HIV spread has almost been eliminated in this State. This was the result of incredible work led by the AIDS Council of New South Wales [ACON] that involved removing stigma, encouraging safe behaviour such as condom use and not sharing needles, providing access to testing, and supporting new treatment. This work was done within high-risk communities and across the wider population. Only 0.1 per cent of the Australian population is now living with HIV, and new diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men are decreasing. Its prevalence among sex workers is lower than that in the general population, at 0.04 per cent, and Australia has one of the lowest rates of HIV for injecting drug users in the world, at 1.1 per cent. More than 95 per cent of people living with HIV in this State are taking medication to eliminate the risk of transmitting the virus. Hepatitis B notifications have been declining: Fewer than 84,000 people across the country have the disease. There is easy access to a hepatitis B vaccine and other bloodborne viruses can be prevented, managed and cured. ACON has a long history of opposing mandatory testing policies because they are counterproductive to disease control. Forced testing incites discrimination and stigma and provides little long-term benefit. Removing a person's autonomy to consent to medical procedures and using such procedures as a form of punishment with little independent oversight not only breaches human rights but also is poor public health policy. While there has not been an occurrence of occupational transmission of HIV for emergency service workers in Australia in over 15 years, I do understand that being exposed to someone's bodily fluids could cause distress. But this bill will do nothing to reduce that stress or provide certainty or confidence to those workers. We know that there can be a time lag before a bloodborne virus is detected in someone's system, so a negative test is never conclusive. We also know that exposure does not always mean transmission occurred, so a positive test in the third party does not confirm transmission. Indeed, testing a third person is unlikely to provide any useful information to someone concerned about transmission. It is universally agreed that it is far more reliable to test the person who is concerned that they could have contracted a disease than testing the person who could have infected them. The best thing for a person worried about potential exposure to HIV is to start post-exposure prophylaxis medication. This bill is not about protecting frontline workers. It does not even limit orders to incidents in which there has been a transmission of bodily fluid. Orders can be made purely based on being in contact with a bodily fluid, such as being spat at. This has no scientific health basis. The bill has clearly been designed to enable the use of the orders as a form of punishment. While an applicant is required to consult with a medical practitioner, there is no requirement for them to provide the senior officer the advice they receive before making a decision. The inclusion of children in this bill is abhorrent. HIV rates in under 18s are negligible, with only three young people diagnosed with the condition last year and they are being treated. Sending mandatory testing applications to the Children's Court is a gross waste of resources in a system that needs to focus on child protection. Powers to use force against a person held in custody to undergo a blood test are blatantly disturbing. Senior officers will be able to issue mandatory testing orders before the guidelines are even in place. The guidelines will set up the framework for determining applications, providing medical advice to applicants and taking blood from third parties. In drafting the guidelines the Chief Health Officer needs to consult only with the commissioners representing frontline workers, with no provision to ensure that there is input from organisations representing those most likely targeted by the orders. The guidelines are not even legislated and will not be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. HIV testing normally occurs in a health context where people are counselled before their test and before they receive their results. A test may uncover difficult news about someone's health status or bloodborne virus status. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4857
The bill removes that testing from the supportive health context and moves it to a punitive environment. This is blatantly wrong and will deny people the support they need to prepare for or deal with results. Options available to third parties to get a review of an order against them provide few safeguards. Mandatory testing orders do not need to include clear information about how to request a review. A third party has only one business day to request a review and they will still be forced to submit to a blood test regardless of the outcome of that review. Forcing someone to undergo any puncture with the threat of fines or jail time is not an effective health policy and will not give genuine comfort to frontline workers. [Extension of time] Providing frontline workers with training about bloodborne virus transmission and modern prevention in treatment practices would be a more useful policy in protecting frontline workers and will give them peace of mind should they come into contact with someone else's bodily fluids. It is likely that these orders will be disproportionately used as retribution against people who mistrust authority and lash out because they are marginalised. They include people who are homeless, who have mental health concerns, who struggle with addiction, who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, who are LGBTQI, who have complex emotional problems and who are disadvantaged. These people should be supported, not feared. Medical procedures should never be mandatory and should never be used as a form of punishment. We became the world leaders in HIV and COVID-19 transmission because we listened to the experts and we based policy on health advice. This bill transfers disease control from a health context to a punitive context while inciting fear. It is a backward step for New South Wales. I foreshadow that at a later stage I will be moving a number of amendments to strengthen safeguards and address some of the most problematic parts of this bill. In the context of this bill members have talked about spitting. This bill spits on years of progress to destigmatise HIV; it spits on years of progress to build stronger relationships between the police and the LGBTQI community; it spits on all the medical advice that shows it is unnecessary and dangerous. This is an appalling bill. I oppose the bill. Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove—Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections) (10:15:31): As Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections, I am very proud to speak to debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020, which is fundamentally about supporting and safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our frontline workers. Within weeks following my appointment last year as the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections, I met with the Public Service Association [PSA] and its Prison Officers Vocational Branch [POVB] to hear firsthand about issues that were important to our frontline workers in Corrective Services NSW. Mandatory disease testing was the first issue raised with me by the PSA, and I am proud to be here today to announce the measures the New South Wales Government is taking to protect and defend the health and wellbeing of our frontline workers. I offer my sincere appreciation to Stewart Little, the general secretary of the PSA, Nicole Jess, the chairperson of the Prison Officers Vocational Branch and Dave McCauley, the industrial officer of the PSA and POVB, who of course is more commonly referred to as Boxhead. I thank them for their hard work and commitment to this issue being addressed. I pay tribute to and acknowledge the hard work done by the Police Association, particularly Tony King and Tony Bear. I thank Peter Severin, the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW for his support on this important issue on behalf of all corrections staff. I also thank my chief of staff, Chris Spence, my deputy chief of staff, Emily Nesbitt, and the rest of my staff for their hard work in achieving these reforms. Correctional staff do an extraordinary job on the front line in often volatile and unpredictable situations. In return, we have a responsibility to protect them, and this includes supporting all frontline workers when they are exposed to bodily fluids. We did not need COVID-19 to know that Corrective Services NSW and Youth Justice personnel, NSW Police Force officers, health workers and other emergency services personnel place themselves in a position of risk to protect the New South Wales community each and every day. Frontline workers such as police and paramedics can be exposed to bodily fluids as part of their daily duties. Exposure can occur while providing medical assistance to an injured person during an altercation or while attempting to effect an arrest. In our prisons and courts acts of self-harm, assaults on other inmates and unfortunately assaults targeting our staff may all result in staff being exposed to bodily fluids and the risk that a bloodborne virus is transmitted. Unfortunately, some inmates think it is appropriate or in some way acceptable to spit at officers—in some cases having bitten the inside of their cheek—or throw faecal matter and blood at officers. Officers have also been bitten during their duties. For Community Corrections officers who manage offenders on parole and community orders, there also is the risk they will be assaulted by an offender, despite all risk mitigations, and be exposed to bodily fluids. Figures from Corrective Services NSW show that so far this year, to 31 October, 135 correctional staff were exposed to bodily fluids. Worse still, another 12 staff suffered needlestick injuries. In the past three years, an alarming 448 incidents have been recorded of officers being exposed to bodily fluids, including saliva, blood, semen and faeces. This figure includes 32 needlestick injuries. It is abhorrent. It is disgusting. No-one should have Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4858
to face this kind of behaviour in the workplace, let alone deal firstly with the utter depravity of the act and then the concern that the worker and their family could be exposed to HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B and living with that possibility for the ensuing three to six months. The New South Wales Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety inquiry into violence against emergency services personnel noted that coming into contact with another person's bodily fluid is a confronting experience that can cause concern and stress for workers due to the potential for serious disease infection. Unfortunately for correctional staff, infection from a serious disease is something that has occurred within living memory. First Class Correctional Officer Geoff Pearce contracted HIV following an unprovoked syringe attack by an AIDS-infected prisoner at Long Bay in July 1990. The 21-year-old, who had graduated from the Brush Farm Corrective Services Academy only two months earlier, was stabbed in the buttock by a prisoner who ran off yelling, "AIDS". Alarmed, Geoff ran to his supervisor, who squeezed blood from the wound and sterilised it with disinfectant. But it was to no avail. Despite a one-in-400 chance of developing HIV, Geoff tested positive five weeks later. He was able to return to work with the support of his colleagues, who treated him no differently. But it was a different story on the outside. People still did not know a lot about HIV. At that time, it was still the lepers' disease. In Geoff's spare time he worked to allay the fears by correcting the misinformation. He addressed schools and community groups about HIV and AIDS, educating people that breathing the same air as him did not mean they would get AIDS. Such was his dedication and commitment that Geoff was posthumously awarded an Order of Australia medal. At the peak of his education campaign Geoff's health declined and tests confirmed the worst; he had developed AIDS. In the advanced stages of his illness his mother, Kerrie, recalled, "Geoff was in tremendous pain but only started the morphine a few days before he died. We were there by his side when it happened. He let out a deep breath and then he was gone." Geoff died on 31 August 1997. The outcome for his attacker? He died of an AIDS-related illness before ever being brought to justice. Touched by the tragedy, I recommended that a correctional centre at Windsor be renamed in Geoff's memory. The renaming was gazetted earlier this year and the Geoffrey Pearce Correctional Centre, at the Francis Greenway Complex at Windsor, now stands as a tribute to this brave young officer who lost his life to a needlestick injury. Renaming the centre not only commemorates Geoff's bravery and sacrifice but also provides a lasting reminder of the often dangerous situations our correctional officers face and acknowledges their integrity and unwavering commitment to keeping our communities safe. I have spoken with Geoff's family and know of the unending heartbreak they have suffered since his passing. This Government does not want to see another individual or family experience this kind of pain. While this bill does not stop transmission of disease, it will deter offenders from exposing workers to bodily fluids. Equally important is that the bill facilitates critical information to assist in managing the early days after exposure. It is important that frontline workers have access to immediate assessment and management by a healthcare professional after exposure to potentially infectious bodily fluids. Testing and confirming whether a bloodborne disease is evident will support health care and provide earlier peace of mind to our frontline workers. The NSW Health policy directive on the management of healthcare workers who have potentially been exposed to HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C provides that following an incident with a healthcare worker that carries a risk of transmission, officers conducting a risk assessment should seek information on the bloodborne virus status of the source patient as soon as practicable. To date, there has been no ability in New South Wales to require or compel a person to be tested for infectious diseases. Today I join with my colleagues to remedy this situation with the new Mandatory Disease Testing Bill. The bill would allow specified workers—including all correctional staff involved in managing offenders— to seek an order to require a third party to be tested for bloodborne viruses and to disclose the results to the worker's medical provider. The bill requires this consultation with a relevant medical practitioner as soon as is practicable, preferably within 24 hours, when advice will be provided about the risk to the worker about contracting a bloodborne disease from the third party as a result of the contact; the appropriate action to be taken to mitigate this risk; any risk of transmitting the disease to someone else, and information about the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of bloodborne diseases. Urgency is required to ensure that the worker receives the best possible health advice within the shortest time frame after the incident. Short time frames are provided for the application and making of orders to ensure that they are meaningful. The Chief Health Officer of NSW Health will issue health guidelines under the scheme that will assist medical practitioners to understand their obligations in relation to the consultation. This bill has been devised in close consultation with the Attorney General, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Minister for Health and Medical Research, and the relevant agencies and unions. Under the scheme for Corrective Services NSW specifically, a senior officer will have the authority to issue an order to test a third party for disease or diseases if there is a risk of exposure due to the deliberate actions of the third party. While every preference is that Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4859
third persons will voluntarily comply, where this is not the case noncompliance with an order will constitute an offence. A penalty of up to 100 penalty units and/or up to 12 months imprisonment is provided for. As the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections, it was important to me that the bill cover all staff who have contact with offenders. Not only are correctional officers in our prisons and courts covered but so are our psychologists and program and case management staff, amongst others, who work with offenders every day. Coverage also extends to Community Corrections staff, who manage over 35,000 offenders serving parole and other community orders. Equal protections are extended to correctional officers and other staff who work with offenders in our privately managed prisons. The bill also includes key visitors to correctional centres such as staff of the Inspector of Custodial Services. [Extension of time] Every year since Geoff Pearce's death his family have attended the annual Corrective Services NSW Remembrance Day on the last Friday in November. The day commemorates the 12 officers who were killed on duty or who died from injuries suffered while working as correctional officers in the service of this State, the most recent in 2006. It will give me great pride to inform those gathered—including Geoff's mum, Kerrie—that the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill has been passed. It will also give me great pride to extend the protections of this bill to all our correctional staff in New South Wales. These are the officers who do the often forgotten jobs of managing offenders and working to reduce reoffending in order to keep our community safe. The possibility of contracting a bloodborne virus from contact with bodily fluids is a very real and unavoidable aspect of their roles. Today we are taking an important step towards mitigating this risk. We are standing up and saying to all Corrective Services staff across New South Wales that we support you and we appreciate you. Your health and wellbeing is our priority. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (10:27:03): In the 40 or so years since cases of HIV/AIDS were first reported in Australia, New South Wales has been a world leader in the prevention and management of the illness. At the height of the AIDS crisis, Bill Bowtell, the senior private secretary to the Commonwealth health Minister, stated: In Australia, we rejected international orthodoxy and instead developed a swift, radical and bold response to HIV/AIDS across the spectrum of treatment, care, research and, above all, prevention. Academics have pinned the success of the approach to a combination of tolerance, innovation, agility and partnership. In New South Wales, we adopted an early community-based response led by a partnership of governments, public sector agencies, community controlled organisations, not-for-profits and communities themselves. Our early adoption of harm minimisation and needle exchange programs, decriminalisation of sex work and homosexuality and landmark policy innovations such as the establishment of the medically supervised injecting centre set New South Wales apart. I am proud that many of those achievements are the legacy of Labor governments. The current Government is continuing this by setting the aim of virtually eliminating HIV transmission in New South Wales and by the current development of an LGBTIQ+ Health Strategy. As a State, the cornerstone of our success in responding not only to HIV but also to other bloodborne viruses, including hepatitis, is that our approach has most often been rooted in compassion and understanding. Throughout, a primary concern has been to reduce the stigma, discrimination and judgement that has often been levelled at people living with bloodborne viruses. I am concerned that the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 will undo that good work. I fully support measures to protect frontline workers in our health and emergency services. Without question, every worker has a right to be safe at work, especially those who put their own wellbeing and life on the line to keep others in our community safe. Whether they work in our hospitals, ambulances, police stations or correctional facilities, workers and their families deserve to know that their workplace is free from violence. We must categorically condemn and act on assaults against frontline workers. I understand the motivation of unions, including the Public Service Association and the Health Services Union, which are advocating for these measures, and I note that even the strongest opponents of this legislation acknowledge that the measure is well intended and support the need to protect frontline workers. Nobody believes that an assault of violence is in any way acceptable. However, I question whether legislation like this will have any effect on reducing the unacceptable levels of violence against frontline workers. It will not act as a deterrent, nor do I believe that the safety of frontline workers is mutually exclusive to the wellbeing of vulnerable people in our community with bloodborne viruses. Rainbow Labor has said of the policy: As trade unionists we believe that no one should be made to feel unsafe at work. Many of our Rainbow Labor members … are frontline workers, particularly nurses and social workers. We understand the genuine concerns that all frontline workers have around assault. However this is a policy that will not reduce harm and will instead further stigmatise those living with HIV. Union Pride has said: Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4860
As unionists, we are opposed to any attacks on workers and want to see safer workplaces for everyone. However, this Bill will not stop assaults and it will not reduce HIV and other Blood Borne Viruses. It will increase fear and stigma. Union Pride stands with workers who have fought tirelessly for decades to reduce the stigma faced by people living with HIV. I strongly support calls from ACON and others that the bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for further amendment. It is critical that we fully understand and grapple with the possible unintended consequences of a bill that strives to do the right thing but may set us backwards. When managing complex health questions, it is critical that we bring all the voices to the table and chart an approach that gives frontline workers security, while also continuing our good work in stemming the spread of bloodborne viruses and ensuring that those in our community who live with a bloodborne disease are treated with dignity, compassion and respect. The bill sets out a scheme whereby a person may be ordered to provide a blood sample for testing when they are responsible for their bodily fluids coming into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker and where there is deemed to be a risk of transmission of a bloodborne virus. The bill defines bloodborne viruses as HIV and hepatitis B or C. In his second reading speech, the Minister noted that currently in health settings where a health worker is concerned about the risk of transmission of a bloodborne illness following an interaction with a patient, the patient may be asked to consent to a blood test but is under no obligation to give one. Current laws do not allow for consent for testing to be requested in any other setting, nor do they allow for the mandatory testing for bloodborne illness in any setting. The bill allows for a prescribed worker to make an order for an application for mandatory testing to a senior officer within five days of the contact occurring and only after consulting a medical practitioner. Orders against persons aged between 14 and 17 may occur only after an application to the Children's Court. In instances where the third party being called on to submit to mandatory testing exhibits an impairment, orders must be made through the Local Court. The person against whom an order is made can apply within one day to the Chief Health Officer to have the order overturned and the Chief Health Officer has three days to rule on the order. I note that while an order is being reviewed, it remains in force and a blood sample may be taken before an appeal is decided. That has raised significant concerns for stakeholders, who report that such a process undermines procedural fairness and threatens potentially innocent people with fines and jail time for failing to submit to a medical procedure they do not consent to. When blood samples are taken under the terms of an order, they must be extracted by a listed medical professional using, in the Minister's words, no "more force than ordinarily required to take blood from a person". Reasonable force is also permitted when ensuring a person is transported to and from a facility for the purposes of a mandatory blood test. Stakeholders have raised understandable concerns about what constitutes reasonable force in those instances. The bill also lays out provisions relating to the appropriate disclosure of a person's health information after being submitted to a mandatory blood test and spells out offences for failure to comply with any of the provisions in the Act. A statutory review of the bill is scheduled to occur as soon as possible following the publication of a monitoring report by the Ombudsman one year after the commencement of the scheme. I also understand that the current bill follows consultation on a draft version with key stakeholders and community groups and that some stronger protections were adopted than what was initially the case. It is important to outline the strong concerns raised by community groups, including ACON. Opposition to the bill is predicated on the fact that there has not been a single incidence of occupational transmission of HIV among emergency workers in over 15 years. ACON and other stakeholders contend—rightly, I believe—that is clear evidence that the current suite of protections for frontline workers is working. Specifically, stakeholders raise concerns about what a "deliberate action" constitutes under the bill and that the scheme may be applied in instances where accidental transfer of fluids occurs. They also note that the threshold for testing is very low. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has argued, "Reasonable suspicion of a police officer does not really provide an evidence-based medical reason for the action." Similarly, there is concern that the initial decision to issue an order is at the discretion of a senior officer who may not be equipped with the expert knowledge regarding the transmission of bloodborne diseases. A case in point is that the bill allows for mandatory testing orders in events where spitting or biting is involved even though the Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law—a document authored by 20 of the world's leading scientists on HIV—states: There is no possibility of HIV transmission via contact with the saliva of an HIV-positive person, including through kissing, biting or spitting. … There is no possibility of HIV transmission from biting or spitting where the HIV-positive person's saliva contains no, or a small quantity of, blood. … Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4861
The possibility of HIV transmission from biting where the HIV-positive person's saliva contains a significant quantity of blood, and their blood comes into contact with a mucous membrane or open wound, and their viral load is not low or undetectable varies from none to negligible. In its audit of Australia's mandatory disease testing laws, the National Association of People with HIV Australia concluded that this was a key problem in other States where similar schemes are in place, noting that "decisions to test for HIV or bloodborne viruses are particularly vulnerable to stigma and not informed by the latest medical knowledge". [Extension of time] Of concern is that the Australian Medical Association [AMA] NSW has noted that testing itself may be unreliable given the window of up to six months from infection before some antibodies appear in tests. That raises the spectre of frontline workers being given inaccurate information about their health status. Dr Lim, former President of AMA NSW, has said: You could not in good conscience tell a police officer or frontline health worker that they were safe. … The worse case scenario would be if someone was falsely assured that due to a negative test on an alleged offender that they were not at risk … that would probably be the most tragic outcome. ACON has also raised strong objections to the fact that a person subject to an order may still be required to undergo a forced procedure even if they make an appeal, which they and others have characterised as a breach of civil liberties. Specific objection is raised with the fact that children as young as 14 may be subjected to an order. ACON notes that in the past year only three people under the age of 18 were diagnosed with HIV and that the application of this law on teenagers constitutes an alarming breach of civil liberties. Forcing mandatory blood testing on young people will cause considerable distress to what is an already vulnerable group of people caught up in the criminal justice system. Given revelations about the strip search of children in New South Wales, I understand the valid concerns raised by stakeholders and the public that this law may further erode the protections, freedom and safety of young people in this State. Similarly, ACON and others have raised concerns that the scheme is likely to disproportionately impact already vulnerable and marginalised people, including homeless people, people experiencing mental illness or addiction and First Nations people. In short, ACON and others contend that the bill represents the further criminalisation of what is a fundamental health issue in our State and may have significant unintended consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Another key concern is that the proposed scheme is likely to cause further discrimination and stigma against people living with bloodborne viruses in our community. We have made extraordinary headway in reducing stigma and increasing participation for people living with HIV or bloodborne viruses. We have come leaps and bounds in treating HIV and bloodborne illnesses with advances in treatments such as pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis. Diagnosis is no longer a death sentence. We have also been the beneficiary of decades of education and reconditioning that has removed the public perception of HIV or bloodborne viruses far from the Grim Reaper images of the 1980s. Not only do we better understand the transmission of bloodborne viruses but we also no longer apportion blame and judgement on those living with them in our community. That is good news for those people's mental and physical wellbeing and it plays an important role in reducing transmission. In response to the proposal to introduce mandatory blood testing in 2017, Hepatitis NSW, the NSW Users and AIDS Association and other organisations noted the following in their submission to the inquiry into Violence Against Emergency Services Personnel: The implementation of mandatory testing would have a detrimental impact on the ability of NSW specifically, and Australia more broadly, to address viral hepatitis. This includes weakening our ability to eliminate hepatitis C, because increased discrimination may dissuade people from engaging with health care services. It would also undermine campaigns for increased testing for viral hepatitis B. In the midst of the current pandemic, we know how important testing, treatment and support is. When describing the lessons we could learn from the HIV/AIDS crisis to combat COVID-19, Bill Bowtell says that what set Australia apart in its response compared with other countries is that politicians largely stayed out of it. He said: In the 1980s, prime minister Bob Hawke and opposition leader Andrew Peacock took the wise decision to withdraw completely from public involvement and commentary on the HIV response. They knew political leaders were fatally compromised by being political leaders. We must apply the same logic here because politicians are not experts in this field. The approach to complex health challenges must be rooted not in fear but in scientific evidence, guided by medical specialists and those who have lived experience of illness. I hope that a thorough inquiry into the bill will help us do that. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4862
Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills) (10:42:17): I make a contribution to debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 not only as the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Justice but also as a former member of the NSW Police Force. This bill affects me personally because as a young police officer in western Sydney I was bitten by an offender while performing an arrest. Fortunately, I only suffered substantial bruising and my skin was not pierced, so I was not subjected to the trauma and concern that many officers experience when they are either bitten or stabbed in a needle incident. However, this bill does examine those more serious scenarios. The importance of seeking medical evidence within the specified time frame outlined in the bill provides certainty for police and emergency services officers. It will establish a scheme under which a third party can be ordered to provide a blood sample for the testing of bloodborne diseases if their bodily fluid has come into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker as a result of a deliberate action and if the worker is at risk of contracting a bloodborne disease as a result. These exposures can occur during the execution of an emergency services worker's duties, which often place them in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. The Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety inquiry into Violence Against Emergency Services Personnel noted: … coming into contact with another person's bodily fluid is a confronting experience that can cause concern and stress for the affected emergency services worker due to the potential for serious disease infection … I am advised that some bloodborne diseases may be present in the body for up to three to six months, during which time antibodies cannot be detected with confidence. This means an exposure incident can result in a long period of uncertainty for the affected worker before transmission can be confirmed. This scheme will reduce the stress and anxiety that police and emergency services workers experience while waiting for test results following an interaction that placed them at risk of transmission of a bloodborne disease. As noted in the 2018 New South Wales Government Mandatory Disease Testing options paper, the NSW Police Force records an average of 450 incidents of staff being exposed to bodily fluids per year, Corrective Services NSW records around 130 and NSW Health records 2,218. Given that these workers place themselves at great risk in order to protect the community, it is important that they have access to immediate assessment and management by healthcare professionals after exposure to potentially infectious bodily fluids, and testing of the third-party source of the bodily fluid can assist with this process. If testing is required, it should be done with urgency to ensure that the worker receives the best possible health advice within the shortest possible time frame. To this end, clear time frames are outlined in the bill, which stipulates that an application by a worker to a senior officer is made within five business days of the incident; the senior officer determines the application within three business days; mandatory testing orders are served on the third party within five business days; the third party gives blood within two business days of being served with the order; application for a review of a senior officer's decision by the Chief Health Officer is made within one business day and the Chief Health Officer's determination of a review application is given within three business days. There is also scope to extend the time frame for discretionary decisions involving senior officers when a longer period is deemed necessary in all circumstances. The bill seeks to encourage health, emergency and public sector workers to seek medical advice and information about the risk of contracting a bloodborne disease. Accurate and timely medical advice is crucial in managing the physical and psychological effects of potential exposure to a bloodborne virus. The bill supports a prescribed worker to receive this advice as soon as practical after the incident, regardless of whether mandatory testing is ultimately ordered. As a condition of applying for a mandatory test, the bill requires a prescribed worker to consult with a relevant medical practitioner as soon as possible after the incident. A relevant medical practitioner is defined as a "practitioner with qualifications and experience in bloodborne diseases". This expertise means that the practitioner can accurately advise a worker on the level of risk to which they were exposed and any appropriate actions to mitigate that risk going forward. However, the bill recognises that prescribed workers may face obstacles accessing practitioners with qualifications or experience in bloodborne diseases—for example, in regional New South Wales. If there is no specialist available at the time the prescribed worker requires consultation, they may see another practitioner, including their own GP. Ideally a consultation should occur within 24 hours of an incident. However, this time frame can be extended to up to 72 hours after an incident if deemed reasonable, such as when a prescribed worker is recovering from their injuries or lives a long distance from the practitioner. The requirement for consultation to occur within 72 hours is necessary because medication is only effective if commenced within that period. The health guidelines issued by the Chief Health Officer about the scheme will also provide additional guidance for medical practitioners around how to approach a consultation with an exposed worker. As a result, it will prioritise their wellbeing, care and treatment regardless of whether they apply for a mandatory testing order. After receiving the medical advice, if the worker wants to make an application for a mandatory testing order it must be done within five days of the incident. If the medical practitioner provides written advice, this can be given to a senior officer, or the court if that is where the matter is to be decided. In conclusion, the time frames Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4863
in the bill have been drafted with an awareness of the urgency of the decisions involved. The clear time frames will reduce waiting times and minimise anxiety for exposed workers. If a worker has been potentially exposed to bodily fluid, they need to receive the best possible medical advice and care as soon as possible. However, the bill allows for time frames to be extended where necessary in the circumstances, accommodating flexibility where it is needed. By requiring workers to seek medical advice, the bill helps them to be informed about the issues and helps provide reassurance. In closing, I recognise the fantastic work being done by all of our emergency service workers, whether they be in the police or on the front line of health. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (10:50:40): I speak on behalf of The Greens on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020. The description of the proposed Act states that it is: An Act to provide for mandatory blood testing of a person in circumstances where the person's bodily fluid comes into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker as a result of the person's deliberate action and the worker may be at risk of contracting a blood-borne disease. However, the bill as it currently is drafted does not deliver on this aim. It includes problematic assumptions and outright inaccuracies, not to mention gaping holes, unworkable time frames and failures to ensure adherence and actions based on health advice. It raises questions about the concepts that form the basis of our justice system. Before I go into the bill's serious flaws and outline the amendments The Greens will be moving in this House to try to address them, let me be clear: This bill is unnecessary. It is based on flawed assumptions and outdated and, frankly, offensive views. For that reason The Greens strongly oppose the bill. If the New South Wales Government is going to shred anything, it should be this bill. This not about COVID. I recognise that many people in our community are feeling anxious, stressed, fearful and vulnerable about the highly infectious nature of the current pandemic we face. But this bill is about mandatory testing for bloodborne diseases. It has been on the table and a threat to our community for many, many years—since well before the current situation. It is crucial that no member in this place tries to spin the bill as some sort of response to the current health pandemic. That is a Trump-esque form of truth and should not be entertained in this place. The other day, while in conversation with ACON CEO Nicolas Parkhill, he reminded me that mandatory testing has always been a challenging policy issue for ACON and policy makers to deal with. He shared with me a section of Fighting For Our Lives, a book about ACON and the history of New South Wales' HIV response, which details some of the historical policy struggles and the context. It reads: Forced testing could tell people who to avoid, insurers who to discriminate against, employers who to dismiss and authorities who to detain. This was not an idle threat, with surveys showing that up to half the population supported quarantine of people with AIDS. The task fell to ACON, over and over again, to explain why mandatory testing was a bad idea … Mandatory testing would have been an obvious vote winner, so it is remarkable that it was never seriously considered by the major parties. Blewett categorically ruled it out, declaring in 1989 that "public health and individual rights march hand in hand on the AIDS issue", while the conservatives maintained bipartisanship on the issue. It is one of the great achievements of Australia's federal politicians that they were able to resist such a popular measure, governing through compassionate pragmatism rather than ill-informed public consensus. Many decades later, in 2017, the issue of mandatory testing was again raised—this time while I was a member of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety. I note that the then chair of the committee, the member for Tweed, is in the Chamber. There was another push to get a strong recommendation to introduce mandatory testing and, in response, we continued to hold the line against it. Instead, the committee's recommendation directed that the health Minister consider whether it was necessary. It should be noted that no action was taken by the health Minister in relation to that recommendation. It was a huge concern to our community then, and it is of huge concern to the community now. This issue is not new. It does not need consultation or an inquiry; it needs to be shelved. The 2017 inquiry received a letter signed by Hepatitis NSW; the AIDS Council of NSW; Sex Workers Outreach Project; the NSW Users and AIDS Association; the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine; and Positive Life NSW. These organisations have decades of experience working in the area of bloodborne viruses, including supporting the community, the medical profession and research. The concerns articulated in their letter were that imposing mandatory testing for bloodborne viruses in this situation does not equate with the current medical and scientific evidence concerning the transmission of bloodborne viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C, and that it presents huge risks to the community. I acknowledge others sharing the concerns raised at that time and in the current debate are the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation, the National Association of People with HIV Australia and the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, which is located on King Street in Newtown. The premise of the bill is totally flawed. The proposed mandatory testing regime does nothing to address any stress for frontline workers who have been put at risk of bloodborne virus infection, as it is based on a complete misunderstanding of how bloodborne viruses are transmitted. It will, however, mark a fundamental shift in the rights of individuals to privacy and to the integrity of their own selves and a fundamental change to the established, Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4864
successful and globally respected Australian policy founded on the principle of voluntary consent for HIV and other bloodborne virus testing. Given this clear and evidence-based position from the experts, I was absolutely flabbergasted to see the Leader of the Opposition, Jodi McKay, announce late last year Labor's intention to introduce a bill like this one and restart the debate. That announcement came out of nowhere. It was not supported by science or by the health sector and was immediately criticised for being dangerous. This, from the Opposition, was mind-blowing and disappointing to the extreme. Hopefully, the NSW Labor Party and the people in it who know that this bill is flawed will be able to shift the Opposition's position before we get to the point of voting on it in this place. In the lead-up to the 2019 State election, I sat at a forum organised by ACON where the Labor Party was directly asked what its position was on this issue. Its response at the time was strong agreement with ACON's position, and it stated that it had no plans to change the current law. A mere seven months later, once the election was behind it, NSW Labor turned around and did the exact thing that it had assured the community it would not do, ignoring the evidence, ignoring the concerns and playing politics once again with people's lives. Make no mistake: We are talking about this bill today because NSW Labor leader Jodi McKay opened the door for it. That is disgraceful. The bill is another in a long line of undercooked bills to be brought to this House in recent times that falsely assume the only way to resolve law and order issues in society is to increase police powers. I say it again: That is nonsense. As we have seen during COVID-19 and in many situations before it, increasing police powers does not achieve behavioural change. It does not make us safer. It does not relieve or resolve the underlying concerns. What it does do is increase the opportunity for members of the NSW Police Force to abuse their positions to the detriment of the public and the frequency of them doing so. As a result it causes tension between police and community members who want to rely on members of the NSW Police Force to keep them safe from people who will cause them harm. That is undermined by the current law and order approach. Successive Labor and Liberal governments have operated under this fallacy, forever increasing police powers and pandering to the undue influence of the Police Association of New South Wales. One only needs to look at the business paper for today, which lists a bill that would seem to introduce the ability of a police officer to conduct a search on an individual without a warrant. With every bill like this one, our rights as individuals and our civil liberties are being eroded. However, despite all this, when it comes to bloodborne viruses there is another history: one of collaboration, of not playing up to community fear, of listening to health experts and focusing on education and awareness-raising instead of targeting and finger-pointing. It is our hope that the Government will recognise it has taken the wrong path that history has set for us and that the Premier, the health Minister, the Attorney General and others will recognise that this is not the way to proceed. The bill is an insult to frontline police, emergency service workers and other workers covered by the bill. They are placed at risk by the dangerous assumptions and false narratives that the bill and its supporters have put in place. I seek a short extension to speak about the amendments that The Greens intend to move. [Extension of time] We must recognise that first responders and others working in the public service need to be protected from risks so that they are safe in their workplaces, but the bill is not the answer. I will move a significant number of amendments to the bill, as will the member for Sydney, in order to address some of our concerns. It does not change our position that the bill is needed. But if it is to proceed it is crucial that some basic fixes are made to the bill to ensure fairness and remove flaws. The amendments will ensure that third parties cannot be detained for the purpose of seeking or enforcing mandatory testing; extend the period that a third party can seek for a review by the current Chief Health Officer from one business day to seven business days; ensure that any application for mandatory testing is to include a statement by a relevant medical practitioner about the need for testing after having considered the risk and ensure the senior officer refuses the application for a mandatory testing order if the relevant medical practitioner advises that testing is not required; broaden the people and organisations who are consulted in the development of the guidelines on how mandatory testing will be conducted; allow a senior officer to delegate their responsibilities only to another senior officer and ensure that they do not delegate to a senior officer who is involved in or connected to the incident; and prevent the use of force by a law enforcement officer against a third party to take blood. These amendments seek to improve the bill. The Greens strongly oppose mandatory testing; however, none of the amendments seek to remove the power to engage with mandatory testing. The amendments that we will put forward provide additional protections to the third party who is subject to the testing and to the person who is making the application for the mandatory testing order. It is crucial that we do not fuel falsehoods about the risks to people working in frontline services and ensure that there is time to consider a review and have an informed discussion about how this testing is rolled out, if it is to occur. The Greens will always side with the need to protect Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4865
vulnerable communities from sanctioned intimidation, harassment and vilification. We will always stand up against excessive powers being given to police and other enforcement officers. We will always work to ensure that vulnerable communities and people at risk from this kind of flawed legislation have a voice in this place and that they are able to live free from fear and with dignity. I urge all members—particularly those who understand that this bill is motivated by a sense of whipping up fear against certain types of people in the community and providing a level of placation to people who will not assist in their safety—to examine whether they feel comfortable supporting the bill. I recognise that it is likely the bill will go to an inquiry in the other place. The New South Wales Labor Opposition can send a strong message to start the inquiry process if the bill were to pass with Government support in this place. If the New South Wales Labor Party made it clear it does not support the bill in its current form, it would not open the door—as the Leader of the Opposition did last year—for this problematic reform to pass, but instead it would make the Government think twice about its actions. It is crucial to recognise that for decades people working in the space around bloodborne viruses and diseases have tried to ensure that people suffering from those diseases are not intimidated, isolated and excluded from our communities. We must not set back decades of work in that space by passing this bill, which seeks to further vilify and isolate vulnerable people in our community who need our help. They do not need powerful people like us instituting and enshrining laws that will allow them to be further intimidated and violated and that will not respect their rights. We do not need this bill. We do need to do things to make sure that frontline emergency service workers are protected, that they are trained in the risks and kept safe. We also must ensure that there is no escalation in violence towards people working in the public service in the interests of our State. But this bill does not do any of that. It creates further fear in the community. It demonstrates and advances falsehoods. For those reasons, The Greens strongly oppose the bill. Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (11:05:36): I make a contribution to debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020. I note that further discussions with stakeholders are due to take place and that an inquiry may be conducted. I understand the distress that can be felt when someone has been exposed to another's bodily fluid and draw attention to the significantly increased fine that was introduced earlier this year for individuals who intentionally spit or cough on frontline workers. It is disgusting behaviour and when it was used to create fear during the pandemic it should have been clamped down on. Our frontline workers deserve peace of mind when they have been deliberately exposed to someone else's bodily fluid. However, I have concerns about the legislation that I believe need to be worked through. I note that the bill mandates testing when a worker has come into contact with bodily fluid. Bodily fluid is defined in the bill as blood, faeces, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid or substance prescribed by the regulations. Yet mandatory testing will only be undertaken for a bloodborne disease. Bloodborne disease is described in the bill as HIV infection, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or other bloodborne disease prescribed by the regulations. I am concerned about the scope of fluid testing and, as an example, I draw attention to the transmission of HIV, which does not occur through saliva. I also have a concern about the provision for broadening the definition of "bodily fluid" through regulation, again because the mandatory testing is proposed to be undertaken for bloodborne diseases only. Historically, those who live with HIV or hepatitis have been subject to a strong stigma. Although this stigma is diminishing through the amazing work of community advocates, in its current form the bill does nothing to further that goal. While I acknowledge that previous community and industry consultation has resulted in changes to the bill, more work needs to be done. Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) (11:08:10): I speak in support of the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020. As the member for Newtown pointed out, I was the Chair of the Committee on Law and Safety inquiry into violence against emergency services personnel that handed down its report in August 2017. The member for Newtown, the member for Mount Druitt and the Hon. Damien Tudehope were also members of the committee. We took evidence from approximately 27 groups. I acknowledge that at the time the member for Newtown was opposed to the bill and spoke strongly on the subject. I respect the rights of all members to put forward their views, and this morning I have heard many of them. The last thing I want to do is stigmatise anyone and I think the committee at the time did not want to stigmatise anyone. We have heard today that we need to respect the rights of those people, but I would hate to be on the other side. We heard some pretty depressing and confronting evidence about police officers, ambulance officers and frontline officers who were involved in the transmission of bodily fluids in some form and who had to wait many months for testing. We heard of self-harm as a result of that and the breakdown of family life. They could not have a normal relationship. We do not want to stigmatise anyone. We want to look after their rights. We have seen some of the horrors of the past and we do not want to relive that, but I would hate to be a policeman or paramedic and go through this. They need some certainty. In a simple way, if you do not want to have a mandatory test, do not pass bodily fluids. It is that simple. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4866
This bill will apply to paramedics. I have joined paramedics on night shifts and we have been in some pretty violent situations. It is terrible for them to go home and say to their partners, "Hey, darling, I might have something, so please do not touch me, please do not kiss me and I will let you know in three to six months." Frontline workers have rights as well as the people on the other side. I am open to further discussion, but this has been a long time coming. During the committee inquiry we heard from Scott Weber, who was the president of the NSW Police Association before he went federal. We also heard from Tony Beard and Gerard Hayes from the Health Services Union. Adam Hall was around at that stage as well, I think, and we heard from the Australian Paramedics Association—lots of different people. I believe, too, that we heard from different groups representing some marginalised communities. The whole goal of the committee—the whole goal of being bipartisan—was to try to protect our frontline workers, and that was at a time when we did not know what a pandemic was. We rely on those workers and I think we owe them something. This bill will go to the upper House and there will probably be an inquiry and lots of amendments left, right and centre, but I hope we get to a good place with it. The Police Association presentation included one officer who had obviously experienced self-harm. We listened to five or 10 minutes of his story about the dissolving of his marriage, the dissolving of his family—the dissolving of everything. All he was trying to do whilst on duty that day was protect the wider community. There are some special arrangements in this bill. Parts 3 and 4 provide for special arrangements if an application is made in relation to a vulnerable third party. If, on the information available, it appears to a senior officer that the third party is vulnerable and the senior officer considers that testing the vulnerable third party's blood is justified in all the circumstances, the senior officer refers the matter to the Local Court or the Children's Court for consideration. The Children's Court or the Local Court can then decide whether or not to grant a mandatory testing order for the third party. The bill defines a vulnerable person as a person who is between 14 and 17 years old, or who has a mental illness or cognitive impairment which significantly affects their capacity to consent to voluntarily provide blood to be tested for bloodborne viruses. I should note that the scheme does not apply to children under the age of 14 years. Cognitive impairment has the same definition in this Act as in the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The central focus of the illness or impairment is that it substantially affects a person's decision-making ability and the ability to give or withhold consent to provide a blood sample for testing. The bill includes a provision in schedule 2 to update definitions of mental illness and cognitive impairment once the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 commences to retain consistency across the legislation. In relation to vulnerable third parties, a mandatory testing order can only be made by the Local Court or Children's Court. This is similar to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 which, in some cases, requires court orders for forensic procedures on vulnerable people. If the third party appears to be vulnerable, the senior officer must provide an opportunity for both the third party and their parent or guardian to make submissions about the application. If the senior officer considers that testing of the third party's blood is justified in all the circumstances, they must then make an application to the Children's Court for vulnerable third parties who are under the age of 18 years, or the Local Court for vulnerable third parties who are adults. If the court determines that a third party is not, in fact, vulnerable, it can still make a mandatory testing order. This is important so that testing is not further delayed by the matter going back to the senior officer for reconsideration. The court may make a mandatory testing order only if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is justified in all the circumstances. The Chief Health Officer may make submissions in relation to a mandatory testing order for a vulnerable third party. These submissions must be taken into account by the court in determining whether to make a mandatory testing order. In addition, the court must take account of the best interests of the third party as well as their wishes and those of their parent or guardian, if they have one, and any other factors that the court may consider relevant. The holistic approach taken by the court acts as a further protection for vulnerable third parties. The perspective of the vulnerable third party is very much accounted for through hearing their wishes as well as those of their parent or guardian, if they have one. This can then be balanced with the need for third party testing to assist in the care and treatment of the affected worker. The bill offers protections so that children and people with mental illness or cognitive impairment have their special needs taken into account. The processes outlined in parts 3 and 4 of the bill for vulnerable third parties ensure that all factors are considered before the court determines that it is justified to make an order. [Extension of time] Police officers and other frontline officers put themselves on the line so that we in the community can feel safe and secure. We therefore owe it to them to have legislation in place to help make them feel a bit safer and a bit more secure if they come into contact with bodily fluids and there is a risk of a bloodborne disease being transmitted. I ask members who have raised questions about the adequacy of protections for vulnerable third parties to remember that these incidents can affect not just the officer but also their family, friends and colleagues Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4867
who are trying to support them. These incidents can be daunting for the officers in question, as can be informing their loved ones that they could be exposed to a life-threatening disease. We, as legislators, might not be able to heal their physical wounds or mental scars, or treat the diseases they might catch through their job, but we can at least provide a framework that helps them to access information that might assist with this. If a frontline worker is exposed to potential infection through contact with bodily fluid from a third party, information is key to supporting their physical and mental recovery. Early information about any disease will certainly inform medical decisions made by their treating doctor. As noted in earlier contributions, the bill also provides that third-party test results are provided to medical practitioners and not directly to the affected worker. This is important from a privacy point of view, but also because medical information should be conveyed to the worker by a doctor in the context of their treatment. I note that this legislation was introduced in Western Australia about a year before our committee meetings, so that would have been at the end of 2015 or in 2016. We asked their Parliament for the results, but unfortunately the answer was that it had been in for only a year and they did not have any tangible results. I have been advised informally by the police association in Western Australia that there has been a fall-off in exposure to bodily fluids, but that was fairly informal information being passed on. Once again, I think we should protect vulnerable people and I do not want to stigmatise anyone or do anything like that—those people need our help—but I also want to protect our police and frontline workers, our doctors and our nurses. Initially the committee had a problem defining a frontline worker, particularly in a hospital environment. Obviously the definition includes doctors and nurses, but does it include also wardsmen who perform part-time security duties and others in the hospital? This legislation includes everyone working in a hospital environment, so it covers a wide range of people. I have worked with the Health Services Union, in particular at Tweed Hospital, to try to provide stab-proof vests for wardspeople and security personnel who perform shift work, but to date my requests to the Minister have not met with success. I am pleased that many workers are included in this legislation—for example, paramedics, Fire & Rescue NSW personnel and all those on whom we rely. I will campaign also to include the Volunteer Rescue Association—one of our first responders in the regions. I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and commend the bill to the House. Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (11:20:52): I contribute to debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020, which establishes the Mandatory Disease Testing Act. Under this bill, a person can be compelled to provide a blood sample for the testing of bloodborne diseases if they have deliberately exposed health, emergency or public sector workers to their bodily fluids. This legislation will protect our frontline workers and ensure that those who have been exposed to bloodborne diseases will be able to start any necessary treatment as quickly as possible. However, this bill has been created without the support of or consultation with healthcare stakeholders and community organisations such as Hepatitis NSW. I will address this matter in detail. Our police officers, paramedics, emergency services personnel, correctional officers and firefighters put themselves in dangerous and stressful positions every day to protect our community. Our healthcare workers spend their whole lives helping to keep our loved ones and families safe. They do a fantastic job. Thus we must ensure that we, as a Parliament, provide our frontline workers with the knowledge that they need to deal with the impact of the threats they face daily in the workplace. Bloodborne diseases such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C are amongst the most dangerous viruses that face our population. Unfortunately there is no vaccination for hepatitis C or HIV and these diseases are extremely difficult to cure and require ongoing management. Further, bloodborne diseases often are difficult to detect, which means that many workers have to wait up to six months to receive the all clear to go back to work. This long wait for results can put an enormous strain not just on the physical but also on the mental wellbeing of those affected, which causes stress and anxiety. Without being able to receive a definitive answer as to whether they may be infected, those who have been attacked will continue to live in fear. We must also consider the impact of this stressful time on the families and loved ones of first responders. The earlier these diseases are detected, the earlier treatment can commence and the more likely individuals are to receive a favourable outcome. Last month I had the opportunity to meet with Steven Drew, the chief executive officer of Hepatitis NSW. We discussed at length the challenges that people face when living with diseases such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Hepatitis NSW is working to prevent the transmission of bloodborne diseases and improve the health and wellbeing of all affected people and communities. Steven Drew and the team at Hepatitis NSW strongly support the wellbeing and safety of emergency services personnel and they truly believe that they must be protected as much as possible in high-level occupational risk environments. However, Hepatitis NSW is not only concerned that the bill does not address the fundamental issues for frontline workers; it is also extremely disappointed that it was not consulted during the drafting process. Hepatitis NSW assists victims of bloodborne Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4868
diseases and wants to ensure that the legislation does not counter steps to creating a stigma-free environment for victims of viral diseases. We must protect our frontline workers from the risk of being exposed to bloodborne diseases. I assure members that that is not debatable. However, in formulating this legislation the Minister and the New South Wales Government must ensure that they address all issues of concern and consult all industry-based organisations in the process. I raise concern regarding the privacy of those individuals tested. All samples must be destroyed once the result is known unless they are needed in legal proceedings. Further, an independent auditor must regularly review the testing process to guarantee that privacy is maintained. The bill will be dealt with in this Chamber this year but it will not be dealt with in the Legislative Council until sometime next year. The Coalition caucus has agreed to refer the matter to an upper House committee over the summer for consideration and to allow feedback. I support that move. I turn now to the substance of the bill. The Act established by this bill will allow a health, emergency or public sector worker who has been deliberately exposed to the bodily fluid of a third party to apply to have an order made for that person to have a blood test. As noted in clause 7 of the bill, an application must be made to the worker's senior officer within five business days after the incident and can only be made after a medical consultation. Clause 8 of the bill requires a worker to consult with a medical professional, who will inform the worker of the risks of contracting a bloodborne disease due to the contact and provide information to mitigate these risks. The medical professional must also notify the worker of the extent to which testing of a third party may assist in assessing the risk of the worker contracting a disease. After receiving an application, a senior officer must determine whether the person against whom the testing order is being sought is a vulnerable person. Clause 10 classifies a vulnerable person as someone who is under 18 years of age, or someone who has a severe mental illness, mental condition or cognitive impairment that significantly affects their ability to give consent. If the person against whom an order is sought is classified as vulnerable, an application must be made to a court to determine whether it is appropriate to compel the production of a blood sample for testing. If the person against whom the order is sought does not appear to be a vulnerable person, the senior officer may make a mandatory testing order if they see fit, or refuse the application. The determination by the senior officer must be made within three working days of receipt of the application. This determination must follow the process set out in the Act. The application and determination process is appropriate, given the requirement that these issues are to be resolved quickly to ensure that victims are able to receive proper treatment. Although under most circumstances a judge will not be required to make the order, there will be adequate oversight and an ability to appeal to the Chief Health Officer. I think the Chief Medical Officer, or the person to whom he or she delegates the work, must play a more important role in this process. Part 8 of the bill is vital, as it sets out matters relating to offences under the scheme. Under clause 26, failure to comply with a mandatory testing order can result in a penalty of 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 12 months, or both. This provision will ensure compliance with mandatory testing orders. Every individual should be more than willing to undertake a mandatory test to ensure the protection of our frontline workers when they have been exposed to bodily fluids. However, when there is a failure to obey mandatory testing orders it is imperative that the law steps in and provides just and reasonable penalties to ensure compliance. This bill will protect those individuals in society who protect our community every day. Frontline workers, including police officers, emergency services personnel, those working in correctional systems, firefighters, and emergency and health workers, sacrifice so much to ensure that our families and loved ones stay safe. It is just and right that this Parliament is addressing legislation that upholds the right of our health, emergency and public sector workers to work in a safe environment, particularly when those individuals have gone above and beyond to get us through one of the most challenging years to date. It is our job to reduce the risk of harm presented to those frontline workers. In conclusion, I again urge the Minister and the New South Wales Government to address all relevant bodies and consult them in the drafting process of legislation in the future. I state the position of the Opposition regarding this bill, as it has been the subject of a significant amount of discussion. I note my friend from The Greens the member for Newtown made a number of comments in the debate this morning. The Opposition understands that this bill is supported by a number of the healthcare and law enforcement unions but has faced opposition from community organisations, and that serious concerns have been raised by members of the legal fraternity. The recommendation from the New South Wales Labor Opposition caucus is to support the bill with consideration of amendments: to support it conditionally in the lower House and review our position following upper House committee reports and following the upper House debate. I thank the House. Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange) (11:30:45): I make a contribution to debate on the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020 before the House, introduced by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It is well Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4869
known to members that I was a police officer prior to coming to this place. A lot of those years were spent prosecuting matters in the courtroom, but before that I was on the street for many years in south-western Sydney, in places such as Cabramatta, Macquarie Fields and Liverpool and also Wollongong. On occasion I had people spit in my face. I was bitten by a drug user who was having a psychotic episode. He had assaulted his parents and smashed up their house. Fearful and unable to control him, they called the police. My partner and I turned up and had to arrest him. In the process of that arrest there was a subsequent assault and I was bitten. When you are a young constable or police officer with a family—the member for Tweed spoke about this in his contribution—or you are trying to start a family, the last thing you want to have to do is go home and tell your partner that you were assaulted, which is bad enough, but also that potentially you could be afflicted with a bodily injury—whether it be hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV—and you have to wait three to six months to get the outcome of the blood tests. That causes an element of stress and anxiety, not only for you but also for your partner and your whole family. To this day, that is still front and centre of my mind—especially when I think about this legislation. I appreciate the right of other members in this Chamber to have different views. I listened to the contribution of the member for Sydney—whom I like and respect—and also that of the member for Newtown; however, I completely disagree with what they both had to say. Like the member for Tweed, I appreciate that we all come to this Chamber with different life experiences, perspectives and ideologies. That is what makes any Parliament—but this Parliament in particular—a place for robust debate, where you can get all sides of an argument and then consider whether to support a position. However, the member for Sydney stated that the bill will cause discrimination and that it is being used as a form of punishment. I have to disagree. The bill refers not only to police but also to other emergency workers such as public sector workers, health professionals and Corrective Services NSW officers. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more assaults in hospitals on doctors and nurses, which are often drug induced and perpetrated by psychotic people who can be violent. I note that in his contribution the member for Seven Hills indicated that if you combine police, corrections officers and health professionals there are probably over 3,000 worker exposures per year by third parties. That amounts to 3,000 families who must go through the stress and anxiety of not knowing what the outcome of a series of blood tests may be. Certainly, I welcome the bill. I will speak briefly about the bill's objects. They are: … to establish a scheme under which a person ... can be ordered to provide a blood sample for testing for blood-borne diseases if— (a) the third party's bodily fluid has come into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker as a result of the third party's deliberate action— we are talking about a deliberate action, not an innocent action without some sort of consideration or intent; and— (b) the worker is at risk of contracting a blood-borne disease as a result. In brief, the summary of the bill refers to ordering a third party to provide a blood sample for testing for a bloodborne disease—defined as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or any other life-threatening disease—when the third party's bodily fluid has come into contact with a health, emergency or public sector worker, such as a police or Correctives Services officer, as a result of the third party's deliberate action and the worker is at risk of contracting a disease as a result. The minimum age for the scheme is 14 years; for persons between 14 and 18 years of age a test can only be conducted by order of a Children's Court magistrate. If the third party is suffering from a mental health condition or cognitive impairment they can only be subject by order of a magistrate of the Local Court. In all other cases, an order is made by the senior officer of those workers—that is contained in the table. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with an order is 100 penalty units, which is $11,000, or 12 months imprisonment. I note a priority of the bill is the onus on the essence of time and the need for things to occur swiftly. I support having these matters dealt with swiftly. An application is to be made within five business days following the incident and is to be determined by a senior officer of that person within three days. Obviously there are issues in terms of one day for a review of that decision, either where a senior officer has declined or where a third party wishes to seek a review. The onus is on having this process completed swiftly to reduce the level of stress and anxiety hanging over potentially infected people, and I support that. "Vulnerable persons" are categorised as a child between 14 and 18 years or a person who suffers from a mental illness impairment or other mental condition and who cannot form a capacity to consent voluntarily. I am satisfied in terms of the oversight of the mandatory testing for vulnerable people, with applications to be made by the senior officer to the Children's Court or the Local Court, where a magistrate will make the determination on the balance of probabilities—the civil test—and reasonable force can be used in the circumstances. I have listened closely to a number of members' contributions whilst I have been seated in the Chamber, and also from my office prior to coming down to join the debate. It is somewhat ironic that during COVID we have been encouraging people to go and get tested if they have potentially been exposed Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4870
or come into contact with a case. For any minor potential cause of contamination we are encouraging people to go and get screened, checked and tested, but where we have a deliberate action by a person against an emergency worker or frontline service worker— Ms Jenny Leong: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. The bill is about bloodborne diseases, and COVID is an airborne disease— TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): The member for Orange is being highly relevant to the bill before the House. The member for Newtown will resume her seat. The member for Orange has the call. Mr PHILIP DONATO: We are talking about a deliberate action in which bodily fluid has been inflicted on a frontline emergency services worker—a doctor, a nurse, a paramedic, an ambulance officer, a person at a hospital, a firey, an SES member, a Rural Fire Service member, a police officer, a Corrective Services officer, whatever—and potentially they are being exposed to a life-threatening disease, yet suddenly there is a big objection to a mandatory test. Those incongruous attitudes simply do not sit well with me. I speak on behalf of a number of my former colleagues in the NSW Police Force who were subjected to being spat at, stabbed with syringes, exposed to another person's blood and bitten, so I can speak with some authority. [Extension of time] I think I can speak with some degree of authority when I say that we cannot underestimate or put aside the level of stress and anxiety that being spat at or being stabbed with a syringe causes for first responders and emergency officers and their families. As I said, frontline workers who want to start a family but who are exposed to infection have to put their lives on hold for up to six months until their blood test is analysed. If frontline workers have young children, they are conscious about being careful around them. Those frontline workers put their uniforms on or their work outfits and go about their daily duties at work. Potentially they are putting themselves in harm's way. They do not know whether they will go home in one piece or go home at all. Anything we can do to ensure the safety and welfare of our frontline officers, who have done an amazing job throughout this COVID pandemic, we should do. We are all quick to pat them on the back and say, "You've done a great job," but then we say, "But we're not going to pass legislation to help protect you." That is inconsistent. This legislation is very important for the comfort of frontline workers employed in agencies and departments. I know that representatives of the Police Association, Tony King and Tony Bear, have been very supportive of this legislation for a long time. Even before I was elected to this House this type of legislation was being discussed. It was interesting to hear the member for Tweed refer to the committee he chaired in 2015. Mr Geoff Provest: In 2017. Mr PHILIP DONATO: Okay, 2017. I support the bill. As I said, I respect the rights of other people to hold different views. I do not take that personally and I hope they do not either. But I think this legislation is for the greater good of our frontline emergency services personnel, who have done a great job in our communities keeping us safe during the COVID pandemic. I thank all the officers and personnel involved in providing frontline services in New South Wales, especially in my electorate of Orange: the police, Corrective Services personnel who staff jails in Bathurst and Wellington—some of whom live in my electorate and do a fantastic job—and medical professionals. In the past six months frontline medical professionals have gone above and beyond what they probably thought they would do when they began their careers. For the reasons I have stated, I commend the bill to the House. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11:43:03): In reply: I thank all members who contributed to debate on this very important bill, particularly the member for Orange. It is so refreshing and important for this Parliament to hear from members who have hands-on experience of the matters addressed by the bill. Discussions I have had with the member for Orange outside the Chamber reassure me that this is the right legislation. I thank the member for Prospect, who also provided me with constructive feedback both in the Chamber and online. The speech made by the member for Tweed was very pertinent. I thank the member for Newtown for contributing to the debate. I also thank the member for Seven Hills, who, as a former police officer, knows only too well how important this legislation is to our frontline workers. I also thank the member for Summer Hill for her contribution to the debate. I thank the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections, who also contributed to the debate. With the passing of this bill, a great deal of anxiety currently being felt by his service personnel will be lifted. The member for Holsworthy, and Parliamentary Secretary for Families, Disability and Emergency Services, knows full well how important this bill is to emergency services personnel. The member for Sydney, unlike other opponents of the bill, spoke to me this morning about his concerns and I think we found one or two matters on which we could agree. I thank the member for Auburn for her wonderful speech on a different bill but I am sure her contribution to debate eventually will be heard. To my mind, this bill is a tangible indication to our police officers, emergency and health services workers that this Government supports them and values their lives. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4871
The Government is putting their safety ahead of those who wish to do them harm. This bill is not about identifying stereotypes or making people feel anxious about police powers. It simply tells our volunteer and salaried professional emergency services personnel that the Government values their service. In the event that their service is inhibited by somebody who wants to inflict harm on them, our priority is about their welfare, not the welfare of an alleged criminal. I know everyone values volunteer and salaried professional emergency services personnel because over the course of the past eight months nearly every member of this Chamber has made a speech to offer thanks to the Rural Fire Service personnel and others who have been mentioned during the debate. The grateful thanks of members of this House has only increased during COVID-19. I appreciate the ironic yet tragic manner in which the member for Orange identified the inconsistency of opponents of the bill who advocate for COVID-19 testing yet at the same time advocate for people who have harmed emergency service workers to be protected from similar testing. To my mind it is important to address some of the concerns that have been expressed during the debate and I will do that, but I believe that by introducing and passing this bill members are showing that this Chamber has got it right when it comes to showing tangible support for frontline police officers and emergency services personnel and healthcare workers. A workplace injury of any kind can be physically painful, emotionally draining and distressing. It can also be disempowering. Those feelings will be magnified for an officer whose injuries have been caused by the deliberate actions of a third party and will be compounded if the incident potentially exposed an officer or a volunteer to life-threatening bloodborne diseases. This bill will help workers in just such situations who potentially have been exposed to a relevant disease through the deliberate actions of a third party while the workers are performing their duties. The bill will help to provide pathways for information that will assist treating doctors to manage the health and wellbeing of exposed workers. While the bill ultimately provides for mandatory third party testing, it also provides for the worker to obtain information that may assist, regardless of whether a mandatory testing order is sought or is not sought. The pathway provided by this bill begins with a medical consultation to help the worker to understand any disease transmission risks relating to their specific exposure incident or injury. This information will be individualised rather than general in nature and will help a worker to understand whether they potentially have been exposed to a bloodborne disease. If they have been exposed, their treating doctor can take appropriate steps by prescribing tests and treatments, as well as counselling the worker on the precautions they must take to guard against transmission of the infection to their family and loved ones. The consultation pathway will also help them to understand the benefits and limitations of mandatory third party testing that will help them decide whether or not to apply for a mandatory test. This information is vitally important regardless of whether the worker applies for a mandatory testing order. It is likely that, armed with good information relevant to their circumstances, many officers will not feel the need to apply for a mandatory testing order. I consider that to be a success of the scheme, given that the worker has received the information they need and that they understand the next steps. For workers who wish to, the bill provides a pathway for the officer to apply for a mandatory testing order, as well as a pathway for the senior officer reviewing the application and a pathway for the third party to make submissions and provide feedback. The bill provides pathways for a worker or third party to have a senior officer's decision reviewed by the Chief Health Officer. That is very important, as it has been said that the bill does not have any safeguards. I think the Chief Health Officer has proven herself to be a significant adviser to the entire community, and the panel of review will provide a great safeguard. It provides a pathway for Local Court or Children's Court consideration of applications relating to vulnerable third parties. Concerns that this is the implementation of a police state are clearly ill-informed given that we have allowed for the Chief Health Officer and the Children's Court to consider any applications for relevant personnel. These pathways are included in the bill based on input from a number of government agencies via the interagency working group. Again, to those who suggest that this has been rushed through I highlight the fact that it has been a matter of public debate for a long time. The member for Tweed identified three years, but I think you will find that it has been even longer, as it has been introduced in other jurisdictions. Stakeholder feedback, in my mind, has been well considered during the drafting of this bill. In addition to input from the interagency working group, the Government received external stakeholder feedback from more than 30 employees—medical, legal and broader government stakeholders—during the drafting of the bill. Key employee stakeholders included the Police Association, representing sworn police officers; the Public Service Association, representing Corrections officers, special constables, and sworn officers; and the Health Services Union. I have had private conversations with a number of those agencies that will also benefit from this protection, including St John Ambulance. We have also had consultation with the AIDS Council, the Australian Medical Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4872
Association and the Medical Services Committee of New South Wales. Like all bills there will always be a variety of views and I think we have fairly heard those views as we pass this proposed legislation today. As well as the courts themselves, the Government consulted a number of legal stakeholders including Legal Aid, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Law Society and the Bar Association. As would be expected from such a wide range of stakeholder groups, there was a wide range of feedback. I have considered it all. As far as practical the Government has incorporated the suggestions of stakeholders into the bill—noting, of course, that the ultimate objective of the bill is to provide exposed workers with information by way of medical consultation and third party blood testing, if justified. That can help with their care and treatment following potential exposure. For example, time frames in the bill reflect employee stakeholder feedback that third party testing, if required, should be conducted with urgency to ensure an exposed worker receives the best possible health advice within the shortest time frame after the incident. Medical stakeholder feedback is reflected in the bill's requirements that workers receive medical consultation before making an application for mandatory testing. This is an important inclusion in the bill to ensure that workers receive medical advice tailored to the type of exposure or injury that they have received, including the extent to which third party testing will assist in assessing the risk that the worker has contracted a bloodborne disease. The bill also provides for a chief health officer's review of a senior officer's decision in relation to an application for a mandatory testing order. Consultation on this bill was in addition to stakeholder feedback provided during that 2016-17 Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety inquiry into Violence Against Emergency Services Personnel, which the member for Tweed referred to, and has considered feedback from the 2018 Government options paper on mandatory disease testing. The bill also provides for an ombudsman review after 12 months and for a statutory review, thereby also providing another pathway for legislation to be refined, if necessary—another safeguard. I will now turn to some of the matters raised during debate on the bill. We heard from the member for Sydney and I note his opposition to the bill. He raised concerns, together with the member for Summer Hill, that the bill will stigmatise those with various diseases. Nothing can be further from the truth. Anyone suggesting that this Government will do that has clearly not had a good look at the make-up of the Cabinet in the party room. This bill is not intended to stigmatise— Ms Jenny Leong: We have had a good look at you. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: Thank you for your contribution, ill-informed as it is. This bill is not intended to stigmatise those with HIV or hepatitis; it is intended to protect workers who might be exposed through their work. I note that the NSW Police Force works closely with the LGBTQI community to ensure relationships are positive and to improve safety for those community members. It actively recruits and appoints liaison officers. We also heard concerns raised by the member for Summer Hill about the inclusion of children. Part 4 of the bill deals with orders for vulnerable third parties, which includes children aged at least 14 and under 18. An order cannot be made for a child under the age of 14 and suggestions by members in this place that it can are factually incorrect. For 14- to 17-year-olds an order can only be granted by the Children's Court, which will ensure that they receive extra protection due to their age and vulnerability. The Children's Court is the best institution to balance the needs of the child and of an exposed worker in the context of the exposure incident and any other relevant factors. Numbers of HIV-positive children might be low, but this general statistic will not help an individual officer who has also been exposed to their fluids. We heard from the member for Lane Cove of the heartbreaking case of Geoff Price, who died of AIDS after a workplace exposure. The prospect of catching the disease is a risk so we have an obligation to protect our workers. The member for Seven Hills spoke of the time frames within the bill. She said that they have been developed so that exposed workers have quick access to the results of testing. The provision of timely advice is important for the officer's treatment and wellbeing. I note that the member for Lane Cove, the member for Seven Hills, and the member for Orange are supportive of the bill. They have all served in uniform and are best placed to advise the House on how those people feel when exposed to this sort of danger. Both the member for Seven Hills and the member for Orange identified that, as police officers, they had been bitten by offenders and had experienced anxiety as a result. The member for Orange acknowledged that his skin was not broken in the incident and therefore there was no risk of disease transmission, but he recognised that others were not so lucky. This bill will help them access information that they need for their treatment. The member for Newtown put forward a view that the bill may not be necessary. This bill is necessary because, unfortunately, emergency services and other frontline personnel can be exposed to the bodily fluids of others as part of their daily duties, and this can present a risk of transmission of a serious lifelong disease. There are many circumstances in which exposure can occur, such as while providing medical assistance to an injured person, during an altercation, or while attempting to effect an arrest. These exposures occur as a result of the emergency services worker's duty, which may require involvement in difficult and dangerous situations. Where the exposure to bodily fluids gives rise to the risk of transmission of a bloodborne disease such as HIV, hepatitis Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4873
B or hepatitis C, this can be the cause of significant stress and anxiety for the worker and their families. That is why we are pursuing this legislative reform. As some of these diseases may have windows of three to six months during which the disease is present in the body but antibodies cannot be detected with confidence, an exposure incident can result in a long period of uncertainty for the worker before it can be confirmed whether transmission occurred. The scheme will reduce the stress and anxiety for police, corrections, health, emergency service workers and volunteers who have to wait for test results following an incident that has placed them at risk. The 2016-17 New South Wales Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety inquiry into Violence Against Emergency Services Personnel noted that coming into contact with another person's bodily fluid is a confronting experience and can cause concern and stress for the emergency services personnel due to the potential for serious disease infection. The Law and Safety Committee recommended that the New South Wales Government consider introducing legislation to allow mandatory disease testing for those workers whose bodily fluids come into contact with police and emergency services workers. In response to this recommendation the Government released an options paper in 2018, which noted that police record around 450 incidents of staff being exposed to bodily fluids every year. I highlight the fact that every time a police officer is injured in the line of duty I make a phone call to them and I sometimes speak to their spouses. It was only yesterday that I had to ring a female constable from the mid North Coast who had attended a domestic violence related incident. When she arrived she spoke to the alleged offender. He became aggressive and charged at the officer, throwing her onto a wall. A struggle ensued and the female constable was bitten on the thumb. She has been in Port Macquarie hospital and I have spoken to her. She has two young children at home and is now going through the trauma of having to wait for tests to be returned so that she can find out if she has a bloodborne disease. I encourage anybody who wants to oppose the bill to track down an emergency services worker who is currently waiting for tests to be returned. I have spoken to young constables who have said they wanted to start a family but cannot because they have to wait for their tests to be returned. I have spoken to women who work in emergency services who cannot hug their kids because they are waiting for their test to come back. I think people who oppose the bill are showing a very strong sense of inhumanity and I think that anybody who has a sense of decency would support it in a heartbeat. As I said in relation to corrections, the figure of those assaulted is around 130 per year and for health workers there are about 2,218 incidents of exposure per year. It is not difficult to find somebody who has lived this trauma. Similar schemes already exist in States such as Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. I note that the member for Newtown raised concerns about forced testing. The bill is not proposing blanket testing of members of specific communities for stigmatising purposes, nor does it suggest positive people should be put into forced quarantine; that suggestion is scaremongering. Following an exposure incident and a medical consultation, a worker may seek third party testing and the third party can be asked to consent. Failing that, an order will be applied for. It will only be granted if justified in the circumstances, with reviews provided for and safeguards present. That is a far cry from rounding up groups of people for forced testing ,as implied by the member for Newtown in her usual scaremongering tactics. I note that the member for Newtown and the member for Sydney plan to move some amendments, but I have only ever discussed that with the member for Sydney. The member for Newtown may have been motivated to come and speak to me about that, but we will speak about those at the appropriate time. Ms Jenny Leong: Point of order— Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I remind all members that the purpose of the bill is for an exposed worker to retrieve vital information to inform their care, and the bill reflects calls from frontline workers— TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): The Minister will resume his seat. What is the point of order? Ms Jenny Leong: I would like the Minister to withdraw that. The amendments that The Greens drafted were circulated to the Minister last night and I have been in discussions with his office today over some of them. I do not think it is a factually correct assertion to say that only the member for Sydney has been in conversation about those amendments. I think it is important to correct the record. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): There is no point of order. The Minister will continue. Ms Jenny Leong: Point of order— Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I said that he came to see me. I did not say that she had not circulated it. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): What is the point of order? Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4874
Ms Jenny Leong: I would like for Hansard to be reviewed. The Minister suggested that we had not been engaged with it. Originally he said that the member for Sydney had not come to see him, but after that he implied in his next comment that we had not shared the amendments nor spoken to his office, and we have done both of those things. I think that is a disrespectful thing to put on the record. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): This is not an opportunity for debate. The member for Newtown will resume her seat and the Minister will continue. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: The bill reflects calls from frontline workers—and let us face it, they are the ones we are here to serve—to make sure that they have access to information about their health, wellbeing and treatment. The Government has responded by listening to those frontline workers. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to thank everybody who has made a contribution to the debate, but also to thank those who have provided advice to my office, particularly police Deputy Commissioner Mal Lanyon and his team, and the Police Association—Tony Bear and Tony King have been long-time advocates of this legislation and I thank them for their passion to protect their members. Importantly, I thank the frontline police, health workers, corrections officers, emergency services workers and volunteers who will all benefit from the bill. We do not give enough to those volunteers, so I think it is the moral obligation of this Chamber to give them this protection. They are doing their best to keep us safe and now it is time for us to do our bit to keep them safe. I thank my own office, which has had to deal with some pretty sensitive issues—particularly my chief of staff Tanya Raffoul and deputy chief of staff Rommel Varghese, as well as all of the other members of the team. I commend the bill to the House. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. A division has been called for. There being fewer than five members against the question, the question is resolved in the affirmative. Noes, 4 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Motion agreed to. Consideration in detail requested by Mr Alex Greenwich and Ms Jenny Leong. Consideration in Detail TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): By leave: I will deal with the bill in groups of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 to 18, and schedules 1 to 2 be agreed to. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (12:15:51): I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 1 Meaning of deliberate action Page 2. Insert after line 38— 5A Meaning of "deliberate action" In this Act, a reference to a worker coming into contact with a person's bodily fluid as a result of the person's deliberate action, however expressed, is taken to include only circumstances in which the person intended the person's bodily fluid to be transmitted to the worker. I have been working with the AIDS Council of New South Wales to identify the major gaps in the bill that leave it open to misuse. Forcing someone to take a blood test to diagnose HIV or another bloodborne disease is a significant impost on their human rights. The rules that dictate the circumstances in which a test can be ordered must be narrowly defined and must leave no room for subjective decisions or the potential to use orders as part of an extrajudicial punishment. At this stage I feel that it is critical to highlight the misinformation from proponents of the bill in this debate, who have implied that someone can contract HIV through saliva via kissing or by being hugged. These are the kinds of comments that we heard at the height of the 1980s anti-AIDS stigma. Shame on the Parliament for allowing this rhetoric to be heard in 2020, in a State that has led the way in the international response to the AIDS epidemic. The intention of the bill is clear, and it risks taking us back in time and jeopardising the gains we have made. The bill mandates a testing order when a frontline worker has come into contact with bodily fluid due to the deliberate action of a third party, but there is no clarity around what constitutes a deliberate action. That further exposes the bill to misuse by a frontline worker who seeks to weaponise the definition of "deliberate action" to punish someone. In the bill as drafted, it is conceivable that saliva coming into contact with a frontline worker Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4875
when someone clears their throat could be construed as a deliberate intention to spit. This potential scenario is untenable. I remind members that HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting. My amendment will provide much-needed clarity to ensure that an action can only be deemed as deliberate in circumstances where a third party intends their bodily fluid to be transmitted to a frontline worker. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12:18:49): The Government opposes amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-272G moved by Mr Alex Greenwich because the scheme is not intended to be assault or offence based, rendering it unworkable. The requirement to establish intention would slow down the operation of the scheme while evidence is gathered. Where would this stop? Would an officer have to wait for a third party to be convicted of assault before seeking a mandatory testing order? The point of the scheme is to enable quick and early access to information that might assist the care and treatment of the exposed worker. Delaying to establish intention undermines this and adds to the stress and worry for the exposed worker. It is unworkable, as there is no clear threshold for establishing intention and it is not clear who makes the final call regarding intention. The scheme is not intended to apply to exposures such as those that might occur when a person is convulsing or receiving first aid from the officer. Those are not deliberate actions by the third party, but deliberate actions such as biting, resisting arrest or spitting can result in exposure without the underlying intention to expose. Examples of deliberate action that might result in contact with bodily fluid could include a corrections officer being bitten by an inmate, an ambulance officer being punched by a patient who is covered in blood, or a police officer being cut or sliced by a bloodied weapon whilst trying to disarm an offender. The Government opposes the amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (12:20:12): I support the amendment of the member for Sydney, which seeks to define a deliberate action by inserting into the Act that: … a reference to a worker coming into contact with a person's bodily fluid as a result of the person's deliberate action, however expressed, is taken to include only circumstances in which the person intended the person's bodily fluid to be transmitted to the worker. It is very important to hear the Government's response to the amendment. In opposing it, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services said that the scheme is not intended to be offensive or an assault. But it is actually really offensive. It is also hugely concerning. The member for Sydney's amendment is narrowly defined. It seeks to say that the scheme should only apply where there is a deliberate action. The Minister used extreme and appalling examples that all of us would abhor, but there is no scope in the bill to limit its effect just to those. All that is currently required is for a person to make an application for a mandatory testing order. The examples the Minister just gave are not articulated in the bill as the only circumstances in which that could occur. There is a broad scope in the bill for how such actions could be taken. It is important to recognise that in his opposition to the amendment the Minister seemed to justify a form of extrajudicial punishment: forcing someone to have a mandatory test when, in fact, they have not been before a court, it has not been assessed whether or not the action took place and no additional party or witness has been required to show that it actually happened. We can imagine scenarios where, in the heat of the moment, a police officer, a law enforcement officer, a prison officer or another officer makes an assumption and says, "I believe you just did this thing." They could then apply for a mandatory testing order. There does not need to have been any additional intention. The Greens have made it clear that there is a real concern about how the bill is drafted. I put on the record the details of the report in the "Let's not weaken the New South Wales response to managing bloodborne viruses" briefing paper that was shared by a number of groups, including Positive Life NSW, Hepatitis NSW, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, the NSW Users and AIDS Association, the National Association for People with HIV Australia, the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation and ACON. It is important to note that in bold in the report's introduction it says, "There has been zero occupational transmissions of HIV in Australia for 17 years, and never an occupational transition for a police officer." It is important for us to recognise the despicable scare tactics that are being used in this place. We see an outrageous use of examples—as the member for Sydney rightly articulated—where it is just not possible to contract a bloodborne virus in the ways that have been described. We would all agree that those examples are horrific and wrong and should not happen to anybody in their workplace. But to try to equate the fact that they are horrific with the idea that we need mandatory testing for bloodborne viruses just does not add up. It is so insulting. I will say it again: It is so insulting to the young junior police officers and the young people who are being provided with these falsehoods when it comes to the risks to their safety. It is irresponsible and it is a disgrace because it adds to the stress and anxiety placed on those young people. The idea that there is an inhumanity in the people who oppose this bill is a complete misrepresentation of our position. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4876
It is absolutely a failure of this Government to recognise the need for resourcing mental health support and wraparound services and the kind of support that is needed to de-escalate situations that put frontline workers and police in harm's way. The Government has failed to provide the necessary housing and mental health support and all of the other things that are required to de-escalate those situations. Instead, yet again we have a law and order approach that seeks to undermine basic tenets of respecting the rule of law and people's right to be innocent until proven guilty. Inserting this simple amendment to define a deliberate action at least limits the effect that the testing provisions will have on people in our community. Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove—Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections) (12:25:07): As Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections, I represent in this place all correctional officers who work in correctional facilities or Community Corrections. They deserve as many protections as we can put in place to allow them to work in a safe environment. I have listened to members opposite suggest that mandatory disease testing is some sort of campaign to scare the community and generate hate against those in our community who are living with HIV. That certainly is not the case. This bill is not about punishing those who have HIV or any other bloodborne virus, as suggested by those opposite. In fact, it should be put on the record that correctional officers would not have a clue whether an inmate has HIV, hepatitis C or any other disease. In a correctional environment, that information is protected by privacy laws and is only in the possession of NSW Health. From a correctional point of view, the bill is about disgusting and dangerous acts inflicted by an inmate towards a correctional officer or staff member. It is about testing the blood of those committing such disgusting and dangerous acts. It is about giving frontline correctional staff peace of mind after they have been exposed to a bodily fluid. In a custodial environment, there are a small number of inmates who do the wrong thing and assault staff by using bodily fluids. It is not uncommon for correctional officers to be assaulted by inmates who spit blood in their face. This involves the inmate pushing their cheek inwards from the outside of their face whilst biting down and piercing their cheek on the inside of their mouth, causing the wound to bleed profusely inside their mouth. Once their mouth has a significant volume of blood, the inmate then spits the blood into the face of an officer. These are disgusting acts. Staff members should be entitled to know as quickly as possible what risk of disease, if any, exists so that appropriate treatment can begin as quickly as possible. It is also about reducing the significant mental health issues that surround such an assault. Currently an officer would have to wait three to six months before any peace of mind may be given by medical staff. Members opposite suggest that the inmate's right to privacy should override the necessity of the staff member knowing if there is a risk. As I said earlier, inmates' medical histories are not known to correctional staff. If an inmate assaults an officer with bodily fluids this bill allows the officer to find out if the inmate has a disease. Within the context of correctional facilities, it is absurd to suggest that the bill will stigmatise any inmates with HIV or other diseases. If an inmate does not wish to have their blood tested for any risk of bloodborne transmission to a staff member through an assault, then I have only one thing to say to that: They should not commit such a disgusting, putrid, vile, filthy, repugnant and appalling assault on correctional staff. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (12:28:01): As I stated in my contribution on the second reading, the Labor Party supports the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill 2020. I noted that the bill will be dealt with by the upper House in the next sitting, which will be after the summer break. In that time, the bill will be reviewed and there will be public hearings of the Law and Justice Committee. The Law and Justice Committee is a very experienced upper House body, which I sat on for over a decade. I am not reflecting on the amendments that are currently before the House. Labor will await the report from that committee after it has heard stakeholder engagement before making any decisions on any amendments that may be moved in the upper House. It has been clear to me when I have spoken to people that, as the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections noted, there are misunderstandings about some of the complexities that frontline workers face. That is particularly true in Corrective Services, where there are often large numbers of prison officers who are stood down from work because of the actions of a single prisoner. We have obligations to protect the rights of everybody across the board and, in particular, we have an obligation to protect our frontline workers. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (12:29:29): It is not the speech I would have used, but the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections essentially advocated for the amendment. The amendment seeks to ensure that an action can only be deemed deliberate in circumstances where the third party intended their bodily fluid to be transmitted to a worker. He outlined an example of where there was a clear intention to do so. The amendment narrows it in order to prevent the provision from being abused and misused. All my amendments seek to do is put safeguards in the bill to achieve what the Government says it believes the bill does achieve. I welcome the upper House inquiry into the bill. I hope that these amendments will be looked at thoroughly and that they can be addressed again. It is about putting in clear definitions and safeguards. I commend the amendment to the House. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4877
TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being only four members in the minority having challenged my decision, I declare the determination of the House to be in the negative. I direct that the names of those members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ayes, 4 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Amendment negatived. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (12:35:55): By leave: I move my amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 on sheet c2020-272G in globo: No. 2 Act not to apply to children Page 4, clause 7(2), line 10. Omit "14 years". Insert instead "18 years". No. 3 Act not to apply to children Page 8, clause 15, heading, line 30. Omit "and Children's Court". No. 4 Act not to apply to children Pages 8 and 9, clause 15(3)–(5), line 36 on page 8 to line 2 on page 9. Omit all words on those lines. No. 10 Act not to apply to children Page 21, Dictionary, definition of Court, lines 11 to 14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— Court means the Local Court. No. 11 Act not to apply to children Page 21, Dictionary, definition of vulnerable third party, lines 37 to 42. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— vulnerable third party means a third party who is suffering from a mental illness or mental condition, or is cognitively impaired, within the meaning of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, which significantly affects the vulnerable third party's capacity to consent to voluntarily provide blood to be tested for blood-borne diseases. The application of a mandatory disease testing order on people under the age of 18, and as young as 14, is unnecessary, offensive and disturbing. It is opposed by a number of LGBTQI and human rights organisations, including ACON and the Law Society of New South Wales. HIV rates in under 18-year-olds are negligible, with only three people diagnosed with the condition last year. I am informed that they are receiving appropriate treatment. I again remind members that HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting. Sending mandatory testing applications to the Children's Court is not an appropriate safeguard. That is not what the Children's Court is for. The effect would be to place an unnecessary burden on the court, which is already under pressure, diverting resources in a system that should be focused solely on the protection of children. There are also questions related to meaningful parental and guardian involvement and influence in the process. The inclusion of children in the bill is harmful and unnecessary. My amendments seek to ensure that this legislation, yet again, will not be weaponised to punish under 18-year-olds in a highly inappropriate and unnecessary way. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12:37:56): The Government opposes the amendments. We believe the Children's Court is best placed to balance the needs of the child and the exposed worker in the context of an exposure incident and any other relevant factors. I acknowledge the concerns of the member for Sydney, which I am hopeful will be addressed even further by the Legislative Council review. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (12:38:26): I support the amendments moved by the member for Sydney and offer The Greens' support. There is no need for the bill to apply to children. There is no community-based evidence, medical evidence, or any evidence to suggest that it should apply to children. The idea that we would have mandatory disease testing on children is appalling. It is disgusting because it implies that yet another power will be given to law enforcement officers to target young people who may be Aboriginal, using drugs or other illicit substances, living in public housing or in the juvenile justice system who are already vulnerable or at risk. The idea that yet another law will be passed in this place that vilifies children and imposes further systemic abuse and problems on them is disgraceful. They are children and should be treated as such. We should be looking Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4878
after them. I hope that the New South Wales Labor Party supports this amendment, recognising that there is no evidence, as the member for Sydney has outlined, for this bill to apply to children. We can make that very clear to an upper House inquiry. I acknowledge that an upper House inquiry may be looking into the details of this bill but we in this Chamber can take a strong stance today and say that, whether one supports the bill or not, it is completely unacceptable and unnecessary for this bill to apply to children. The amendment omits "14 years" and inserts "18 years" so that the Mandatory Disease Testing Bill would not apply to children. There is no need for this bill in the first place, but there is certainly no evidence or need for it to apply to children. I urge those who are present or listening to this debate—Government and crossbench members—to understand that laws that further empower police or law enforcement officers to further cause stress and intimidation to young people in this State are not needed. We know the appallingly high rates of incarceration of Indigenous young people in this State, the systemic racial abuse and the concerns of young people in our society. We have seen endless Facebook footage of what happens when there is a power imbalance. We have seen young people hanging out in a park or a mall being intimidated by law enforcement officers. We know that this is not the fault of the individual law enforcement officers; it is the fault of this place. Successive governments in this place have taken a law-and-order approach when it comes to dealing with young people in this State. We did not see in the budget an announcement of more funding for youth support services or new youth centres in Redfern, Surry Hills or Newtown. What we see is this type of legislation, which will subject children to mandatory disease testing. The bill is not based on evidence. There has been no consideration given to a court process within the court or justice system. I was a member of the Committee on Law and Justice inquiry into diversionary programs for young people from the juvenile justice system. We know that the number one risk to young people finding themselves caught up with the juvenile justice system is a bad interaction with police and law enforcement officers. Yet here we are going to entrench into legislation another way that will start young people on that path towards engaging with and continuing to be a part of the unjust juvenile justice system in this State. It is important for us to recognise what we are doing here. I hope that members who maybe shared a story with a hashtag around Black Lives Matter and who care about the over-representation of young Aboriginal people in our juvenile justice system will strongly consider whether they will support this amendment or whether they will join with the Government and oppose it. If they oppose it, they will be creating yet another chance for young people in this State to be caught up in the juvenile justice system. What they actually need is love, care, compassion and support. Debate interrupted. Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 24/57 Ms FELICITY WILSON: As Chair: I move: That, in accordance with Standing Order 306 (7), the reports of the Legislation Review Committee being orders of the day committee reports Nos 1 and 3 be considered together. Motion agreed to. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): The question is that the House take note of the reports. Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (12:43:59): I address the House on behalf of the Legislation Review Committee regarding digest No. 23/57 and digest No. 24/57 of this Parliament, tabled on 10 November and 17 November respectively. In Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 the committee examined the six bills introduced in the prior sitting week. The committee also considered three statutory instruments, commenting on each. I will now draw the Parliament's attention to some of the issues raised. The object of the Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2020 is to amend the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in relation to domestic violence matters. In reviewing the bill, the committee noted that the amendments would permit a complainant's evidence to be given in a closed court during domestic violence proceedings. The court could only make a direction that part of the proceedings be heard in open court at the request of one of the parties and if the court is satisfied that special reasons in the interests of justice require that part of the proceedings be held in open court or if the complainant consents to giving their evidence in open court. The committee noted that these provisions may impact on open justice principles of an open court and the right to a fair trial. However, the committee acknowledged that the amendments are designed to recognise the particular dynamics of domestic Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4879
violence matters and to balance the public interest and principles of open justice with the need to protect vulnerable witnesses. Even so, as open justice principles are fundamental to our criminal justice system, the committee referred this issue to Parliament for its consideration. I now turn to a statutory instrument dealt with in digest No. 23/57, the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Regulation 2020. The regulation remakes with amendments the 2013 regulation and deals with the management, use and regulation of the land vested in the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust. The amendments provide that a person requires written permission from the trust or the executive director to jog or run, other than on a road, path or specifically designed circuit, or to jog or run in a group of more than 10 persons. This may impact a person's right to freedom of movement in the space. The committee noted that the regulatory impact statement indicated that partitioning certain areas of the Domain will better preserve the wider green space and commercialising access to certain areas will fund maintenance costs. Having regard to these factors, the committee referred the matter to Parliament with particular regard to the potential to reduce public access and the commercialisation of the space. I now turn to digest No. 24/57, in which the committee examined the nine bills introduced last sitting week. In this digest the committee reviewed the Bushfires Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, which makes amendments in response to the final report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry, dated 31 July 2020. The committee noted that the bill contained some strict liability offences. The committee generally comments on strict liability offences as they depart from the common law principle that mens rea, or the mental element, is a relevant factor in establishing liability for an offence. Strict liability offences are not uncommon in regulatory settings to encourage compliance and, particularly in the current case, the amendments are to ensure compliance with bushfire hazard reduction notices. Given the substance of the offence already exists under the Rural Fires Act and remains unchanged as it relates to individuals and imprisonment, the committee made no further comment. I turn now to another bill considered by the committee, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Increased Penalties) Bill 2020, a private member's bill introduced in the Legislative Council. The bill seeks to increase penalties for various offences under the Act and to make consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1900. The committee noted that the changes significantly increase penalties for offences, including some strict liability offences under the Act, in some cases imposing penalties 28 times larger for corporations and 10 times larger for individuals and doubling the maximum penalty of imprisonment for individuals. The bill also introduces mandatory minimum monetary penalties for certain offences. The committee acknowledges that the bill intends to toughen the New South Wales position on penalties for animal abuse offences. However, given the significant increase in penalties for numerous offences, the committee referred the matter to the Parliament for its consideration of whether the penalties are reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. That concludes my remarks on Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 and Legislation Review Digest No. 24/57. In closing, I note my thanks to all members of the committee for this year's work, including deputy chair the Hon. Trevor Khan and my fellow members Mr David Mehan, the member for The Entrance, who will always contribute to this debate in the Chamber; the member for Heathcote; the member for Port Macquarie; the member for East Hills; and our upper House colleagues who have come through the committee during the year, Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and the Hon. Anthony D'Adam, and now Ms Abigail Boyd is joining us as well. I particularly thank our committee secretariat. The staff work very hard, particularly in the middle of the two sitting weeks, on turning around very detailed analyses of the bills and regulations put before this Parliament, and they do an outstanding job in the work analysis that they put forward to us as a committee. We would not be able to undertake this role of scrutiny without their work. I particularly thank our new manager of the committee, Caroline, and our outgoing manager, Elspeth, for the work that they have done in leading the team this year. I also thank Elaine Schofield for the work that she does to support them. I thank our committee secretariat and wish them all a merry Christmas. We are very grateful for the work they do and we look forward to working with them again in 2021. Mr DAVID MEHAN (The Entrance) (12:50:07): I refer to Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 and Legislation Review Digest No. 24/57 of the Legislation Review Committee. In Legislation Review Digest No. 23/57 the committee considered six bills and commented on five of them. It also considered 32 regulations and commented on three of them. I refer specifically to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Regulation 2020. The commentary in the digest gives an interesting background as to how regulations are developed and organised by the State. The original regulation was repealed on 1 September 2020 by section 10 (2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, and this new regulation has been made and is now bigger and better than ever. The regulatory impact statement prepared by the Centre for International Economics suggests that there is a need for the Government to manage a number of new risks on the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust lands and, Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4880
as a consequence, the regulation has added a list of conditions that it was felt needed to be regulated by the State and about which the committee has commented. I like to run through The Domain when I am in Sydney and I was particularly distressed by the prescription of certain activities in relation to jogging and running. Jogging in groups of more than 10 persons can happen now only with permission of the trust. There is an increase in the regulation around people cycling through The Domain about which the committee commented. The committee noted the common law right to peaceful assembly had been perhaps narrowed by the regulation, and those matters were referred to Parliament for its consideration. The committee also commented on the amount of the fines for breach of the regulations. The committee noted that breach of the new provisions carries the second-highest penalty notice under the regulation, at $750, which was also referred to Parliament for its consideration, bearing in mind that regulations considered by the committee are subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament. Legislation Review Digest No. 24/57 is likely to be the last digest for the year. The committee's practice is to include an appendix showing the responses received by the committee to correspondence sent to the Minister or the member responsible for bills containing the committee's comments. This digest includes as an appendix responses received. Members should be aware of that if they are interested, and certainly people watching on Facebook will be delighted to hear that that service is available if they download the full digest. To help them even further, the committee has improved its website, which is accessible through the parliamentary website. Members of the public as well as members of Parliament can search for each bill that has been considered by the committee. Beside each bill is the name of the digest in which it is referred to, the minute extract that the committee considered and, more importantly, the responses received. It is a great improvement to our service to the Parliament and the wider community. I thank my committee members for their work. I echo the comments of the Chair, who I welcome back to the committee. The committee is well served by the secretariat. I wish them all a merry Christmas. Reports noted. COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Report: Review of the Health Care Complaints Commission's 2017-18 and 2018-19 Annual Reports TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): The question is that the House take note of the report. Mr GURMESH SINGH (Coffs Harbour) (12:54:59): As Chair: The Review of the Health Care Complaints Commission's 2017-18 and 2018-19 Annual Reports was tabled on 10 November 2020. While the COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges, we were pleased to find that the Health Care Complaints Commission's response to COVID-19 has limited the pandemic's impact on its complaints-handling performance. In responding to the pandemic, the commission brought forward some of its planned technology reforms. These included giving staff the ability to work from home as they continue to manage complaints. However, pandemic restrictions mean that the commission is not able to conduct face-to-face meetings with clients and professional councils. Its ability to do community outreach has also been lost. Instead, the commission has shifted its communication to being via telephone and videoconference. We heard that the most significant impact of the restrictions has been the suspension of in-person hearings at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. These hearings, conducted to resolve more serious and complex matters, have been deferred until later in 2020 or 2021, and this will impact on new matters being listed. The pandemic has also impacted the number of complaints received by the commission. Due to a decline in the number of people attending medical facilities during the early months of the pandemic, 20 per cent fewer complaints were received. Before this, complaints had continued to increase, growing by 3 per cent in 2018-19. There has also been a delay in the commission's work to improve its accessibility and responsiveness to meet the needs of the Indigenous community. The committee will follow the commission's work in this area once restrictions allow it to resume. We heard that the commission's new website, launched earlier this year, is making it easier for users to get information about making a complaint. We were pleased to hear that the website is now more accessible for users with a disability. In 2018 the commission launched its eComplaints portal, and we heard that it has led to improved efficiency, including the time taken to assess complaints. Some 40 per cent of complaints are now made through this online portal. We also heard that the commission plans further improvements to its processes by introducing new technology and systems over the next to two to three years. The commission told us about its work with member-based organisations to improve awareness of, and compliance with, the code of conduct for unregistered practitioners. The commission also identified the occupations that were most complained about and ran workshops and presentations for these groups. We welcome the commission engaging more with unregistered practitioners, Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4881
especially given the growing number of complaints about this cohort. As an issue the committee has previously taken an interest in, we will continue to watch the commission's progress in this area. We were pleased to see that the timeliness of investigations has improved. Between July 2019 and March 2020, 360 investigations were completed—an increase of 78 per cent compared with the same period in 2018-19. The average time to complete an investigation reduced to 315 days, down from an average of 335 days in 2018-19. We will continue to monitor the timeliness of investigations. We will also continue to monitor the time taken to review complaint assessment decisions. While improvements have been made, we share the commission's concern that the time taken to review these decisions remains an issue. The commission told us that the current target of completing reviews within 42 days may not be realistic. It may be necessary to align the target with the 60-day time frame for making the original complaint assessment decision, given the volume of material to review and the potential need to seek further medical expertise. The committee welcomes the recent changes to the Health Care Complaints Act to strengthen the commission's powers. The changes, detailed in the Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2020, follow on from recommendations made by the previous committee's report on cosmetic health service complaints. The commission now has a wider power to issue public warnings and make prohibition orders. The commission can also investigate complaints about organisations alleged to have breached the code of conduct for relevant health organisations. It can issue an order or interim order, prohibiting the organisation from providing a health service or imposing conditions on the provision of health services if it has breached the code. The commission's powers of entry and the power to require documents to be produced and questions to be answered have also been enhanced. The commission is also now able to refer a complaint to a private health facility for local resolution, which could help improve frontline complaints management in the private health sector. I thank the commissioner, Sue Dawson, her management team and all the staff at the commission for their dedication and hard work. I thank my fellow committee members from the Legislative Assembly and from the Legislative Council for their valued contributions. I also thank the committee secretariat for their work and support—especially Dora, who will no longer be on that committee. I commend the report to the House. Ms KATE WASHINGTON (Port Stephens) (13:00:06): On behalf of the Labor Opposition, and as a member of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, I take note of the committee's report tabled today. On behalf of the Opposition and members of the committee I also extend my thanks to the commissioner, Sue Dawson, and the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] staff members. The work that they do is important. The work that they see is very difficult. The HCCC receives complaints that would range from relatively minor issues around how people were spoken to through to cases involving significant and life-changing trauma to individuals. Inevitably, the length of time taken by the commission and its staff to look at these complaints, assess and investigate them and then resolve them in some manner varies depending on the nature of the complaint being dealt with. I acknowledge the chair of the committee, the member for Coffs Harbour, and thank him for the role he has played. I reflect on his comments today that we heard about the different time frames the commission is trying to achieve and the difficulty it is having achieving those because of the nature of complaints, but also because of the steady rise in the number of complaints it is receiving. The timeliness of addressing those complaints continues to be of concern, both to the committee and to the HCCC. I note that the HCCC is looking at potentially extending some of those time frames so that it can meet them. There is some concern about extending time frames so they can be met instead of implementing changes within the organisation that might allow them to be met. At the end of every one of those complaints made to the HCCC is someone who feels harmed, someone who has suffered loss and someone who has potentially had life-changing effects as a result of treatment that they have received in the health system. Every single one of those people ought to have a timely response to their concerns and complaints, which the HCCC is endeavouring to do every day of its operation. With the rising number of complaints the HCCC is receiving, there should be some consideration given to the resourcing of the HCCC to ensure that it can meet those concerns and complaints in a timely way. I extend my thanks to my fellow committee members, especially the Hon. Walt Secord, and the committee secretariat for their guidance and support through this. I also commend the committee, and its previous iteration, for its work and its recommendations that led to legislation coming to this place, seeing reform that should help the HCCC do its work in the future. Report noted. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4882
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Membership TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Council advising that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane has been appointed as a member of the Legislation Review Committee in place of the Hon. Anthony D'Adam. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY Membership TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Council advising that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane has been appointed as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety in place of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2.15 p.m. Announcements AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE The SPEAKER (14:15:35): Earlier this month the President and I launched the first ever Australasian Parliamentary Administration Conference, with nearly 300 registrations from across Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. The conference featured presentations on COVID responses, the future of customer service and engagement, and innovation. I congratulate the Department of Parliamentary Services, including CEO Mark Webb, on the successful conference, with special acknowledgement of Deborah Bennett and Andrew Kiejda for their coordination, ably assisted by Helen Gors, Rob Nielsen, Melinda McIntyre, Carmen Vella, Emily Garland, Wes Stowe, Scarlett Rares, Vanessa Harcourt, Andrew Veitch, Tass Miroforidis, Brett Wright and Lee Kwiez. Congratulations to all. Members REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: On behalf of Ms Gladys Berejiklian: I inform the House that in the absence of the Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections I will take questions on his behalf. Question Time ASSET RECYCLING Ms JODI McKAY (Strathfield) (14:17:19): My question is directed to the Treasurer. Why is the Treasurer continuing to sell revenue-generating assets when borrowing is so cheap? Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Epping—Treasurer) (14:17:37): That is a good question. It is a bit like that Old El Paso ad—why not both? That is exactly what the Government is doing. But for the Government's asset recycling approach, if Labor somehow had been in government in 2011—Labor probably would not have been, but we will give those opposite the credit—and building the same size infrastructure that this Government is building, with all the schools, all the hospitals and all the road and rail, Labor would have locked in debt at 6 per cent interest. In contrast to that, this Government, off the back of its asset recycling program, has come into the pandemic in a position to borrow funds at record-low interest rates: 1.1 per cent for a 10-year debt. Ms Jodi McKay: Point of order: If interest rates are so low, why is the Treasurer selling revenue-generating public assets? The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will continue. Mr Brad Hazzard: What's your point of order? Ms Jodi McKay: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. Why is the Treasurer selling revenue-generating assets when interest rates are so low? The SPEAKER: I have ruled on the point of order. The Minister for Health and Medical Research will come to order. Interjections do not help. The Treasurer will continue. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: It does not help. Mr Brad Hazzard: I am just here to give clarity. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: It is not helping. The Government is using a combination of both. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4883
Ms Jodi McKay: Why, though? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has been given a fair go. She will remain silent. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: The Government will continue its asset recycling approach to unlock capital. The Government is investing those funds in much-needed infrastructure. Today the Premier, the Minister for Transport and Roads, and I were turning the first sod on Sydney Metro West. What was the building that was behind us? Mr Andrew Constance: Oh, yes, the Rave Cave. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: The Rave Cave, or whatever it was. It is a shocking building and it should be knocked down—just like the Sirius building. Anyway, I lost that one. Metro West is part of a public transport program that will transform western Sydney. The Government's selling down of the residual interest in the WestConnex motorway will ensure that we can build public transport for the people of our great State. The north-west Metro was announced by this Government and actually built, but announced by the former Labor Government five times and never built. It is this Government's approach to asset recycling that has given us that ability. Ms Jodi McKay: You don't know how to answer the question, do you? Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: It is a combination of both. The SPEAKER: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: It is a combination of both. In addition to that, the Government announced a scoping study in this year's budget for lotteries revenue. The Government will consider whether to monetise that revenue stream or, alternatively, deposit those funds in the Generations Fund, which will increase the funds to $70 billion and balance the Government's future net debt position. The fund was seeded with $3 billion and is now worth $11 billion. At the end of the decade the funds will be worth $70 billion. The Government will add to that fund coal royalties and dividends from State-owned corporations. That is what strong financial management is. That is what has built the great foundations of our State. That is why today's $72 billion transport infrastructure agenda is bigger than the combined infrastructure agenda of each other State. That shows the extent of the significant investment and the jobs that will come off the back of it because asset recycling unlocks capital. The Government invests in future infrastructure to make a real difference to people's lives. That is what is putting our State ahead. In addition to that, the Government will borrow. It is very clearly stated in the budget that we will borrow and increase the weighted average life of our borrowings from six years to eight years locked in at 1 per cent. Compared with every other State jurisdiction, no other State is better placed to take advantage of that than is New South Wales, given the State's negative net debt position we had as we came into the pandemic. It is the strong financial management of our State that has ensured the people of New South Wales have the prosperity and opportunity they deserve. What this Government will not be doing is taking advice or lessons from the Leader of the Opposition or other members of the Labor Party when it comes to financial or economic management. It is the policies of the Liberals and The Nationals that have set up this State for success. STATE BUDGET AND HEALTH Mr PETER SIDGREAVES (Camden) (14:22:06): My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on how the 2020-21 budget will further improve the State's health system and help to keep the community safe? Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby—Premier) (14:22:25): I thank the member for Camden for that outstanding question and for his representation of his community. Recently, in the company of community leaders, I visited the Camden electorate to inspect some community projects that will help young people, in particular. I look forward to visiting the Camden electorate again. I reiterate my thanks to the member for Camden for his representation. I know the Minister for Health and Medical Research is looking forward to perhaps answering a similar question later in Question Time, so I will try not to steal all his thunder. Mr Brad Hazzard: Is that without notice, Premier? Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Potentially without notice. I think it is fair to say that outcomes speak louder than any bragging in this place. I think the way the New South Wales health system has responded to COVID is really beyond anyone's expectation. I am deeply grateful to all the workers and the public health officials. During this process we learned a few things. First, we cannot invest in public systems and expect them Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4884
to succeed overnight. Success depends on sustained investment every year. I am very proud that since the Coalition has been in government health funding has been increased year on year. This year is no exception. Recurrent health funding increased by at least 10 per cent compared with last year's funding. What I am very pleased about is that since 2012 the number of frontline workers in health has increased by 20 per cent. What we have been managing to do is find efficiencies in the back office so we can increase the number of frontline workers, nurses and midwives. During the pandemic the Treasurer allocated an additional $3 billion to help in areas like personal protective equipment, additional workers and additional cleaners—all the extra things that need to be done to keep the community safe. In this year's budget, for the next financial year the Treasurer has committed an additional $1.6 billion to support the Government's efforts just in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The record $26 billion recurrent expenditure in health also allows Health to look at opportunities to improve the quality of services to our citizens. One learning during COVID has been the use of telehealth and eHealth. It is helping people in remote areas but also people with chronic conditions who do not want to leave their homes to go to a routine appointment. We are seeing through COVID the benefits of telehealth and eHealth and I know that the health department is looking at ways they can further improve the scope of those services to residents. We also know that the capital side of the project in Health is increasing and a number of hospitals around this State are being upgraded. What is important to us is not just the new hospitals and upgrades but what is happening inside them. It is making sure that our staff are supported and have the resources and the opportunities to be their best. There is no doubt that there are always challenges with the size of the health system in New South Wales. Our public health officials have given advice to the Government, provided leadership across the nation in response to the pandemic, and continued to keep elective surgery waiting lists down and emergency department operations efficient. During the COVID lockdown we had to stop elective surgery. I am now pleased to say that the health system is in the process of catching up to make sure that nobody waits any longer than they need to for those vital operations. The rate of catch-up is very positive. The Minister and I receive weekly updates about that as part of our pandemic approach. I will take the opportunity to thank the more than 122,000 full-time employees in the health system. Without its people, the health system cannot function. We have had the opportunity during this time to see firsthand the contributions that all the people in our health system are making. Many members in this place will be pleased with the hospital upgrades. There will be more to come. I assure this House that whilst ever the Liberals and The Nationals are in government health will continue to be a priority and will continue to receive record investment. It is not what politicians say, what they brag about or what they do not brag about; it is about the outcome. Look at how we have responded and look at the public health safety results in New South Wales. We are proud of that. It is a daily battle, but it is also a mark of the huge contributions we have made over a number of years to a system that I think is first class and world class. I thank the member for Canterbury for the question. LAND TAX Ms PRUE CAR (Londonderry) (14:27:01): I direct my question to the Treasurer. Under his land tax proposal, families in The Ponds, Leppington and Marston Park will pay the same residential rate of tax as those living in Hunters Hill, Mosman and Vaucluse. Does the Treasurer think this is fair? Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Epping—Treasurer) (14:27:18): First, it is a proposal. Secondly, can I say the member for Londonderry clearly does not understand how unimproved land value works. It would be the case that land value in Vaucluse would be worth more than land value at The Ponds and that is why you have a fixed rate and a variable rate off the back of it. I am more than happy to sit down with the new tutors we have in schools and with the member for Londonderry to take her through it. The Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Philip Lowe, today said we are seeing increased reform in a number of areas. He said, "A good example of this is the New South Wales Government decision to consult on the switch of stamp duty to a general property tax." Dr Lowe, like others, knows the importance of driving economic reform for future prosperity. That is what we are doing in this State. We are providing people with the choice, consulting on a model, working with the community to drive home ownership across the State. Do not just take it from me. Former Federal Treasury Secretary Ken Henry said, "The model … makes good sense and provides a good model for other States to follow … it is an investment in a better tax system." Saul Eastlake said, "I give him kudos for pressing on with this." Mr Ryan Park: What else did Saul say? The SPEAKER: Order! Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4885
Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: I cannot say it; I will get kicked out. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Keira to order for the first time. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest said, "Reform ... will make home ownership easier for young families and all new homebuyers. It will remove the disincentive on moving for those who seek to downsize." Real Estate Institute of New South Wales CEO Tim McKibbin said, "We welcome the news that stamp duty will finally be phased out." We want to take the lead in this State to drive a better system and to improve outcomes for families right across New South Wales. Whether you live in regional New South Wales or Sydney, we want everybody to have the opportunity to achieve the great Australian dream. Ms Jodi McKay: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. The Treasurer should know the difference between regressive and progressive tax. Does he think what he is proposing is fair? The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Treasurer is being generally relevant. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: This is a progressive tax, just like council rates. We are the progressive party, leading the way while those arch-conservatives from the old days sit on the Labor benches, relics of a bygone era. Mr Stephen Bali: Stop talking about the member for Riverstone like that. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: The member for Riverstone is the most progressive member in this place, leading the way with his progressive ideals and setting up our State for future success. The backward conservatives in the Labor Party need to enter the twenty-first century and begin the reform journey with the New South Wales Government. We do not reform for the sake of it; we do not have strong fiscal management and economic management for the sake of it. Those opposite opposed our asset recycling program. They opposed the WestConnex being built in the first place but now they drive on it every single day. The Leader of the Opposition knows it. She loves it; it is her favourite road in Sydney. Mr Ryan Park: You opposed the Cross City Tunnel and you opposed the Eastern Distributor. You love that. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: How is the Cross City Tunnel going? It is a private driveway for the people of the eastern suburbs. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Keira to order for the second time. I call the member for Keira to order for the third time. Mrs Melinda Pavey: Did you do the modelling, Ryan? Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: Was that you? Were you in Transport? Ms Jodi McKay: You had to change electorates so you didn't drive. The SPEAKER: The member for Keira should not be baited. Ms Yasmin Catley: Point of order— The SPEAKER: The member for Swansea has a point of order. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: I might run for Strathfield next because I love the WestConnex so much. I love the WestConnex so much I will go to Strathfield. I am inching closer to the city. The SPEAKER: What is the member's point of order? Ms Yasmin Catley: Mr Speaker, I ask that you instruct the Treasurer to direct his comments through the Chair and not speak directly to members. The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The Treasurer will direct all comments through the Chair. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: I think my electorate is moving towards the WestConnex. I will be driving on it. I love it. It is the best road in Sydney. The member for Penrith knows it. The last time those opposite ran a campaign against the WestConnex, against road infrastructure projects, what did we do? We wiped them out in western Sydney, and at the next election it will all turn blue. STATE BUDGET AND AGRICULTURE Ms STEPH COOKE (Cootamundra) (14:32:05): I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales. Will the Minister update the House on how the budget 2020-21 supports agriculture and our primary industries? Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4886
Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands—Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales) (14:32:26): I thank the member for Cootamundra for her question. It would be hard to find a more hardworking member in this House. She stands up for her electorate and fights for a lot of expenditure, as is seen in recent years with investment in the Cowra Agricultural Research and Advisory Station and the Narrandera Fisheries Centre, with further upgrades of those facilities to come. I thank her for the question. As we heard yesterday, the budget is a budget for the regions. Despite the fact that our agricultural sector has endured some of the worst conditions that anyone in farming has had to endure, over the past 12 months significant Government investment has been made. The Deputy Premier said yesterday that in excess of $4 billion will be spent to support our agricultural sector in terms of rebates, grants and concessional loans. That funding will continue as a result of this budget until the end of this calendar year. In terms of agriculture, this budget is not just a record budget but one that looks to position agriculture to rebound and grow and build on its strong foundations. The green shoots of recovery have started to return to regional New South Wales. This budget will support farmers to get back on their feet with restocking and replanting and, additionally, to invest heavily in the key components of a successful agricultural sector. The Government is more than doubling the amount of expenditure on biosecurity. We will see more teams on the ground fighting weed infestation that has resulted from hay and other fodder transported into the State during the drought. As conditions have returned to some normality we have seen those weeds materialise. Importantly, in addressing some of our feral and pest species—and I see the member for Cootamundra and the member for Barwon—feral dogs, wild pigs— Mr Ryan Park: Deer. Mr ADAM MARSHALL: Yes, and deer. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Wollongong to order for the first time. Mr ADAM MARSHALL: We will now be in a position to undertake a lot more aerial- and ground-baiting programs, aerial and ground culling and trapping, and to try to give our farmers the help they need to get on top of those pest species. To give members some idea of why this work is important—and the member for Barwon would know this only too well—the wild dog alone cost agriculture in this State in excess of $25 million each year in lost productivity because of the number of sheep and cattle that wild dogs predate on and take down each year. Every dog that we knock down with a baiting or a culling program represents money that stays in farmers' pockets. It keeps them productive and it shortens the recovery period after the drought. The other main component of the agriculture budget yesterday was, again, forward-looking: research into agricultural productivity, new biological controls for weeds like Hudson pear and the amazing work that is happening at Lightning Ridge at the moment, and coming up with new varieties of crops. The member for Tamworth, who is in the gallery, would know that there will be significant investment in the Tamworth Agricultural Institute to facilitate a $30 million investment in new chickpea research. Why chickpeas? Chickpeas taste good and will be the next big thing in protein growth in this country. We have the ability to be the world's leading producer of chickpeas. Our climate is ideal, there is a growing demand for chickpeas around the world and a lot more people are making ethical eating choices, and so chickpeas are going ballistic. Would it not be nice to see more Australian chickpeas on our shelves instead of looking at Brazilian chickpeas? We do not want Brazilian chickpeas. Mr Ryan Park: There are a few chickpeas in this place. Mr ADAM MARSHALL: Yes, I am looking at a few chickpeas right now. Mr Dominic Perrottet: They were the big winners in the budget. Mr ADAM MARSHALL: They were the big winners. They cannot vote but they are big winners. A new variety of chickpea will help our farmers be more productive. In fact, if we can get an extra 3 per cent productivity gain— [Extension of time] If we can get an extra 3 per cent productivity gain through a new variety of chickpea, it stands to put in excess of an additional $10 million a year into the agricultural sector and into the pockets of our farmers. People may think of that in jest and laugh, but one of the fastest-growing protein crops in the world is the chickpea. I know people might think it is funny, but this is real business for the regions. I could go on and on; I could get to the next crop if members would like. Suffice to say, the agriculture budget focused on biosecurity and research and development to keep our farmers ahead of the game, to keep them the most efficient in the world and, without doubt, to keep them producing the very best produce in the world for a premium price. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4887
LAND TAX Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland) (14:38:30): My question is directed to the Deputy Premier. Given the Treasurer confirmed today that land tax will apply to farms, does the Deputy Premier stand by his response— twice yesterday—that the proposed tax does not impact on farms? Mr JOHN BARILARO (Monaro—Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade, and Deputy Premier) (14:38:48): I thank the member for Maitland for her question because it allows me to talk about a few things. Firstly, if those opposite were genuinely here to support farmers and primary producers, they would support the Local Land Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill and the Right to Farm Bill, and they would also pull back on a tax on tractors which they proposed at the last election. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Londonderry to order for the first time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: What those opposite try to do is to spin the truth. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Maitland to order for the first time. I call the member for Londonderry to order for the second time. I call the member for Wollongong to order for the second time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: What we know about farmers in the region is that young farmers are not buying properties. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Rockdale to order for the first time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: One of the impediments to buying farms is the big lump sum of stamp duty up-front. The discussion paper that we put out talks about an opt-in model, so guess what? Farmers do not have to opt in. When we think about farmers and how they transfer their farms from generation to generation we realise that this is not something that happens on transactions such as those when someone buys a home. Secondly, if a farmer wants to opt in and not pay stamp duty up-front, they would then pay an annual levy—what I would argue is a stamp duty deferral payment or a property tax. That has nothing to do with land tax; land tax is a separate item. This property tax— Ms Jodi McKay: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. Did the Deputy Premier read the NSW Farmers' tweet? "NSW Farmers does not support the switching out of a once only stamp duty on property transfers to a property tax applied annually." Will the Deputy Premier confirm that it is, in fact, a land tax? The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is being relevant. The Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I met with James Jackson from NSW Farmers this morning. When I explained the discussion paper, the threshold and the opt-in model— The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wollongong to order for the third time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: —James said that he now gets a clearer picture of what we are putting up and that it gives New South Wales a chance to be part of the discussion on how to get more young people back on the land. The truth is that people can cherrypick a tweet, but guess what? NSW Farmers representatives came in today, we met with them, we spoke about it and discussed it and they commended the Treasurer and the Government for the budget because it aligns a lot with the agenda of NSW Farmers. I urge those opposite to stop playing politics with our farmers and to look to reform because right now— Ms Jodi McKay: You did not even know it was in there. You did not even know what was in the paper, Deputy Premier. Mr JOHN BARILARO: I did know. It is not a land tax. Ms Jenny Aitchison: Point of order— The SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Ms Jenny Aitchison: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. The Deputy Premier has to clarify this: It is not an opt-in model if the previous— The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is being relevant and he will continue. Mr JOHN BARILARO: I have just answered that; it is an opt-in model. That is actually what the discussion paper says. You cannot pretend it is not an opt-in model when it says it is an opt-in model. Just because you say it does not make it true. It is an opt-in model. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4888
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Maitland to order for the second time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: But if Labor genuinely understood one of the greatest impediments— The SPEAKER: I call the member for Oxley to order for the first time. Mr JOHN BARILARO: —to property ownership in this State and in this nation for first homebuyers, for those who want to downsize, for building mobility into property acquisition, or for those frontline service workers like teachers and nurses who live in the regions but never buy a property, they would know that people will never get a return on their investment because of stamp duty. This is an opportunity, through a model that enables them not to pay stamp duty up-front, that offers mobility and entrance into the property market. For farmers it is an opt-in option. Not having to pay stamp duty up-front gives a young farmer the chance to purchase a farm, but then there is also not a threshold of $1.25 million. We are preparing a discussion paper with mature people in this State. Unfortunately for Labor members, they are stuck in the Dark Ages. They want to stick to a tax system that allows no-one to enter into property ownership. We know that Labor is a party that wants citizens to be stuck on welfare because if they are stuck on welfare that is how Labor blackmails them to vote for it at an election. Our approach is about empowering and enriching people through property ownership. This great initiative from the Treasurer, which has my support, has no impact on primary producers. I will continue to have discussions with my constituents. STATE BUDGET Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Ku-ring-gai) (14:43:38): My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of recent responses to the 2020-2021 budget and will he update the House on those responses? Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Epping—Treasurer) (14:43:53): What a great question from the member for Ku-ring-gai and Cabinet Secretary. He is someone who also provided a great response to the budget because he knows how great it is for his electorate and for the entire State of New South Wales. Do not just take it from the member for Ku-ring-gai; the Business Council— Mr David Elliott: I wouldn't. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: You could; I would. Business Council of Australia CEO Jennifer Westacott said: This is a budget that sets the standard for other States and Territories. It's all about creating jobs. It's all about recognizing that its business is going to do the heavy lifting. And, creating the right environment for businesses to get going again, create those new jobs and replace those jobs that have been lost. Restaurant & Catering Industry Association of Australia CEO Wes Lambert said the following about the Out & About voucher scheme: We expected it will bring a billion to a billion and a half dollars into the hospitality and entertainment sector while the program is running. Insurance Council of Australia CEO Andrew Hall said: Today's announcement of a remediation program in NSW is a positive step towards resolving the use of flammable cladding and other non-conforming products on high-rise and residential commercial buildings … The ICA congratulates the Berejiklian Government on a Budget that will help support small businesses, generate thousands of jobs and create opportunities for NSW to recover from the impact of COVID-19. Business NSW CEO Nola Watson said, "The budget supports the ongoing need to create jobs, drive investment and build infrastructure." Australian Industry Group New South Wales CEO Mark Goodsell said: Ai Group supports the spending and tax relief measures of the NSW government since the onset of the crisis and the additional measures announced in this budget. He also said that through investments in infrastructure, support for job creation and skills development, as well as the Government's commitment to making it easier and more attractive to do business here, the Government has pushed the right buttons to support the recovery of the State's economy into next year and beyond. So there is another happy customer. Australian Hotels Association NSW CEO John Whelan said that this is the perfect reason to get down to your local pub, show your support and let the Government shout you a burger or schnitty. There is another happy customer. The Tourism Industry Council NSW Executive Manager said: Tourism businesses, their staff and the thousands of goods and service providers ... have been doing it extremely tough this year, the measures announced in the budget will give them hope for a brighter future. Regarding roads, NRMA spokesperson Peter Khoury said: This budget continues investment in important road and public transport projects that will help keep Sydney moving and ease congestion such as the completion of the WestConnex Project and the continued roll-out of the Sydney Metro. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4889
The Sydney Business Chamber Executive Director supports the budget, saying: This budget puts Sydney in a strong position to lead the nation's economic recovery, with funding for big transport infrastructure projects and other job creation and investment drivers. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said: … reform has finally been pulled out of the too-hard basket and placed on the table for reasoned public debate ... [this] should be an enduring legacy of positive tax reform for the people of NSW. And this is one of my favourite ones. The Nature Conservation Council of NSW CEO—it used to be chaired by Ms Cate Faehrmann—said: Overall, not a bad budget— the Government will take that— … some money there for some of the renewable energy policies that Matt Kean announced last week. That's very, very welcome news. Some of that stuff is gonna make a massive difference to ensuring we get to clean energy over the next few years. That's probably the best thing we can do for climate change in NSW ... This is a very good Budget and we're very positive about it ... I'd give it a seven or eight out of ten. Come on down, member for Balmain. Mr Jamie Parker: Well, the land taxes were a bad idea. Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET: The Greens love it. Kate Griffiths, who the Deputy Premier, the member for Dubbo and I met at her store, which is called Lazy Sunday Lifestyle—sounds like a Labor Party gathering or its convention—said: It was nice to get a shout out for a regional area. [The grants] helped us get back on our feet and spend a bit of money on marketing when we reopened. And in the new year, I'm about to do a bit of a new store fit-out. She said that the Deputy Premier, the member for Dubbo and I: … nearly cleared her shop out of ties and she is expecting new stock in time for Christmas for anyone wanting to get their hands on the range. From industry to frontline businesses, this budget delivers for everyone in New South Wales. CAMELLIA LAND PURCHASE Mr CHRIS MINNS (Kogarah) (14:48:50): I direct my question to the Minister for Transport and Roads. The Minister agreed to purchase land at Camellia that he knew was contaminated, and paid property developers three times its value. Is the Minister responsible for saddling taxpayers with the cost of cleaning up what is a toxic disaster? Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega—Minister for Transport and Roads) (14:49:21): Another day, same question from Labor. The SPEAKER: The member for Wakehurst and the member for Londonderry will remain silent. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: When I see the member for Kogarah it reminds me that every Wednesday night at about 8.30 p.m. it is the "Minns, Jones and Ward Show". It is the clash of the political Titans, and they sit there and they swing around at each other. I tuned in once and thought it was riveting, but the member for Strathfield tunes in every week. No doubt she is watching very closely. I wish the member for Keira and the member for Kogarah all the best over the summer months. No doubt there will be a few discussions had and a bit of Christmas cheer. In relation to Camellia, I answered this question yesterday. There is a whole series of premises in my learned friend's question that are absolutely wrong. Ms Jodi McKay: One, you knew that it was contaminated; two, you saddled taxpayers with the cost of moving it on; three— Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Well, duh! Has anyone actually been to Camellia? The SPEAKER: Order! Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: It is zoned industrial. James Hardie was there, along with maybe a couple of oil distributors—I do not know. I mean, seriously, I guess I could have taken out half the suburb of Strathfield, put a stabling yard there and taken everyone's homes. There is the other option, so let us get real. Ms Jodi McKay: You paid three times the—are you seriously joking about this? Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Keep trying. Try your hardest. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4890
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Quite frankly, all I have seen from Labor members this week— Ms Yasmin Catley: Do you think this is funny? Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: No, I do not think it is funny. Ms Yasmin Catley: Well, you are making a joke about it. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I do not think the way Labor members have gone after and denigrated Transport for NSW staff in the way that the Hon. Daniel Mookhey has is funny. Let us be clear: I have asked the Auditor-General to do an investigation in relation to this and I expect an open, honest and transparent response from the agency. Ms Jodi McKay: Have you referred it to the ICAC? The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Hang on, the Leader of the Opposition should work out her side's questions. The member for Kogarah asked the question. I call that competitive tension. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The bottom line is that the Auditor-General is going to do a review, and I expect full transparency so that the community has confidence in this issue moving forward. On that, what a wonderful morning it was today to go with the Premier and the Treasurer of New South Wales and turn the sod on the Metro West project, which is going to go right down the guts of these precincts and support those communities around Sydney Olympic Park. That is what matters: getting on with the job and doing the big builds. Ms Jodi McKay: Point of order— Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I have finished my answer, Mr Speaker. Ms Jodi McKay: My point of order is on relevance under Standing Order 129. This question is about land at Camellia. According to his staff, the Minister referred this to the ICAC, so is he responsible for saddling taxpayers with the cost of cleaning up the toxic disaster? Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I have sat down and finished my answer, Mr Speaker. Ms Jodi McKay: You don't want to answer the question and you are going to sit down instead. The Minister apparently referred it to the ICAC but will not answer the question. The SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order from the Leader of the Opposition. Ms Jodi McKay: It is very unlike you to run away, Andrew. Mr Andrew Constance: I run away from you all the time. The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time. Mr Ryan Park: Mr Speaker, could you tell us which members are on how many calls? I like to keep a running tally. The SPEAKER: If the member for Keira makes another comment similar to the comment he made yesterday, he will be removed from the Chamber. The member for Keira is on three calls to order, the member for Wollongong is on three calls, the member for Londonderry is on two calls, the member for Maitland is on two calls, the member for Rockdale is on one call, the Leader of the Opposition is on three calls and the member for Oxley is on one call. STATE BUDGET AND COVID-19 Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) (14:53:21): I address my question to the Minister for Health and Medical Research. Will the Minister update the House on how the budget will invest in health and the COVID-19 response? Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Health and Medical Research) (14:53:46): I thank the member for Port Macquarie and, of course, Deputy Speaker for her question addressing the issue of our health system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week we had a very good visit to her electorate. It was a pleasure to meet with some of the incredible staff at Port Macquarie Base Hospital and visit the proposed site for the HealthOne facility at Laurieton. In fact, I should mention two of the staff before I address the substantive issues. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4891
I particularly thank the two nurses that we had the honour of meeting, who were finalists for the Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery Awards this year. One is Trish Lemin, who is amazing. She is a member of the Australian Medical Assistance Team that, as many members will know, is located in the Northern Territory and relies on an aggregation of doctors, nurses and allied health staff who respond to the dire emergencies that face us across the country. She was leading the medical side of the bushfire response here. After that, she went to Wuhan to bring back children from China. She is quite an amazing nurse and person. We also met Amelia Bolt, an Aboriginal nurse, who is a finalist in the Aboriginal Nurse/Midwife of the Year category. She talks to us about how important it is to make sure that Aboriginal people feel welcome in our health system. She has done a lot of work on that. I wish them both luck in the awards, which I think will be held this week. At 11 o'clock this morning we announced that for the eleventh straight day New South Wales has had zero cases of community transmission of COVID-19. That was off the back of over 17,000 tests. I thank the entire New South Wales community for constantly putting themselves forward. They are all part of our incredible response in New South Wales. We need them to keep coming out when the Premier and I or Dr Chant or another member of the public health team ask them to come out. I thank them for that. If we continue this way, it will have a very positive outcome in terms of economic benefits as well. Just generally, I think the community are feeling a lot more settled. I thank the Treasurer, turning to the issue of the infrastructure that has been built during the past year. The Treasurer and the Premier have been incredible in terms of responding to the request from public health for further funds to address all of the various issues that needed to be addressed. I am not sure everyone would know this— the Premier does not want me to say it—but for the first few weeks, NSW Health senior staff were managing the response to COVID and it was the Premier's suggestion to me in the strongest terms, as I recollect, that perhaps we should set up the State Health Emergency Operations Centre. Mr Dominic Perrottet: What did you say? Mr BRAD HAZZARD: What did I say initially? That will remain private. But I can say that within a week or so of it being set up, all the NSW Health senior executive and I were very welcoming of it. I have to say that it was genuine. All of the people who we were otherwise having to phone to get a response were suddenly there in that centre at the Rural Fire Brigade headquarters at Homebush. We could see important decisions being made by simply walking across one side of the room to the other. That has been pivotal to the decisions we have made and their outcomes. The Treasurer has allocated us $3 billion on top of our normal budget, which takes it to about $29 billion. A lot of that is for boosting intensive care unit capacity, including $700 million to purchase additional ventilators—we now have more than quadrupled the number of ventilators—and additional ambulances and paramedic dedicated care ambulances, and $80 million for boosting mental health services. I thank my colleague Minister Taylor for all of her work on that, particularly the community-based mental health services that she has been such a strong advocate for. It also includes $25 million to support medical research and vaccine trials to help prevent and treat COVID-19 and another $11 million to quickly bring research and development to market. [Extension of time] That will support the research of our New South Wales universities and partner research institutes. On that front, I also acknowledge the Health Services Union [HSU] and Gerard Hayes and his team because they made a very substantial donation to COVID research. It was not, I think, as well acknowledged in the public arena as it should have been, but the members of the HSU should be very proud of their contribution to addressing the major COVID crisis. The budget allocation includes $10 million to partner with New South Wales businesses to urgently undertake pilot projects to produce some innovative ventilators and other critical medical equipment. I acknowledge Minister Ayres in that regard, because he worked with local companies to try to ensure that we were able to produce the ventilators and also worked with the Premier and the crisis Cabinet team to look at other supply line issues when our supply lines were cut off. That was quite incredible. The Government and the Treasurer have funded more recruitment, training and support for health staff, including employing final-year medical students. They have a very clear understanding of what we needed, particularly with the fast-tracking of projects—the ones that will give us jobs. The Macksville hospital development opened in May, six months ahead of schedule. The redeveloped Mudgee Hospital opened about three or four months ahead of schedule. There are new critical care beds at the redeveloped Dubbo hospital. Last year the Treasurer was there with me. He saw the need for them and, again, provided the money to make sure they were finished six months ahead of schedule. The John Hunter Hospital emergency department has undergone an interim expansion. I had the pleasure of seeing that and meeting with doctors, who were very excited about it. There has been so much done on the Westmead Central Acute Services Building. I thank the Treasurer, the Premier and the Government. I also thank the members of the Opposition who have been supportive more broadly of our initiatives regarding COVID. Finally, I thank the medical staff, the hospital staff, the frontline staff and the pathology staff for all the work they have done to get us where we have got to in this one-in-100-years pandemic. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4892
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (15:01:01): My question is directed to the Premier. Considering the recommendations of the Auditor-General's inquiry and now two funding reports from the ICAC, when will the Premier's Government implement an independent funding model for the ICAC? Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby—Premier) (15:01:17): I thank the member for Balmain for his question. He has been very consistent on this issue and I commend him for his perseverance. I stress that in November last year the Government asked the Auditor-General to undertake an independent review of the effectiveness of funding arrangements for all integrity agencies, including the ICAC, the Electoral Commission and other integrity bodies. The Government recently received the tabled report from the Auditor-General and I thank her for the good work she did in that regard. I acknowledge that others have also made reports regarding funding arrangements for the integrity agencies, and I acknowledge their contributions as well. I state again on the record—as I have done previously, which I know the member for Balmain would be pleased about—that the Government is open to a new funding model for the State's integrity agencies. We are considering the Auditor-General's report. Our intention is to express our views on this matter in the first quarter of next year. We are currently undertaking the consultation processes. One of the reasons that we asked the Auditor-General to look at this issue was precisely because we wanted to see whether there was a better way of dealing with independent integrity agencies. We are undertaking that process now. I am pleased to say that in this year's budget the ICAC received a funding increase of more than 21 per cent to carry it forward. I acknowledge the member's question and say that the Government is already doing the work of considering the recommendations. We will have something to say about it, I hope, either in the first quarter or early next year. I also acknowledge the member's contribution to his community. The Treasurer, the Minister for Transport and Roads and I were in his electorate. I know that Metro West will be welcomed by his community, as have been the extra ferry services and WestConnex. Whilst the member for Balmain and I do not agree on everything, he is a strong advocate— Mr Jamie Parker: We agreed on Rozelle Metro. Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: We did agree, 100 per cent. I acknowledge the contribution he makes on behalf of his community and I acknowledge the support he gives the Government on a whole range of issues. STATE BUDGET AND SOCIAL HOUSING Mr DUGALD SAUNDERS (Dubbo) (15:03:31): My question is addressed to the Minister for Water, Property and Housing. Will the Minister update the House on how the budget has delivered increased social housing and jobs across the State, particularly in regional New South Wales? Mrs MELINDA PAVEY (Oxley—Minister for Water, Property and Housing) (15:03:46): I thank the member for Dubbo for his question, and I thank the Treasurer for the boost to social housing in the New South Wales budget. It is going to be incredible. At the end of this financial year, we will be delivering 150 per cent more homes than in the previous financial year. I acknowledge the work of my colleague the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services. This is a great initiative. Whether it is the Social and Affordable Housing Fund [SAHF], community housing providers [CHP], the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, or getting more than our fair share of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation [NHFIC], what we are doing in the social housing space is very exciting. Does the member for Dubbo remember just over a year ago when we were in Dubbo in the very dry front yard of the huge garden at Patricia's home? Patricia was cooking a magnificent roast pork. We did not get invited in for lunch, although we gave enough hints. The exciting thing is Patricia had agreed to move from the property into a brand-new, one-bedroom apartment. In a couple of weeks Patricia will get the keys to a new, modern home. That was part of a $19 million investment boom in the Dubbo electorate over the past financial year. There will be another $12 million for homes, which will create jobs, opportunities and apprenticeships for young people throughout the Central West of New South Wales. This is what the Government is doing. On Saturday I was at Fairfield with the Treasurer visiting a project where we met two young female trainee plumbers. Sheila had opted out of completing her medical science degree because she saw a huge future for herself in the plumbing industry and creating her own small business. An allocation of $90 million in the budget will go into training at least 300 apprentices on projects at Fairfield, Dubbo, Wauchope and across New South Wales. This will create the tradies, the builders and the small business people who will be building the homes of the future. It is a very exciting announcement. They will be directly involved in building 100 new homes across New South Wales. This is an incredible achievement and opportunity. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4893
The Government is not working in the social housing space on its own; it has formed partnerships with the community housing sector. I spoke previously about projects like the one at Crown Street, Wollongong. We are waiting on the CHP to deliver the development application to the council. The project will transform a site that for too long has not been fit for purpose. It is an exciting opportunity. There are some great community housing providers, such as St George. Anglicare is delivering a 220-unit project at Minto, which includes 110 social homes. In Lithgow, great work is being done by Housing Plus, delivering 12 new social homes and creating jobs for the local community. The Government has put in place a policy framework to not only deliver new and better social housing but also to deliver them in the most cost-effective way. Under this model, by June next year we will have increased the number of new dwellings by over 150 per cent compared to the previous financial year. I am delighted to advise the House that, with the funding announced in the budget yesterday, more than 45 per cent of those projects will happen in rural and regional New South Wales. This is a very important stimulus to our economy across the regions and the city and we are training the builders of tomorrow. It is about building houses for poor people who need help and providing security to our most vulnerable people. It is about providing access to the services they need and breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Building these houses creates jobs so that small businesses can employ more people and more apprentices. I am happy to update the House, in particular the Treasurer, about the 150,000 texts sent to social housing tenants. I am delighted to inform the Treasurer that there have been 12,000 tenant views of the text and the link. People are looking at changing their lives, taking up apprenticeships, getting out there and enjoying their jobs and building the houses for tomorrow. Committees LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LAW AND SAFETY Reports Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN: As Chair: I table the report of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety, dated November 2020, entitled Assaults on Members of the NSW Police Force. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INVESTMENT, INDUSTRY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Inquiry Mr JUSTIN CLANCY: As Chair: In accordance with Standing Order 299 (1), I inform the House that the Legislative Assembly Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development has resolved to conduct an inquiry into the Inland Rail project in regional New South Wales, the full details of which are available on the committee's home page. Business of the House SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS: PETITION DEBATE Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended on Thursday 19 November 2020 to permit the consideration of Business of the House–Petitions, order of the day No. 2 lodged by the member for Sydney, at the conclusion of consideration of Business of the House–Petitions, order of the day No. 1 lodged by the member for Maroubra. Motion agreed to. SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS: CHRISTMAS FELICITATIONS Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: For the benefit of members, the motion is substantially identical with last year's suspension, but allows for the change of personnel in the meantime. I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended on Thursday 19 November 2020 to: (1) Permit the moving and consideration of the motion "That the House take note of Christmas felicitations" during the period set aside in the routine of business for the consideration of government business. (2) Provide for the following routine of business after the placing and disposal of business: (a) the moving or further consideration of the motion "That the House take note of Christmas felicitations"; (b) at 4.00 pm, Business of the House–Petitions; (c) further consideration of the motion "That the House take note of Christmas felicitations" (if not concluded); (d) private members' statements; and (e) community recognition statements. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4894
(3) Provide for the following speaking time limits on Christmas felicitations: (a) Premier–10 minutes; (b) Leader of the Opposition–10 minutes; (c) Deputy Premier–10 minutes; (d) Deputy Leader of the Opposition–10 minutes; (e) Leader of the House–10 minutes; (f) member for Keira–10 minutes; (g) member for Terrigal–5 minutes; (h) member for Shellharbour–5 minutes; (i) member for Cootamundra–5 minutes; (j) member for The Entrance–5 minutes; (k) member for Heathcote–5 minutes; (l) up to five other Government members–3 minutes each; (m) up to five other Opposition members–3 minutes each; and (n) up to three crossbench members–3 minutes each. The SPEAKER: I note that there will be contributions made by the Chair in addition to those listed, but that will be at the discretion of the Chair. Motion agreed to. Petitions PETITIONS RECEIVED The CLERK: I announce that the following paper petition signed by fewer than 500 persons has been lodged for presentation: Hills of Gold Wind Farm Petition noting the distinctive heritage rural landscape surrounding the Hills of Gold mountain range and the impact of industrial wind farms on health, visual amenity, land values and the natural environment and calling on the Government to require that industrial wind turbines not be built within sight or hearing of residents and owners of dwellings or businesses at Nundle, Hanging Rock, head of the Peel River and the Crawney Mountain district, received from Mr Kevin Anderson. The CLERK: I announce that the following paper petitions signed by more than 500 persons have been lodged for presentation: Blacktown Hospital Nurse Staffing Petition noting the impact of the more than 100 equivalent full-time nursing vacancies at Blacktown Hospital and calling on the Government to commit to filling vacancies and increasing the workforce in order to deliver quality of care for patients at Blacktown Hospital, received from Mr Stephen Bali. Jenny's Place Domestic Violence Resource Centre Petition bringing the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the likely closure of Jenny's Place Domestic Violence Resource Centre at Newcastle and requesting the Government to fund this vital resource to ensure that women experiencing family and domestic violence situations receive timely, appropriate and specialised support, received from Mr Tim Crakanthorp. Bills MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 Consideration in Detail Consideration resumed from an earlier hour. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (15:14:21): We are dealing with the second Independent amendment to omit the words "14 years" and to insert instead "18 years". As I said earlier, the Opposition is awaiting a committee report before the bill goes to the upper House. But the fact that the member for Newtown said in this Chamber that no-one had raised this issue is indicative of why it is so important that it should go to stakeholders. If she thinks that no-one has raised this issue in the past, that implies to me that she has not spoken to the Public Service Association [PSA] or to the other unions that cover corrective facilities. Every voice should be heard in the upper House parliamentary committee and we will look at amendments from that point on. But to take the view that no-one has raised this issue is highly indicative of the narrow view that the member for Newtown has taken and to whom she has spoken. At the end of the day, I have referred on a number of occasions in this Chamber to the difficulties being experienced by Corrective Services. It is to Corrective Services workers that the member for Newtown should be talking in regard to this amendment if she thinks that no-one has raised the issue. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4895
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (15:15:53): I would like to comment on the contribution by the member for Newtown. We have heard the concerns of frontline workers expressed by members. I represent a number of them in my electorate and, like the member for Newtown, I also represent a large community of young people who could be LGBTI, who could be from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait background. History shows that these cohorts do not have the best relationship with police and that is not because of their doing. When it comes to young people, I take the House back to the Mardi Gras of 2014 when the police assaulted a young person. The police officer has since been fined and I believe discharged, and the individual was awarded $40,000 as a result of that assault. At the moment of that assault the police officer grabbed the young parade-goer and body-slammed him on Oxford Street. It is completely foreseeable that in that process the young person may have screamed for help. While he was screaming for help it is foreseeable that saliva could have left that person and landed on the police officer. Under this bill in its current form, if that police officer wanted to further punish, abuse or harass that young person, he could order an HIV test for them without any regard to the person's age and without any regard to whether there was intent. That is why I am so seriously concerned about this bill. I am concerned about this bill because I want the police and the LGBTI community and young people to get along, but without safeguards we cannot be introducing legislation that could potentially be weaponised. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER: The question is that amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. A division has been called for. Under Standing Order 181, with the concurrence of those in the minority, without completing the division, I declare the question resolved. The number in the minority is five and the names will be recorded. We do not need to complete the division. Ayes, 5 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Ms T. Smith Amendments negatived. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (15:26:12): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 on sheet c2020-291B in globo: No. 1 Application to include medical practitioner's statement Pages 4 and 5, clause 9(1)(f)–(h), line 41 on page 4 to line 2 on page 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (f) a statement prepared by the relevant medical practitioner consulted under section 8 stating that the section has been complied with and including any advice from the relevant medical practitioner about the need for the testing of the third party's blood after having considered the risk of the worker contracting a blood-borne disease from the third party as a result of the contact, No. 2 Application to include medical practitioner's statement Page 6, clause 10(5). Insert after line 25— (a1) the statement prepared by the relevant medical practitioner consulted under section 8 referred to in section 9(1)(f), and No. 3 Application to include medical practitioner's statement Page 6, clause 11. Insert after line 42— (2A) A senior officer must refuse an application for a mandatory testing order if the statement prepared by the relevant medical practitioner consulted under section 8 contains advice that the testing of the third party's blood is not required because the risk of the worker contracting a blood-borne disease from the third party as a result of the contact is remote and insignificant. These amendments seek to require an application to include a medical practitioner's statement as part of the application for a mandatory testing order. For those who are not across the details of the bill, any person or worker is able to make an application for mandatory testing. Such an application has a number of requirements, one of which is the person making the application is supposed to consult with a relevant medical practitioner, which seems very legitimate and reasonable. However, as part of the application process there is no requirement for the medical practitioner's professional or health opinion to be shared with the senior officer who has the power to determine whether a mandatory test will take place. The Greens concern is that the senior officers delegated under the bill to determine whether a mandatory testing order is agreed to include a police officer of the rank of inspector or above of the NSW Police Force, the Secretary of Corrective Services, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, the Governor of the managed Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4896
correctional centre, the Secretary of Juvenile Justice, the Secretary of Custodial Services, the Commissioner of Fire & Rescue, the Commissioner for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, the Commissioner of St John Ambulance, the Ombudsman and others, including the Secretary of Health. Probably the only people in that list with medical expertise to attempt to determine whether a mandatory testing order should be issued are those who work within Health and potentially the Commissioner for St John Ambulance, or those from an area in which the person undertaking that role may have medical expertise. The idea that the medical practitioner's statement as to whether there is a risk is not required seems highly questionable. Can I clarify, Mr Speaker, my understanding, which is that when moving amendments we get 15 minutes, not five minutes to speak to them? Is something differing here? The SPEAKER: I will clarify that with the Clerk. Ms JENNY LEONG: Could we stop the clock? The SPEAKER: Yes, the Clerk will stop the clock. My understanding is that everyone has been given five minutes to speak to their amendments. Ms JENNY LEONG: My apologies. The SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 85 and Standing Orders 240 to 242 the Minister has an unspecified number of times to speak for up to 15 minutes. The Leader of the Opposition or the member deputised has an unspecified number of times to speak for up to 15 minutes. All other members have up to three periods on each and any one question to speak for up to five minutes. If you wish to make a further contribution, you can do so later in the debate. In fact, you can do that two more times for up to five minutes each. Ms JENNY LEONG: I appreciate that clarity, and I thank you and the House for allowing that clarity to be put on the record. In short, this amendment will seek to include the medical practitioner's statement as part of the application. The senior officer who is determining the request for a mandatory testing order will be able to view the medical opinion on whether there is a risk. But also, and this is the important part of amendment No. 3: (2A) A senior officer must refuse an application for a mandatory testing order if the statement prepared by the relevant medical practitioner consulted under section 8 contains advice that the testing of the third party's blood is not required because the risk of the worker contracting a blood-borne disease from the third party as a result of the contact is remote and insignificant. It is very important to realise what is happening here. As the legislation stands, the worker is required to consult with a relevant medical practitioner who then makes an assessment—rightly so and no doubt the worker would want to do that. That medical practitioner then makes an assessment. But under this legislation there is no requirement for the person who makes the determination on whether the order for testing is upheld to access that health advice or any of that medical information. That is the crucial bit that is missing. If that medical practitioner said to the individual, "You were at no risk of contracting a bloodborne virus as a result of the incident that occurred," nothing is stopping that worker from making a request for a mandatory testing order. There is nothing that the senior officer will have to show that there was actually no risk to that worker. In the interests of transparency and in the interests of listening to the health advice, we should take the medical practitioner's statement and include it as part of the application. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (15:33:08): The Government opposes the amendments moved by the member for Newtown. The Government believes that the existing safeguards enshrined in the legislation are more than adequate. I think some the arguments of the member for Newtown have not acknowledged that. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (15:33:24): I support the amendments moved by the member for Newtown, which again highlights the lack of safeguards and proper process in this legislation. While an applicant to a mandatory testing order is required to consult with a relevant medical practitioner before making the application, there is no requirement for the applicant to provide the advice that was received or for the senior officer to follow that advice. The medical consultation is clearly in the bill as a tick-a-box exercise to pretend there is some formal medical basis for these orders, even when it is quite clear they cannot be there. It is these components in the bill that the member for Newtown and others who have been consulting with us are concerned about. Despite what the Minister has said these concerns show how the bill could be used in a perverse way. The amendments moved by the member for Newtown will ensure that the senior officer will not only see the advice from the medical practitioner but also cannot approve an application if the medical practitioner states that the test is not needed because the risk of the worker contracting a bloodborne disease from the third party as a result of the contact is remote and insignificant. This provides a safeguard against misuse, such as demanding a HIV test for a bloodborne disease from being spat at when we know that transmission cannot occur in that setting. I commend the member for Newtown for bringing the amendments to the House. I support the amendments. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4897
Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (15:37:19): As I have previously stated, the Opposition will be opposing amendments to the bill in this House. That is no reflection on their merits, but these are issues that we expect to be thrashed out in the upper House standing committee hearing. We will look at the recommendations once that committee reports. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that The Greens amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 6 Noes ...... 78 Majority ...... 72
AYES Greenwich, A (teller) McGirr, J Piper, G Leong, J Parker, J (teller) Smith, T
NOES Aitchison, J Evans, L Pavey, M Anderson, K Finn, J Perrottet, D Atalla, E Gibbons, M Petinos, E Ayres, S Griffin, J Preston, R Bali, S Gulaptis, C Provest, G Barilaro, J Hancock, S Saffin, J Barr, C Harris, D Saunders, D Berejiklian, G Harrison, J Scully, P Bromhead, S Haylen, J Sidgreaves, P Butler, R Hazzard, B Singh, G Catley, Y Henskens, A Smith, N Chanthivong, A Hoenig, R Speakman, M Clancy, J Johnsen, M Stokes, R Conolly, K Kamper, S Taylor, M Constance, A Kean, M Tesch, L Cooke, S (teller) Lee, G Toole, P Cotsis, S Lindsay, W Tuckerman, W Crakanthorp, T Lynch, P Upton, G Crouch, A (teller) Marshall, A Voltz, L Dalton, H McDermott, H Ward, G Davies, T McKay, J Warren, G Dib, J Mehan, D Washington, K Dominello, V Mihailuk, T Watson, A Donato, P O'Dea, J Williams, L Doyle, T O'Neill, M Wilson, F Elliott, D Park, R Zangari, G
Amendments negatived. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (15:51:52): I move my amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 5 Information to be provided about review rights Page 10, clause 17. Insert after line 16— (e1) that the third party may apply for a review of the decision to make the order and how to apply for a review, This is one of the more straightforward amendments I am proposing. It deals with basic procedural fairness that should be accessible by all in relation to administrative decisions. Concerns relating to procedural fairness have been highlighted by members who spoke in opposition to the bill such as the member for Newtown, members of the Labor Opposition and me. While the bill gives a third party the right to request a review by the Chief Health Officer, there is no express requirement for them to be informed of the right or how to exercise it. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4898
As I have said, we have heard of ways in which this legislation could adversely affect very vulnerable people who could be marginalised or have a multicultural background. They may have concerns around authority and issues concerning trust, or they may have LGBTI or Aboriginal backgrounds. They feel they could be threatened or bullied into complying without understanding that they actually have a right to review under the bill. Why do we even include a right of appeal if people are not informed about it? The fundamental concern about this bill is that we are not letting people know they have a right to an appeal process, as appalling as that appeal process is. This amendment will ensure that a mandatory testing order includes information about a third party's right to ask for a review and how to apply for it. One would think that that would be pretty straightforward and that, if the Government was serious about alleviating concerns expressed by me and others, this amendment would be supported. This issue should be considered to be a no-brainer. It is an issue of basic procedural fairness and it concerns the interests of marginal and vulnerable groups whose concerns have been highlighted in speeches that oppose the bill. If this amendment is supported it would go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns and ensure that people will not be victimised by this bill. This amendment will give the assurance that people will be told that they can appeal the decision and how the process works. It is pretty straightforward. It is procedural fairness. I ask members to support this very basic and straightforward amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (15:55:16): I support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. In particular I note part 5 clause 17, where the amendment would sit. It refers to the content of a mandatory testing order, stating: Part 5 Content and service of mandatory testing orders 17 Content of mandatory testing order (1) A mandatory testing order must be in writing and contain the following information— (a) the name of the third party, (b) the place the third party is required to attend to provide blood, (c) that the blood is to be tested for all blood-borne diseases unless otherwise specified, (d) the name and contact details of a medical practitioner— (i) authorised by the worker to receive the blood test results on the worker’s behalf, and (ii) authorised by the third party to receive the blood test results on the third party’s behalf, if any, (e) that failure to comply with a mandatory testing order is an offence with a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, (f) for a detained third party—that reasonable force may be used to ensure that a detained third party complies with the mandatory testing order, (g) other information prescribed by the regulations. The amendment seeks to insert an additional point that the third party may apply for a review of the decision to make the order and how to apply for that review. I do not comprehend how the proposed legislation before us sets out a process for review that enables someone, a third party in this case, to request a review but does not require in the content of the mandatory testing order that they receive any additional information about that review. I appreciate the many differences in terms of the broader content of the bill and in relation to issues that have been discussed while we have been debating the bill. But I cannot comprehend how there can be a review process, yet the person who is able to enact the review process is not informed of the right to a review process. I would hope that it does not require a request for an inquiry by the Labor Party to show that informing someone of their rights for a review as part of the mandatory testing order is sensible. I hope that the Minister and the Government realise that a review process includes telling the person who can apply for a review that they have that right and how to do so. I cannot imagine how it would otherwise work. It is bizarre to imagine a scenario where a review process is written into a bill but it does not include informing the applicant that, one, there is a review process and, two, how to apply for it. This amendment seeks to add to part 5 clause 17 of the bill the ability for someone to apply for a review of the order and how to apply for that review. This is not a politically motivated amendment. It is not about taking a position on whether mandatory testing is a good thing or a bad thing. It is not a debate on issues around the NSW Police Force or whether or not we think people can contract certain types of bloodborne diseases in ways that we have heard in this Chamber today, which are clearly false. This is a completely bland amendment that simply makes the third party aware of their right to request a review. If it is not in the bill, it will not be anywhere. We can therefore assume that no-one will ever seek a review because they will not be informed that there is a Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4899
review process. The Greens support the amendment. In the interests of making sure that people can access a review process, I ask that members agree to the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (15:59:34): The Government opposes the proposed amendment by the member for Sydney. We believe that these matters will be addressed by the regulations. There are plenty of safeguards. I am concerned about the argument being used that appears to be stereotyping certain demographics as having a given relationship with the police. There is no evidence that that will necessarily influence decisions concerning mandatory blood testing when the bill becomes legislation. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:00:12): The bill says the regulations may prescribe other information for a mandatory testing order by a senior officer or the chief health officer. That provides room for regulations around how the order is to be made. In no way does it prescribe that the individual upon whom the order is being placed will be informed about their right to appeal or the process. There are people in our community who deserve to be told of their right to appeal. They may have had a relationship or experience that sees them intimidated by police or by other officers. Without that expressed support, that commitment to their being told about an appeal process, they could easily be put in a situation where they are forced to submit in detainment to a HIV or other test. It could be that subsequently a test could be found by the chief health officer to have been inappropriate. However, the third party has already been put through the experience and denied fair process by the bill. They are not told that they can appeal the decision. This amendment will protect some of the most vulnerable in our community. It goes some way towards informing those impacted by the bill of proper process and gives assurances that we do not need to worry about what the Government and Opposition have said about the bill. As the member for Newtown said, without this bland amendment the bill could be inappropriately used by police and others. I am sorry, but if you come from the LGBTI community or if you are a person who is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, it is very likely that you or other members of your community have not had great experiences with the NSW Police Force. The fact that this very basic amendment about a person's rights is not in the bill places a massive weight on police officers on the ground. I know that they want to form good working relationships with those vulnerable groups. This amendment will let people know about their basic rights and about certain aspects of the bill. Why does the Government want to hide certain aspects of the bill? If there is an appeal process in the bill, why does the Government not want to point that out to members of the community? I hope this issue will be thrashed out in the committee process. I hope that the ability to provide information about the appeal process will be detailed by the regulations. With the shown reluctance to support this very basic amendment, I am greatly concerned. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:03:46): I want to touch on a further point. I understand we have limited members in the Chamber due to COVID restrictions, but I do hope that the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General are listening to this debate. I think we can all agree that if there is a review process, one of the biggest challenges we will have will be with people engaging with the criminal justice system and the law. They are not lawyers, and they do not have confidence in dealing with bureaucracy and processes. I am sure all members have had constituents come to their office who have received a parking or speeding fine and do not read the back where it says there is an appeals process and this is how you do it. That is explicitly stated on the ticket. They need support and assistance, whether it be from their local member, a legal centre or another member of the community. If they are issued with a mandatory testing order, that is the thing that would give them the guidance on what to do next. If that has no information or details about their right to request a review, it is like having parking fines with a State process to request a review, but not having those details on the parking ticket. Obviously, we would think that would be outrageous. How would they know? A whole lot of people could pay for that parking fine without knowing they could have requested a review. Maybe that is in the interest of the Government because then it gets more revenue from parking fines, but realistically the reason we put that on fines is that there is a review process and because people should know what is available to them. The legislation has a review process that involves the Chief Health Officer—as it should because this is a health decision—but the person who receives the order does not get any details about how a review would occur. The idea that that will be covered in regulations is not acceptable. I appreciate that sometimes we have legislation in this place that says that the details of mandatory testing orders will be set out in regulations, but if we were doing that then we would be discussing the need to see the regulations. In the Chamber today I read all of the detailed points of the legislation from (a) through to (g), which articulate what must be in a mandatory testing order. It makes sense to also articulate that there is a review process and that there is the ability to request a review as part of that order. This is not radical stuff. I could bring a whole lot of other amendments that are radical for changes that I want to see in the bill, but this one is the basic principle of people knowing their rights and understanding the process. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4900
I question the legitimacy of what we are trying to do. Maybe we are putting in a review process to reassure certain people—in the Government or the Opposition maybe—that the process is fair, but in actual fact we are not going to tell anybody that there is a review process. I do not comprehend that; it makes absolutely no sense to me. It feels very disingenuous that we would have a review process but that we do not share it with people. The Greens strongly urge clear communication and transparency around the review process, which are absolutely essential. At the very least, I hope this amendment is accepted by the Government and that the Minister reconsiders it because it is so crucial that those who receive a mandatory testing order know about the review process. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-272G be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 6 Noes ...... 76 Majority ...... 70
AYES Greenwich, A McGirr, J Piper, G Leong, J Parker, J (teller) Smith, T (teller)
NOES Aitchison, J Evans, L Pavey, M Anderson, K Finn, J Petinos, E Atalla, E Gibbons, M Preston, R Ayres, S Griffin, J Provest, G Bali, S Gulaptis, C Saffin, J Barilaro, J Hancock, S Saunders, D Barr, C Harris, D Scully, P Bromhead, S Harrison, J Sidgreaves, P Butler, R Haylen, J Singh, G Catley, Y Hazzard, B Smith, N Chanthivong, A Henskens, A Speakman, M Clancy, J Hoenig, R Stokes, R Conolly, K Johnsen, M Taylor, M Constance, A Kamper, S Tesch, L Cooke, S (teller) Kean, M Toole, P Cotsis, S Lee, G Tuckerman, W Crakanthorp, T Lindsay, W Upton, G Crouch, A (teller) Lynch, P Voltz, L Daley, M Marshall, A Ward, G Dalton, H McDermott, H Warren, G Davies, T Mehan, D Washington, K Dib, J Mihailuk, T Watson, A Dominello, V O'Dea, J Williams, L Donato, P O'Neill, M Wilson, F Doyle, T Park, R Zangari, G Elliott, D
Amendment negatived. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:20:01): I move The Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet c2020-291B: No. 4 Use of force. Page 11, clause 20(2), line 25. Omit "may use reasonable force". Insert instead "must not use force". The amendment removes the provision in the bill for what is described as "reasonable force" to be used to take blood from somebody as part of a blood test. It would instead insert the words "must not use force". It would seriously concern The Greens members, as I hope it would other members, to see people physically forced to conduct a blood test. In his speech in reply to the second reading debate the Minister said that The Greens members raising the idea of forced testing or quarantining constituted scare tactics, but the bill itself refers to officers' ability to use reasonable force to take blood from someone. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4901
I am not sure whether anyone in the community would feel comfortable about the idea of force being used to take blood from somebody without consent or judicial oversight, or a third party to witness if something had taken place that would have warranted the use of such force. The bill seems to be less about what constitutes a genuine health concern for workers in our community and more about overreach by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the Liberal-Nationals Government. As a result, there is the real risk that people in custody will have their rights significantly breached by police officers, who will be able to forcefully and legally take blood without consent. There are no public health reasons that justify this use of force, reasonable or not, to ensure compliance with a testing order. The scheme will lead to more vulnerable people having their human rights violated by the police and will likely result in significant numbers of civil claims. The health of prisoners is more appropriately managed by the likes of Justice Health and the Forensic Mental Health Network. The idea that people would be physically forced to take a blood test without consent is unacceptable. It is important to recognise that there is an absence of evidence-based health responses to this issue in the bill. The idea that someone could be subjected not only to an arbitrary mandatory testing order, but also be unaware that they have a right to appeal or request a review is unacceptable. With no provision in the bill for a judge, tribunal or independent arbiter to independently assess whether forcefully holding someone down was justified, what constitutes "reasonable force" when taking blood from an individual? Do we consider it reasonable to handcuff their hands behind their back? Do we consider it reasonable for someone to put a knee onto a person's neck to hold them down and force them to be still so someone else can put a needle in their arm? I do not think that is reasonable, but I have seen the kind of aggression that the NSW Police Force has used on citizens of this State. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of saying that reasonable force can be used, because I have seen so-called reasonable force used by the NSW Police Force and it is not reasonable in my book. I do not think it is considered reasonable by the University of Sydney staff member who had his feet swept out from underneath him and was thrown to the ground by members of the NSW Police Force. It is unacceptable that force would be used to take someone's blood in any circumstances. It is absolutely unacceptable and this amendment is crucial to making sure that it does not occur. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:25:20): One of the more shocking aspects of this bill is that it legislates the use of violence to force someone who is in detention to submit to a blood test. That is abhorrent and inhumane. It is a disgraceful breach of the civil liberties of someone who is in custody and it is also clearly open to misuse as a form of intimidation. The member for Newtown has given plenty of recent examples. I am very concerned that holding someone down to forcibly take their blood will engender further distrust of police and healthcare professionals among people who are already suffering from disadvantage. People who already have health and mental health concerns will be less likely to seek medical care and support following such a dramatic experience, which will continue the cycle of disadvantage. Potentially—a later amendment will deal with this— the guidelines about how the bill's provisions will work may not even be in place by the time the bill comes into force. The member for Newtown and I both sit on the inquiry into Mark Latham's so-called religious freedoms bill. We know that some religious groups—Jehovah's Witnesses, for example—have concerns about the way in which blood is taken. Where is that dealt with in the bill? The bill is fraught with problems for many different communities. In addition to all of the concerns that have been raised by the member for Newtown and me, and some members of the Labor Opposition who have expressed concern about the bill, the bill will legislate violence. What are we doing in this place when we are legislating violence while we are detaining someone? If we are concerned about the wellbeing of people and if we think that conflict between the police and others can lead to saliva or bodily fluids being spread, why are we using force? Why are we not letting people know that they can apply to review this? I will move an amendment about counselling and I hope we are able to offer counselling. But why are we legislating violence? Surely the amendment of the member for Newtown can be supported. If it cannot be supported now, it is certainly the type of issue that I am sure will be discussed strongly when the legislation goes to review by the upper House committee. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (16:28:32): The Government opposes the amendment because it is vague, inconsistent and ill-informed. I must say that I am starting to get slightly disturbed at the way that the member for Newtown keeps talking about us legislating the use of violence. No, we are legislating the use of force. The member for Newtown wants to condemn the use of force by the police, but she has failed to acknowledge that that force will only be used when police are assaulted. How about we start condemning the assaults on police? How about we start condemning the assaults on emergency services workers? How about we start condemning the assaults on those volunteers who we send out, day in, day out, to keep our communities safe? The member for Newtown said that this bill has clearly been drafted ignorantly because it is ill-informed or because health professionals have not been consulted. I have to correct the member. The nurses want this. The Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4902
Public Service Association wants this. St John Ambulance wants this. We actually have consulted the medical profession because its members—paramedics, for example—will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. The Government opposes this amendment because the member for Newtown claims that forcefully taking blood from individuals is inconsistent with current practices, but it already happens in hospitals. When an individual attends a hospital under suspicion of being a drink or drug driver, it is mandatory—and with a much lower threshold than what we are presenting—for medical practitioners in that hospital to take blood for use in a subsequent court case. I think that the member for Newtown has not read the bill, has misunderstood it or is deliberately trying to twist it into being something that it is not. For that reason, the Government rejects her ill-informed amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:30:50): I make it really clear that we are not talking about a situation where the law enforcement officer who is able to use reasonable force has been assaulted. We are not talking about what happens in the heat of the moment. We are talking about what happens after the fact. We are talking about the fact that another law officer or a correctional officer is able to enact force on a detained person and take blood by force. The Minister, in his response to my amendment, made offensive comments about me and my inability to engage with the legislation, which I appreciate makes him feel like more of a man. In relation to the actual content of the bill at hand, the Minister said himself that we are talking about a situation where someone has assaulted an officer. But there has been no charge at this point. There has been no conviction. There has not even been a legal process. That person has not been found guilty of assault because there is no justice in the bill. This is about giving a corrections officer or law enforcement officer in the prison system, when nobody is watching, the power to use a form of intimidation by saying, "I think that you spat on me. I think that you tried to bite me. I think you did this grotesque thing." Whether the person actually did it is completely irrelevant in the bill, because the officer can then apply for a mandatory testing order against that person. Even if the incident did not happen, we would expect in most cases that a senior officer, such as the head of a prison, would then side with the worker in that process. They would then bring in other law enforcers to hold the person down, tie them to a chair, put a knee into their neck in a cell where nobody can see, in a health facility that nobody else is watching. What happens then? We have seen endless video footage of the disturbing reality of what happens with Aboriginal deaths in custody and what happens when there is no accountability or control over law officers inside our prison and justice systems. What we see is not justice. We see people die because of what is considered to be "reasonable force" by the people who are inflicting it on people who have serious health or mental health conditions. We see people who have complex underlying health needs die in our prison and justice systems as a result of what the New South Wales police considers to be reasonable force. I do not think that that is acceptable and I will not sit here and be silent because the Minister wants to call me vague, inconsistent and ill-informed and accuse me of not reading the bill. That is an easy way to avoid the truth of the matter. Throw some insults at me. Play up some stereotypes that women do not understand how to read the legislation and cannot engage with the content of the bill. Our prison system is already known to have problems around abuse and justice for people who are incarcerated, with an overrepresentation of Aboriginal people. There is no excuse for the idea that we could have a scenario where there would be no oversight and no accountability. When a mandatory order is issued there is no communication to the person that they are able to request a review. And after all that, with no knowledge of the review, potentially no incident ever occurring and no-one charged or found guilty of an assault, the person is held down and tied to a chair with their arms behind their back—that wonderful police technique that they use on me and others at protests where they bend your wrist backwards so that you cannot breathe or talk to try to remove yourself from the situation. The police will use those kinds of tactics to take blood from an arm or wherever they can get it from. That is disgraceful and that is what we are passing right here, right now. That is not something that The Greens will ever stay silent about. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:35:41): I correct on the record a comment made. I abhor any violence against frontline personnel, as does the member for Newtown. I abhor violence or assaults on police, emergency services, ambulance officers or anyone on the frontline. I can abhor that and I can ask for proper justice for that cohort, just as I can for other vulnerable groups. Above my desk in my electorate office is a photograph of a man who is an injecting drug user, with his dog, who went in and out of prison. I am not sure what crimes he was convicted of or that he committed. I am quite sure he probably had complex addiction and mental health issues. His photograph is above my desk because it is there to remind me that he is the person we are in this place to represent. He is the vulnerable person who does not have the same access to justice and process as the rest of us. He is the person who the system has let down. He is the person I do not want to see violence inflicted upon, as this bill will allow. I commend the member for Newtown for bringing the amendment. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that The Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being only four members in the minority having challenged Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4903
my decision, I declare the determination of the House to be in the negative. I direct that the names of those members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ayes, 4 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Ms T. Smith. Amendment negatived. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:43:14): I move The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-291B: No. 5 Detained third parties Page 11, clause 20. Insert after line 29— (2A) A law enforcement officer may not, for the purposes of seeking or enforcing a mandatory testing order— (a) detain a person, or (b) keep a detained third party in custody or otherwise detain the person for a longer period than the third party could otherwise be detained if an order were not being sought or enforced. This amendment relates to detained third parties. Specifically, it proposes that a law enforcement officer may not, for the purposes of seeking or enforcing a mandatory testing order, detain a person or keep a detained third party in custody or otherwise detain the person for a longer period than the third party could otherwise be detained if an order were not being sought or enforced. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that a third party subject to a mandatory testing order or an application for a mandatory testing order cannot be detained for any longer or in any way different from how they would have been detained if an order was not being sought or enforced. A third party should not be detained because a testing facility is not available due to its location or the time of an incident, and that is particularly the case in areas of regional and remote New South Wales where there is a risk that potentially a person could be detained late at night in an area where a testing facility is not open. The idea of removing their liberty and detaining them for the period from when the order was issued until the testing could be conducted gives cause for much concern. The member for Sydney raised concern about elements of this bill that relate to extra-judicial types of punishment. I appreciate that some members might not be concerned about that but I very much hope that other members, particularly the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General in this place, would be concerned about that concept, remembering very clearly that in the majority of cases the issuing of a mandatory testing order is not a decision that would occur within the oversight of a court or indeed an independent body. It is not an order that would even require that there be an independent witness to the incident. It would simply require a worker requesting of a senior officer the issuing of a mandatory testing order. In this case we could have a scenario where, for example, a request is made for a test and the test is unable to be conducted. It is crucial that we clarify that that order does not then allow a third party to be detained. While the bill does not allow for detention of a third party the concern lies in the fact that people will be held in detention for longer than necessary, for example, if a testing facility will only be open a number of days after a person is detained for committing an offence. This is why we believe this amendment is crucial. I am aware that in the context of debate around these amendments there seems to be a lack of willingness to recognise the ways that this bill could be improved and adjusted to reassure the community. It is important to note the disappointment in this process and the lack of awareness and willingness from those proposing the bill to consider the amendments that are being put forward. It was only last night in this place that we were discussing liquor amendments, an area that has been incredibly controversial in this State in recent times. We talked about the fact that there was broad consensus across the party divides, across the aisles—however you want to refer to it, it was multi-partisan support—for a huge number of amendments that went through. Often that is the case when you see a willingness of Ministers to act in the interests of the community and of the whole State, and to recognise that their role is to make sure that they respect the views of the broad community, not just the interests of the area that they represent. When it comes to the issue of detained third parties, if it is indeed the intention of the New South Wales Government to allow people to be detained without charge, without conviction, simply on the decision of a senior officer based on the application of a worker in their organisation without any due process, I ask that the Minister put that support for extra-judicial punishment on the table now. Otherwise I ask that he support The Greens amendment in relation to detained third parties. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4904
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:48:43): A mandatory testing order or indeed the perceived need to seek one should not be used as a reason to detain someone or prolong their detention. It is conceivable that a third party who is the subject of an application for a mandatory testing order or an order itself could be detained by police to ensure that they either receive the order or take the test. The concern is that people in a number of situations, including people in regional or rural areas where testing facilities are not accessible or people who are involved in incidents late at night when testing facilities are closed, could be detained to ensure simply that an order is issued. Similarly there is a concern that people in a protest setting could be removed and detained to ensure an order can be issued against them. I have often referenced the past, but we need to learn from the past when we are legislating. Let us look at the night of Mardi Gras in 1978, a peaceful protest that broke into violence—police violence against the LGBTI community—where people were unfairly detained overnight while charges against them were trumped up. This amendment introduces a safeguard to ensure that mandatory testing orders are not used in a way to detain or prolong the detention of people and I support the amendment. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (16:50:28): The Government opposes the amendment. I must place on the record my concern and disappointment that members of this place are using very historical examples of police activities—between six and 42 years ago—to try to verbal the existing police force, which of course has come an extremely long way. The members for Sydney and Newtown know exactly what I am talking about. We have gay and lesbian liaison officers. When they want to criticise the NSW Police Force because of its relationship with the Indigenous community they are failing to acknowledge that this year we have had a record number of Indigenous people join the NSW Police Force. I am protecting those young Aboriginal boys and girls who have joined the police force against being spat on. They want this legislation—they have told me they want this legislation. Suggestions that for some reason police are going to make vulnerable members of certain demographics victims or targets are failing to acknowledge the fact that we have an extremely diverse police force in New South Wales. The member for Newtown has suggested that we cannot give police the ability to detain suspects but that has been going on since the Magna Carta. It has been going on for hundreds of years. We have detained suspects because a suspect may indeed do damage to themselves, to somebody else or to other members of the community who are trying to uphold the law. I want to place on the record how abhorrent I find the suggestions that I am unwilling to negotiate or discuss amendments because already this morning I met with the member for Sydney. He has presented at least one amendment which I agreed to and another which we are working to enshrine in the regulations. The member for Newtown has attempted to smear me by saying that I am not willing to negotiate or discuss amendments. What she was really trying to say is that she was too lazy to come and speak to me in person and present her case in a sensible way, unlike the member for Sydney, who did. So all I have done is read about it on her social media accounts. But suggestions that I am unwilling to negotiate or to consider amendments from The Greens are on her, as far as I am concerned, because I have negotiated and embraced amendments from those opposite. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:53:19): I feel it is important that we reference historic incidents. Indeed, if the concerns I have outlined could flare up again—these are things which are presently felt in the minds of most LGBTI people that I know—then we have given the Government sufficient opportunity to address those concerns by putting in safeguards which, one by one, have been rejected. With the rejection of every single amendment, my concerns about this bill for my community and other communities continue to grow in seriousness. I also put on the record that I feel it is inappropriate to refer to the member for Newtown as in any way lazy. One may disagree with the member for Newtown on issues but when it comes to members of Parliament, the member for Newtown has to be one of the hardest working members in this place. The member for Newtown worked with me and my office through the night and into the early morning on these amendments. I quickly discussed the amendments with the police Minister on behalf of me and the member for Newtown. We worked together on the amendments to avoid duplication. We both share very strong concerns about the bill. We would be dealing with a multitude of amendments had we not worked together to avoid that duplication. As I said, members may disagree with the member for Newtown if they are up for a robust debate but they should certainly not call the member for Newtown lazy. There is hardly a more hardworking member in this place in dealing with very complex policy issues. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:55:31): I will address one reason the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is not supportive of this amendment. The Minister said that suspects are able to be detained, and that is absolutely true. Laws are in place; we do not need this bill. I might have radical views about defunding of police and other matters, but that is not a debate for today. Laws are currently in place that allow suspects to be detained but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who are subject to mandatory Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4905
testing orders outside a process whereby there is an independent review or even a witness. I appreciate that the Minister has picked out a couple of versions of reality that he likes. In the Minister's version of reality, the member for Sydney—who we all agree is a hardworking, reasonable member—will do what he needs to do to get amendments up in this place. If the only way to get amendments up in this Chamber is to share a copy of them and have direct conversations and a personal relationship with the Minister involved—and the Minister is fully aware, as am I, that we have very differing opinions—then there is a huge problem with our democracy. The Minister gave a lot of historical examples. But I highlight the fact that we are not just talking about historical examples. I, for one, know that police detained people when issuing them with public health orders during COVID. I know that people have been detained in much more recent times. If the police Minister is of the view that all issues regarding the relationship between the LGBTIQ community and police are done and dusted because we have some glows, then he needs to look a little harder at what is happening. If the Minister thinks because we have Aboriginal members of the NSW Police Force then systemic racism does not exist within that force, then the Minister needs to look more closely. If the Minister wants to say I am lazy or to throw personal insults at me, that is fine. I note that the Minister mentioned social media accounts. I am not sure what he meant. In passing, he said, "She just says things on her social media account." It is interesting that the Minister brought that up because in the past the New South Wales police have watched my social media accounts quite closely and have engaged in public debate and in both racist and sexist attacks on me. Mr David Elliott: Who? Ms JENNY LEONG: Serving members of the NSW Police Force. I note the Minister has asked me to name them in this place. A short google search will find them or a look at the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission report in relation to the matter. To be clear for the record, that is not an accusation; it was information investigated by the Police Integrity Commission and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission that was also the subject of a Human Rights Commission complaint. The NSW Police Force issued an apology in relation to those incidents. It is interesting to note that in this context, when members are supposed to be debating the bill, the Minister, in passing, just happens to throw two insults across the table. The first was to call me lazy. The second was to refer to my social media accounts. In normal circumstances, that could be taken for what it is. But I think it is important to put on record that it was unclear in what context the Minister referred to those social media accounts. Mr David Elliott: You accused me of being a misogynist. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The member for Newtown has the call. Ms JENNY LEONG: Given the history and the actions of New South Wales police in relation to my social media accounts, that is a very concerning reference by the police Minister that I will note and watch very carefully. Returning to the amendment, I believe the idea of people being detained without having been convicted or charged is a problem. I hope that members will support The Greens amendment. Debate interrupted. Public Interest Debate GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) (17:00:33): I move: That this House notes that: (1) In the last 12 months the Government has seen: (a) the Minister for Police investigated by his own police force on two occasions, over his involvement in a road rage incident with a minor, and the illegal use of a prohibited firearm; (b) the debacle at icare under the Treasurer's watch, including multimillion-dollar contracts being awarded to businesses linked to the NSW Liberal Party and unlawful secondments of staff to the Treasurer's office; (c) the Minister for Sport, Multiculturalism, Seniors and Veterans spend the entire year sidelined from his portfolios while under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]; (d) the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services picked up by police after being found wandering around naked in his inner-city neighbourhood in the middle of the night; Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4906
(e) the member for Penrith give a $12 million grant to a leagues club in his electorate for indoor sporting facilities, a grant which the Minister "did not want to have his signature on"—and which was instead used to build a convention centre and hotel; (f) the Deputy Premier blow up the Coalition over the Government's koala laws—a dispute resulting in the member for Port Macquarie defecting from The Nationals to the Liberal Party, and which remains unresolved months later; (g) the unedifying fight between the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Transport over the seat of Eden-Monaro, culminating in the Deputy Premier abusing the Minister for Transport and Roads via text message and the Minister for Transport and Roads being dumped as Leader of the House; (h) the Premier involved in the shredding and unlawful destruction of documents relating to the rorting of the Stronger Communities Fund prior to the 2019 election; (i) the Liberal Party Whip's office being raided by ICAC to retrieve hidden evidence relating to its investigation into the corrupt conduct of former member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire; and (j) the Premier exposed for failing to disclose her five-year relationship with the corrupt former member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire, and to report her knowledge of his corrupt activities to the ICAC. (2) After 10 long years this Government has descended into chaos, infighting and scandal. The reality is that the State of New South Wales, more than at any time in recent years, needs a greater focus on jobs for the people in our wonderful community—jobs in every corner of the State, north, south, east and west. Sadly, what we have in Government—in this Chamber and in this State—is a set of people who are entirely focused not on the community outside Parliament or the people in every corner of the State but on their own need to stay in power and in their positions. I will give members a couple of perfect examples. The Deputy Premier threatened that he was going to take the National Party out of the Coalition because of the koala saga. He was adamant that that would be the course of action—right up until the point it was put to him, "If you want to stand by your convictions and step outside of the Coalition, tiger, you'd better step outside of your Deputy Premier role, your ministerial office, your chauffeur-driven car and your $150,000 pay bonus". That led to a massive and embarrassing backdown by the Deputy Premier, all of the other Nationals Ministers and the National Party. Once they realised that their jobs were in jeopardy, they thought they had better take a different approach. The second perfect example of people trying to protect their patch, their position of power, their access to chauffeur-driven cars and luxury and being hailed as they move around the State, is the case of the Premier. The Premier has gone through an ICAC process where evidence has been given, but the Premier has deliberately and technically refused to use the word "intimate". The Premier chose to talk to a Sunday paper puff piece about her relationship. She talked about being in love with Daryl Maguire. She talked about the potential to marry Daryl Maguire. She talked about being in a close personal relationship with Daryl Maguire. But she would not utter the word "intimate", because using that word would have cost her her job. She would have been exposed to all types of requirements under the ICAC law and the Ministerial Code of Conduct if she had acknowledged that one word. Her language in all of her press conferences and repeatedly in this Chamber has been to avoid the use of that one word. That was not because she was focused on the needs of the people of New South Wales; it was because she was singularly focused on her own personal need to protect her job. This is the same Government that for the last 10 budgets has been cutting and shredding money out of our public sector, which has led to thousands of job cuts right across the State. This year that has resulted in a pay cut to our public sector workers—the people working at the coalface across the State and who spend their money in local shops. They have to pay the price. What did they do wrong? They did nothing wrong. They were serving the public honestly under the ICAC law and according to their codes of conduct, as they should. Members can look across the front bench of this Government and know that every single character on the front bench on that side of the Chamber has a skeleton in their closet regarding their conduct and behaviour. That is why we need to talk about the conduct of this Government and that is why this House should agree to this motion today. [Time expired.] Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde—Minister for Customer Service) (17:08:20): I have a modest albeit sensible amendment to the motion. Accordingly, I move: That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That " with a view to inserting instead: "this House notes that: (1) In the last 12 months the Government has: (a) worked tirelessly to lead our State through the unprecedented challenges of drought, bushfires and COVID-19; (b) not only maintained but increased its record spend on critical infrastructure to over $107 billion to improve the lives of the citizens of New South Wales; (c) provided over $6 billion in tax relief and nearly $1 billion in grants to support businesses and to maintain employment in the face of the worst economic contractions faced by Australia; (d) made a $29.3 billion investment in our health systems, which has proven beyond dispute during this once-in-a-century health crisis that the NSW health system is the best in the nation; and Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4907
(e) invested a wide-reaching $18.9 billion in quality education to deliver better outcomes for the students of NSW, ensuring to continue driving curriculum reform and improving teaching standards. (2) After years, this Government has achieved and will continue to achieve for the people of New South Wales." The members opposite want to talk about silly things which, quite frankly, the people in the street are not interested in. The people in the street are interested in whether roads and hospitals and rail are being built— Ms Liesl Tesch: They want staff at Gosford Hospital. Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO: Absolutely. They are interested in frontline service delivery. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock was heard in silence. The member for Ryde will also be heard in silence. Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO: It is all about schools, road, rail, hospitals and service delivery. That is what State governments are elected to do. We saw what happened when we have a corrupt government, as we did under the Labor regime for 16 years, the dark years— Ms Liesl Tesch: What about Daryl Maguire? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gosford will have an opportunity to contribute. The member for Ryde has the call. Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO: They were dark years under Labor, where this great State fell to the last position. Thank God we were elected in 2011 and started the change. We are now in a strong position to deal with issues such as bushfires and the pandemic. Other States and Territories are looking at us thinking, "If only we had the strong economic position as New South Wales has had, we would not have had to close our borders". Closing borders is not a demonstration of strength; it is a demonstration of weakness. We have kept the borders open and have made sure the economy is moving as fast and as safely as it can. We are managing both the health of the people and the health of the economy. That is critical, particularly as we move to the cessation of JobKeeper in March next year. The people on the ground are interested in matters such as how we responded to the bushfires. I pay credit to the Deputy Premier, John Barilaro, who worked tirelessly during that time, along with the Premier and local members such as the member for Bega. Nobody would begrudge the Deputy Premier his position. For the Opposition to say we are in chaos shows they are devoid of reality. The members opposite do not know what the people on the street are really worried about. The people on the street want us to work with industry to keep business open, such as we worked ahead of schedule to open the hospitality industry. Other States and Territories were shutting venues while we were working ahead of the national framework to open them up. In relation to health, we introduced contact tracing. I pay credit to Minister Hazzard and his team. What we have done there is not just nation leading but world leading. Those opposite want to talk about chaos. The only chaos we have faced is that caused by the pandemic and the nonsense imposed by the other side of the Chamber. Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (17:13:26): I am sure that all members in this Chamber would agree that it is a privilege to be an MP. I love my work. I am so proud to have this position as a community leader. I imagine that all other members feel the same. How could they not—right? But holding this position comes with great responsibility, and as MPs we accept that we are held to a higher standard. There are many actions that, if I were to take them, would and should cause me to lose my job as an MP. Grabbing at a 17-year-old during a road rage incident? Yes, I reckon I would lose my job if I did that. Presiding over a company so riddled with incompetence that I needed to give it a $4 billion bailout? If I needed to do that, then I was probably not the right guy for the job. If I had been hanging out with people who have been revealed to be Chinese Government agents, my political party would have swiftly dealt with me. That is because it is all about standards. Labor members lead by example. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. I know the Opposition leader would not walk past any behaviour like that. But all those actions have been walked past by the Premier. What then is the standard for Government members, exactly? Wait! Don't tell me. I know. It is the standard that makes you hide corruption. It is the standard that destroys the paper trail of blatant pork-barrelling. It is the standard that allows scandal after scandal after scandal without recourse. But let me give credit where it is due. I must thank members of the Liberal Party for their propensity for scandal. The last time things were this bad for them I actually got a job, as did the member for Charlestown and quite a few other members of Parliament. The Liberal MPs with electorates near Newcastle did not even get through their first term. They resigned. What could they say? We had the self-proclaimed walking ATM handing out $10,000 wads of cash to any Liberal MP who was there to take it—and plenty of them did. At that time the Premier went out of office through ICAC because of a bottle of wine—another one who went down because of ICAC. So, actually, thanks very much for your great work. I appreciate your help; you got Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4908
me into a job and that is a pretty good thing. This Government is pretty good at looking after Liberal Party members while the people of New South Wales suffer. As the member for Cessnock said, we have had cuts to public sector workers' wages—all those hard workers who have been on the front line during COVID; nurses, teachers, firies and police. They are all getting a pay cut, thanks to this Liberal-Nationals Coalition. That is the sort of reward they get while this Government crashes and burns as the Premier and others are called before ICAC to answer question after question about dodgy deals. This State has started to burn in terms of jobs and manufacturing. We have only to look at the Hunter and the Illawarra as a result of the thousands of jobs that were offshored during the term of the Coalition Government. We have great new ferries that are being kept in Newcastle because they cannot fit under bridges. We have trains that will not fit on the tracks and will not fit in the tunnels. They were built in South Korea. What can I say about the Minister for Transport and Roads? The Premier did a massive backflip and said we should be manufacturing in New South Wales. Let's see more of that. Our light rail trams also were built overseas. Our buses have been built in areas outside this State. Newcastle had a magnificent bus manufacturing facility but the Government gave the contracts to a Queensland manufacturer that has since closed down. Let us be real: The Premier runs a protection racket and the people of New South Wales are getting the wrong end of the stick over and over again. For the members of this Government, it is all about themselves. They are too busy covering their backsides to care about anyone else. Mr NATHANIEL SMITH (Wollondilly) (17:18:34): At the outset I state that I support the amendment moved by the Minister for Customer Service and member for Ryde. However, I am appalled that I have to respond to the pathetic drivel of a motion moved by the member for Cessnock. Since it is full of inaccuracies, misstatements and downright lies, it is unsurprising that it includes simple grammatical errors. Paragraph (1) (e) states, "The member for Penrith give a $12 million grant". With his attention to detail it is no wonder that Labor was incapable of delivering anything. At least the member for Cessnock is not the shadow education Minister. But I digress. My constituents are proud of the Government's infrastructure investment. The O'Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian governments have delivered $130 billion in infrastructure projects since 2011, with over $100 billion to come in the next few years. It is the cornerstone of this Government's program that we on this side recognise that investment in infrastructure drives productivity and leads to jobs growth. Unlike Labor, when we promise a project, we build it. Labor's infrastructure policy is like a spaghetti western movie set—all facade and tumbleweed. Those opposite push out media releases while we pour concrete. They roll out announcements while we roll up our sleeves and get the job done. To build effective infrastructure you need solid processes, strong financial management and a framework for delivery. None of those things are in the Sussex Street handbook unless it comes in an Aldi bag. So extensive are our achievements over the past nine years, infrastructure has become part of our muscle memory. We have delivered major transport projects: the north-west metro, on time and $1 billion under budget; the south-west rail link, under budget and ahead of schedule; the inner west light rail extension; the Newcastle Light Rail, which Crackers loves; and the CBD and South East Light Rail. We have completed major road projects: the M5 West Widening; WestConnex; NorthConnex; the M4 Widening; new M4 tunnels; the new M5, which is now known as the M8; the Princes Highway upgrades; and in my electorate of Wollondilly $44 million for the planning and design to bring Picton Road up to a motorway standard, which I know the member for Wollongong and the member for Keira have welcomed. We have completed 137 new and upgraded schools and more than 140 major health projects such as the Bowral and District Hospital in my electorate, to which this Government has committed over $120 million for its redevelopment. Stage one, worth $68 million, is near completion. When those opposite were in government, regional hospitals like the ones in my electorate could have been eligible for a historic car numberplate, they were that old, because Labor does not care about regional New South Wales. The success of these projects has given this Government confidence and the ability to undertake even larger and more ambitious projects. Compare that to Labor's record, a litany of broken promises: the north-west and south-west rail projects that were promised in 2005 were never delivered; the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link, which was promised in 1998, was never delivered; the Parkes Hospital, which was promised in 2005, was never delivered; the Northern Beaches Hospital, which was promised in 2006, which Labor never delivered; the Tamworth Hospital, which was promised in 2006, was never delivered; and the Wagga Wagga hospital, which was promised in 2007, was never delivered. Time and again, projects were promised and never delivered. Indeed, things went backwards under Labor Those opposite closed more than 2,000 hospital beds while the New South Wales population grew by more than one million people. They closed 37 maternity units across the bush including Ballina, Cessnock, Cowra, West Wyalong, Hay and Yass. They closed more than 90 schools and left a school maintenance backlog of $1 billion. In the lead-up to last year's election, The Australian Financial Review observed: Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4909
By 2011 … NSW state Labor was running big deficits … It was incapable of building new infrastructure and was essentially an entire government shaped by a faction controlled by corrupt ex-minister Mr Obeid. You know it is coming and you know it is true, so join me in saying it: We, the New South Wales Coalition, have made New South Wales great again. Mr PAUL SCULLY (Wollongong) (17:23:17): It is a bit sudden getting the call because I expected the member for Wollondilly to manage to speak for a full five minutes in defence of his Government but he could not even make that. I know the member for Wollondilly is a great aficionado of United States politics but, mate, you are fake news. You are the epitome of the trickiness of this Government. I note the Minister for Customer Service moved a five-point amendment on a 10-year-old Government. The motion of the member for Cessnock lists 10 sins of this Government. For every claimed achievement, Labor listed two sins. The member for Wollondilly could not even match the Labor Opposition with the number of achievements and Labor was not even trying. The thing that the Minister for Customer Service is most upset about is that he was left off the member for Cessnock's list. He was unable to keep our driver licence information safe and it is now on the dark web available to anyone to have a look at. But if you want to look at it yourself you have to put in a Government Information (Public Access) Act application. He was not there. I congratulate the member for Cessnock on his restraint in this motion. We have 10 points here, but we could have gone further. We could have talked about the toxic land at Camellia that was purchased for three times what it was worth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting. Mr PAUL SCULLY: When you purchase something for three times what it is worth it not only means are you ripping off the taxpayers but also means that millions of dollars do not go into projects in other areas. I will tell the people of Unanderra when they have to struggle up 72 stairs to get to the station that the reason for that is the Government decided a toxic tip in Camellia was a better use of their taxpayer money. We could have gone further and talked about the budget blowouts. The $107 billion spent on infrastructure projects that Government members talk about is filled to the brim with budget blowouts. That is why the number is so big. It is not that they are spending a lot; it is that they are stuffing up every time they do. Then we have the tolls, tolls, tolls. They will have a minimum 4 per cent increase year after year, no matter what the inflation rate is. Privatisation is back on the agenda and the centrepiece of this Government. Debt has never been so cheap, the Treasurer says, yet he is selling it all. He is taking a gamble on getting a good price for NSW Lotteries. He cannot help himself; it is in his DNA. Then we have procurement issues: imported steel used in the International Convention Centre and the Sydney Metro; ferries from Indonesia and China; buses from Germany and Malaysia; trains from South Korea and China; metros from India; and light rail vehicles from France and Spain. They are looking after workers everywhere else except in New South Wales. Then we have the great crime that the member for Newcastle and I are very familiar with. The two electorates that we represent were not only excluded from Greater Sydney sports funding but also excluded from regional sports funding. The Government does not consider Wollongong and Newcastle to be part of New South Wales anymore. That is how crazy this Government has become. We have a 10-year-old Government that is sadly behaving like a government of 10-year-olds. It is rife with division and rife with chaos. At one stage a provision was being worked into the budget for improvements to the Cabinet room. They were going to build it in an octagon—because most Cabinet meetings look like a UFC fight. They were really going for it in there. There was a battle royal, no holds barred, WWE UFC combined fight, so they had to adjust the Cabinet room to make it an octagon. Everything in this motion is just about a tired old tricky government trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of New South Wales. There have been royal commissions called for less than the things listed in this motion, yet we have a government that skates through and pretends everything is okay. Worse, it pretends that the people of New South Wales do not really care. They do, and they are coming for them. They are coming for the member for Wollondilly because he has put up a pretty poor defence of his Government so far. I congratulate the member for Cessnock on bringing this motion because it is important that at the end of the year we reflect on the previous 12 months. When we reflect on the previous 12 months, we find a litany of sins, a government in chaos, a government that disrespects the people of New South Wales and a government that will be out in two years' time. Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) (17:28:29): It is obvious that communities across New South Wales are facing a combination of challenges which we in this place have never experienced before as parliamentarians. We have had many years of a drought that has been identified as one of the worst in living memory. We had the black summer bushfires and we have had floods. Following that, we have had a global pandemic and now a recession. That summarises the past 12 months of challenges that our communities across this State have faced. The COVID-19 pandemic has the world in its grip. There are 37 million cases globally and more than one million Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4910
deaths. Australians are living through their first recession in 30 years. Families and businesses are suffering. Our regional communities are recovering from bushfires but many are still experiencing drought. We have important things to do. We have important legislation to consider that will protect lives and livelihoods, and that is what we should all be focused on. That is what the Coalition Government is focused on, but the Leader of the Opposition is focused on playing petty politics. She chooses this moment to pull a stunt and waste our Parliament's time on this motion. It is not the first but the second time in a month that she has done so. Last month she was gung-ho announcing that she would move a no-confidence motion in the Government. She told the media, "We will lose that." Finally, she gave an accurate statement. Clearly she was trying to lower expectations, but there was really no need. The one thing this Leader of the Opposition is really good at is living down to expectations. And she did lose. Even when she watered down the last no confidence motion, she lost. She is a sore loser, so she is back again with this motion. This is a blatant attention-seeking episode by the Leader of the Opposition and a grab for a few seconds of airtime. She is desperately seeking relevance trying to keep her shadow Ministers and those on the backbench at bay and calm before they start to question whether she really ought to be the Leader of the Opposition. Don't they say that Christmas and new year is the killing season in politics? Let us wait and see. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gosford will come to order. Mrs TANYA DAVIES: We are not afraid to debate our record in this place. In relation to delivery and financial management by the Coalition Government compared with the Labor Government, the Coalition stands head and shoulders beyond the performance of the Labor Party when in government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Gosford to order for the first time. Mrs TANYA DAVIES: Strong financial management is critical to good government. It is the foundation of delivering good services and infrastructure to our citizens. That is probably why Labor members could never deliver truly groundbreaking infrastructure to meet the needs of the community when they were in government. They could not manage the financial system. They could not be modern and smart about their fiscal management. That is why the Liberal-Nationals Government was elected. We have begun to clean up Labor's horrendous mess and deliver for our communities by building the infrastructure that they missed out on for 16 years under Labor's tenure. Labor's budget was anaemic and the New South Wales economy had stalled. We have created more than 600,000 jobs since 2011 and have committed to creating another 250,000 jobs in this term. We smashed our last four-year jobs target of 150,000 by adding more than 420,000 jobs. Unemployment in New South Wales reached a record low of 3.9 per cent in January this year. The New South Wales unemployment rate has been below or equal to the rest of Australia for over 6½ years. In contrast, during Labor's last 10 years in government New South Wales had the lowest jobs growth of any State. New South Wales is used to being the economic powerhouse of Australia, but in its last two terms Labor created just 21 per cent of new jobs in the nation. I could go on and speak about the incredible record of this Government in delivering for our communities, delivering for our regions and delivering for the bush and the cities, but I am going to run out of time. I wish that I had an hour to speak about all that we have done. I support the amendment of the member for Ryde to the motion. Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) (17:33:39): In reply: I acknowledge the members for the electorates of Ryde, Newcastle, Wollondilly, Wollongong and Mulgoa for their contributions to this debate. Over the past 12 months I am sure the member for Ryde was happy that his name was not on the list of indiscretions. He came here and attempted to defend the indefensible. He did not want to deal with the issues in the motion, so he thought they would change the motion and pretend that it does not exist because they cannot defend it. And that is a truth; that is one of the few truths spoken in this House. The actions and the behaviours of these people are indefensible and that is why the Government does not want to talk about this. There is nothing on this list that is not true. There is nothing on this list that has not happened. There is nothing on this list that has not been recorded and sourced from the media, ICAC or inquiries that have been held. It is indefensible. The rub is that there were a whole bunch of people wondering why the Premier did not lose her job when the incredible ICAC revelations came out. Based on this motion, we know why: At every layer underneath her, people have done similar or worse things. The distance between this Government and integrity is incredible. This is the third Premier we have had in nine years, so she is third grade. This is the fifth frontbench we have had in nine years, so they are fifth grade. Even at that standard, with incredible revelations in ICAC, everyone is looking around thinking, "Who might be next?" Daylight is next because you cannot go to your sixth-grade frontbench. You cannot go to your fourth-grade Premier because they just do not exist. I know at the time there was a little bit of talk about the Attorney General maybe becoming the Premier. The only trouble is: Who did not back him in? It was the developers. The guy is too honest. That is the problem Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4911
with this Government. We cannot have someone honest in the driver's seat. I will put some facts on the table. If one of our not-for-profits simply speaks out and criticises this Government, they lose their funding. If a public sector worker speaks out and criticises this Government, they lose their job. But you can be a Minister in this Chamber, you can pretend to be a police officer, you can harass and physically push around a youth, you can go to ICAC and fib around the truth, you can come in here and say that the people voted for Ferry McFerryface, which is a blatant lie, and that is all okay. That is the disgrace of this Government. [Time expired.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cessnock has moved a motion, to which the member for Ryde has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment of the member for Ryde be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 45 Noes ...... 34 Majority ...... 11
AYES Anderson, K Gibbons, M Petinos, E Ayres, S Greenwich, A Piper, G Barilaro, J Griffin, J Preston, R Berejiklian, G Gulaptis, C Provest, G Bromhead, S Hancock, S Saunders, D Clancy, J Hazzard, B Sidgreaves, P Conolly, K Henskens, A Singh, G Constance, A Johnsen, M Smith, N Cooke, S (teller) Kean, M Speakman, M Coure, M Lee, G Stokes, R Crouch, A (teller) Lindsay, W Taylor, M Davies, T Marshall, A Toole, P Dominello, V McGirr, J Tuckerman, W Elliott, D Pavey, M Upton, G Evans, L Perrottet, D Ward, G
NOES Aitchison, J Donato, P Mehan, D (teller) Atalla, E Doyle, T Mihailuk, T Bali, S Finn, J O'Neill, M Barr, C Harris, D Saffin, J Butler, R Harrison, J Scully, P Catley, Y Haylen, J Tesch, L Chanthivong, A Hoenig, R Voltz, L Cotsis, S Kamper, S Warren, G Crakanthorp, T Lynch, P Washington, K Daley, M McDermott, H Watson, A (teller) Dalton, H McKay, J Zangari, G Dib, J
PAIRS O'Dea, J Park, R Roberts, A Hornery, S Sidoti, J Lalich, N Williams, R Car, P Wilson, F Minns, C
Amendment agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to. Motion as amended agreed to. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4912
Motions INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reference The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Council resolving to refer the purchase by Transport for NSW of 4 Grand Avenue Camellia from Grand 4 Investment Pty Ltd and the circumstances in which Grand 4 Investment Pty Ltd purchased the site 13 days before the Government's announcement of the preferred route for the Parramatta Light Rail project, and requesting the Legislative Assembly pass a similar resolution. I set down consideration of the Legislative Council's message for a later hour of the sitting. Bills MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 Consideration in Detail The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are dealing with The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-291B. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (17:48:23): The Greens have already spoken on this amendment, which seeks to provide clarity around when a third party can be mandated to undergo a blood test. I commend the amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 6 Noes ...... 77 Majority ...... 71
AYES Greenwich, A (teller) McGirr, J Piper, G Leong, J (teller) Parker, J Smith, T
NOES Aitchison, J Doyle, T O'Neill, M Anderson, K Elliott, D Pavey, M Atalla, E Evans, L Perrottet, D Ayres, S Finn, J Petinos, E Bali, S Gibbons, M Preston, R Barilaro, J Griffin, J Provest, G Barr, C Gulaptis, C Saffin, J Berejiklian, G Hancock, S Saunders, D Bromhead, S Harris, D Scully, P Butler, R Harrison, J Sidgreaves, P Catley, Y Haylen, J Singh, G Chanthivong, A Hazzard, B Smith, N Clancy, J Henskens, A Speakman, M Conolly, K Hoenig, R Stokes, R Constance, A Johnsen, M Taylor, M Cooke, S (teller) Kamper, S Tesch, L Cotsis, S Kean, M Toole, P Coure, M Lee, G Tuckerman, W Crakanthorp, T Lindsay, W Upton, G Crouch, A (teller) Lynch, P Voltz, L Daley, M Marshall, A Ward, G Dalton, H McDermott, H Warren, G Davies, T McKay, J Washington, K Dib, J Mehan, D Watson, A Dominello, V Mihailuk, T Zangari, G Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4913
NOES Donato, P O'Dea, J
Amendment negatived. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (17:58:05): I move my amendment No. 6 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 6 Counselling Page 11. Insert after line 43— 21A Worker and third party to be offered counselling The Chief Health Officer must ensure that a worker in relation to whom a mandatory testing order is made, and the third party the subject of the order, are offered counselling— (a) before the test is carried out, and (b) before the results of the test are provided to the worker and third party. HIV testing normally occurs in a health context, where people are counselled before their test and before they receive their results. This is world's best practice and is adopted across Australia. It has been part of New South Wales' successful approach to HIV and AIDS. A test may uncover difficult news about someone's health and bloodborne virus status. Unfortunately, the bill in its current form transfers that test from a supportive health context to a punitive environment. As a gay man, I know very well how confronting it can be to get an HIV test. I cannot imagine how much more confronting it would be for someone who was having that test forced upon them. I remember the very first time I got an HIV test, in my early 20s. Back then testing was not as advanced or as quick as it is now. You are shaking until you get the results. You are scared until you get the results. You need access to counselling and support. As I have explained, in the context of this bill we are dealing with potentially very vulnerable people. This amendment seeks to put a little compassion and due process into the bill. It seeks to put what is already best health practice into the bill. Otherwise, without the offer of counselling, we are denying people the support they need to prepare for and deal with their results. My amendment will ensure that both the third party and an applicant to the order are offered counselling before and after the test to discuss potential and actual results, ensuring that support is available if needed. It is a very basic and compassionate amendment. I do not think we need to wait for an upper House inquiry to determine whether or not it is appropriate for someone who is having an HIV test forced upon them to be offered access to counselling. I would be very surprised if the Government or the Opposition say that they need an upper House inquiry into whether someone who is having an HIV test imposed upon them needs access to counselling. This amendment tests whether the Government and the Opposition are serious when they say that the bill is not about being punitive. This amendment tests whether we can trust the Government when it says it does not want to put people through an adverse experience. This amendment is about offering basic care and compassion to people who are being put in a difficult situation. As I said, an HIV test can be extremely confronting. Waiting for the results of an HIV test can be confronting. Members who have shared different views on the bill have mentioned the trauma and concern that frontline officers face in that waiting time. The same trauma can be experienced by the third party as well. We can provide them with basic care and compassion by supporting this amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (18:02:32): The Greens support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. It will ensure that both the worker and the third party are offered counselling as a result of the mandatory test order being enacted. We heard the member for Sydney discussing and sharing his personal experience of having an HIV test, and I respect him for sharing it. We all know that there is always a window of uncertainty when we have a risk of a health problem. That is particularly the case when that uncertainty could shape the rest of one's life in terms of treatment and other things. We also know that a huge amount of fear and stigma has been created around certain types of bloodborne diseases. I put on record the work of ACON and other AIDS and HIV organisations in New South Wales and Australia that have done incredible work trying to reduce that stigma. They have run incredible campaigns about the importance of getting tested and have also tried to make it very clear that a lot of things can now be done to alleviate people's concerns. It is really important, when we factor in counselling, that we look at the medical reality of what is happening here. A briefing paper provided by ACON states: It is really important to recognise that Australians have easy access to post exposure prophylaxis [PEP] drugs which are prescribed after a potential exposure to HIV by a medical practitioner within 72 hours of the exposure, and any person who feels they are at risk of exposure to HIV can access an assessment through the emergency department of a hospital and must do so within 72 hours for this medication to be effective. Much has been said about the mental health and wellbeing of prescribed workers during the window Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4914
period because of exposure and any virus being present in the body in a way which will show up in a test, but obviously, as mentioned above, with proper administration of PEP, no such anxiety is necessary. It is important to put these comments on the record because there is an intended or unintended attempt to create a sense of anxiety and fear, particularly amongst young officers and people working on the front line, that there are a lot of risks to their health and safety. I do not think any of us in this place would deny there are risks in performing frontline work. But we must make sure that we are talking about the real risks to their health and safety and not adding to the potential sense of fear by misinformation that is unfounded in health expertise and advice. Ensuring that the third party is able to be offered counselling recognises the significant stress placed on someone receiving a mandatory test order. As the member for Sydney said, this is not just about people who may be concerned about the outcome of having a test. We are talking about people who have religious or personal beliefs who would be concerned about giving blood. We are talking about people who would be seriously traumatised by the intersection between their faith and the pressure of having a mandatory testing order placed on them. There is a current parliamentary inquiry into the protection of religious freedoms and Government members are talking up the need to strengthen those protections. Yet before us is a piece of legislation that seeks to undermine people's religious beliefs, civil liberties and human rights by forcing them to have a test and then not providing them with the necessary counselling and support. This is potentially a very traumatic situation where a person, who does not believe an incident actually took place, is subjected to a mandatory order. Potentially no incident did take place because, remember, this is all being done in the absence of any independent oversight. I wonder how members of this Chamber would feel if someone issued them with a mandatory testing order, they had no knowledge of how to appeal or request a review process, and then they were subjected to a test without any counselling or support. We recognise the seriousness of mental health in our community and the availability of counselling when people go through a stressful time. I am sure we would all agree that would be the case here. It does not need an inquiry, it does not need further consideration or regulation; it is something that we can support right here and now. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (18:07:42): As I have said previously in the Chamber, Labor will deal with the amendments in the upper House after we have had an upper House parliamentary inquiry. I have been very clear about that. There are a broad range of views about this piece of legislation. It does not relate only to police, it relates also to the health industry, corrective services, emergency service workers and trade unions. Labor has strong ties on social issues and many issues that are being raised in the amendments have been raised with me. I am a representative of the largest political party in this Parliament. I have given a commitment to my colleagues that I will consider the amendments once we have the report from the parliamentary inquiry. I will not pick and choose here because someone says I should. There is a process and we will go through that process. I have been very clear about that. That does not mean there is not merit in the arguments that have been put forward. There are a range of views and we will make our decision once everybody has had a chance to look at the legislation. Some of the people I have spoken to who are workers in these industries have not seen the draft legislation. They want to have a look at it. The bill covers a large number of people. Members have concentrated on the police but the bill covers nurses, doctors, ambulance workers, SES workers and St John Ambulance. We will take a collective approach to this legislation when we get back to caucus and look at the legislation again. Members should not think that we are not conscious of the different views across the community. We have responsibilities to workers and to those in the community who may be vulnerable and have faced vilification in the past. I am not going to be dragged into making a decision because a member in this Chamber, who does not have to deal with the collective process, believes that I should suddenly make a decision on the floor. I am not going to do that. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (18:10:05): While I very much admire the passion and compassion that the member for Sydney offers those who are undertaking tests, particularly relating to HIV, I am on a unity ticket with the member for Auburn on this one. The Government opposes the amendment because, as the member for Auburn has quite rightly identified, this legislation will benefit and protect over 100,000 people, volunteers, professionals, salaried workers, and people who work on the front line in health, emergency services and police. Those opposing the bill seem to focus on the 17,000 police. They have forgotten about the 83,000 other people who will benefit from the bill. As I said from the start, these tests for disease are not to punish or humiliate the alleged offenders; they are to support and reassure those who have been the victims of an assault. We must focus on that. This legislation is to protect the worker, the volunteer. It is not to humiliate or punish the alleged offender; it is to protect those who put their lives before ours. If anybody needs counselling, as far as I am concerned it is the frontline workers. It is the frontline workers who, through no fault of their own, may acquire a transmittible disease. I oppose the amendment because there are many counselling services available to people who have to undertake HIV services. The health department's website talks about five of them, not to mention all of the other Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4915
private NGOs and auxiliary health services that are on offer as well. The Government opposes the amendment. Again I join with the Opposition in that the Government will quite happily see further evidence as to whether this is appropriate through the upper House inquiry. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (18:12:38): I think my worst fears about the legislation have been proven by not only the shadow Minister but also the Minister. We are dealing with this legislation because last November the Leader of the Opposition jumped on a very dangerous bandwagon and said that HIV tests should be able to be forced on people by the police. The Government has now tried to match her. This amendment takes nothing away from frontline workers. It provides frontline workers with an offer of counselling. It provides the person who is having a test forced upon them, potentially with violence, with an offer of counselling. How does offering someone counselling impact the 100,000-plus frontline workers that we are talking about? I want them to be offered counselling and support as well. Obviously the way in which that process would occur would happen by regulation. Those who led this State's and nation's multi-partisan efforts towards the reduction of stigma and advanced the great gains we have had in HIV and AIDS in New South Wales and Australia, would be looking at the major parties in this State with shame. We have just heard that we need a committee process to decide whether or not we treat people with compassion, whether or not we are prepared to offer counselling to someone on whom we are inflicting an HIV test and who does not have a conviction or charge against them. The way in which the major parties have approached this amendment is a massive departure from the harm minimisation approach that both parties have adopted and championed in the past. The suggestion by the shadow Minister that I do not have to take a consultative approach to legislation is, quite frankly, untrue and offensive. I consult wide and far with constituents and stakeholders. A look at my inbox or the inbox of my staff would show that stakeholders engage with Independents more than they do with major parties because they know they can get through to members more quickly and that we are happy to consider their concerns without any factional blinkering. So the member should not come here and lecture me about consultation on amendments. My Independent colleagues, The Greens and I, with our limited resources, are able to form a position on the amendments. Quite frankly, if the New South Wales Opposition, with its staffing and policy people, including in this space, is not able to do that, it is are setting itself up for a claim of incompetence. It all comes down to this amendment, which is asking, "Will you take a compassionate approach to people who are having an HIV test imposed upon them?" Yes or no. The Liberal-Nationals Government has said no and the Labor Opposition has said no. Shame on both of them. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (18:16:48): That is quite a mendacious approach to what I said in this Chamber. I clearly said that I will consult with my colleagues. The member for Sydney was informed at the beginning that Labor would not be looking at amendments in this House, that we would look at amendments in the other House. To imply that I was in some way stating anything other than the processes in my political party is hugely dishonest. The member for Sydney knew full well that we would look at amendments in the upper House and that we want to go through the upper House inquiry process. By all means, he can move amendments but we will not be dealing with them here. We will deal with amendments in the upper House. That is the appropriate process, it is a commitment that I have given to my colleagues, and it is part of our caucus process. It is unfortunate that the member misrepresents what I said. As I have said time and again in this Chamber, it is no reflection on the merits of the amendments. There is no other way for me to say it any differently or to give it a different meaning. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (18:18:05): I express my concern about a couple of matters that have been raised in debate on this amendment. The Minister claims now to be a friend of the public service workers and other workers. I do not know if anyone has been listening to what has been happening in the Domain, or out the front or back of Parliament House, or on social media, or in our inboxes for the past little while, but the overwhelming call of public service workers in this State has been not for mandatory bloodborne disease testing but for a pay rise. When it comes to public service workers in New South Wales—whom the Minister purports to care about—they want basic remuneration for the jobs they do. The Minister fails to deliver and instead claims that he is a friend of the workers because he is delivering a mandatory testing regime. The second point I make is important. The Minister said he is here for the 100,000 or so workers who are covered by this legislation. But someone needs to be here for all of the community members—and we are talking millions—who will be impacted by the unjust testing regime that will be inflicted on them. If the Minister wants to talk for the minority that is fine but there needs to be a voice in this Chamber for the people who will be impacted by the legislation. We cannot just talk about the workers. We also have to talk about the third parties who will be subjected to this type of testing. I think we would all agree that if someone engaged in a violent or aggressive or disgraceful attack on a frontline service worker, on an ambulance officer or someone who works in the health sector, on someone who works in the prison system, then there should be charges brought against that Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4916
person and they should be subjected to the full force of the law, so to speak. But we are not talking about that situation. We are talking about a situation where someone will be subjected to testing without any of those due processes in place. I acknowledge that the shadow Minister is here as the representative of Labor, but she is not in the upper House anymore. There is a full Chamber here that considers and debates amendments, where members who are elected by their local communities place on the record their views as to whether or not they support legislation and amendments. It is problematic that when it comes to debating this legislation NSW Labor is trying to have it a little bit both ways. The New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Jodi McKay, kicked off this debate with a level of enthusiasm that was even greater than we have seen from the police Minister about delivering this change. Then they say, "We need to send this off for inquiry; we will look at it in an inquiry." Has Labor's position changed? Before the election in 2019 Labor said that it had no intention of introducing or supporting such laws, then the Leader of the Opposition said they were going to deliver and introduce a bill, and now they are here supporting the Government's bill but stating that they are going to wait until there is an inquiry and a process. Why on earth is Labor still voting with the Government? Why is Labor voting against every amendment? Do not vote against the amendments. If they have not had time to look at the amendments and consult properly on them I respect that, but why are they here voting against every single one? They are taking a position, and it is important to place that on the record. I feel disappointed because I, more than anybody, want to see the end of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government's control over this Chamber. I respect that the shadow Minister is saying that Labor is going to look at it, and I genuinely believe that she will look at the amendments, but every amendment that we put to a vote in this place Labor votes with the Government. They are voting against the amendments, and so they are taking a formal position. They are not waiting for an inquiry. Every time they do that they are adding yet more damage to people who have suffered discrimination and vilification because they have a bloodborne virus, and that is unacceptable. We need to say to the community that we will stand strong. If Labor has not had time to look at the amendments fair enough, but they are making a decision and voting a certain way. [Time expired.] The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that amendment No. 6 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 6 Noes ...... 78 Majority ...... 72
AYES Greenwich, A (teller) McGirr, J Piper, G Leong, J Parker, J Smith, T (teller)
NOES Aitchison, J Elliott, D Park, R Anderson, K Evans, L Pavey, M Atalla, E Finn, J Perrottet, D Ayres, S Gibbons, M Petinos, E Bali, S Griffin, J Preston, R Barilaro, J Gulaptis, C Provest, G Barr, C Hancock, S Saffin, J Berejiklian, G Harris, D Saunders, D Bromhead, S Harrison, J Scully, P Butler, R Haylen, J Sidgreaves, P Catley, Y Hazzard, B Singh, G Chanthivong, A Henskens, A Smith, N Clancy, J Hoenig, R Speakman, M Conolly, K Johnsen, M Stokes, R Constance, A Kamper, S Taylor, M Cooke, S (teller) Kean, M Tesch, L Cotsis, S Lee, G Toole, P Crakanthorp, T Lindsay, W Tuckerman, W Crouch, A (teller) Lynch, P Upton, G Daley, M Marshall, A Voltz, L Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4917
NOES Dalton, H McDermott, H Ward, G Davies, T McKay, J Warren, G Dib, J Mehan, D Washington, K Dominello, V Mihailuk, T Watson, A Donato, P O'Dea, J Williams, L Doyle, T O'Neill, M Zangari, G
Amendment negatived. Business of the House SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS: REFERRAL TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended at this sitting to: (1) Permit the consideration forthwith of the message from the Legislative Council proposing a referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and of the following resolution: That: (1) The Legislative Assembly disagrees with the Legislative Council proposal for a reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption as set out in its message dated 18 November 2020. (2) A message be sent informing the Legislative Council of the resolution. (2) Provide for the following speaking time limits: (a) mover—10 minutes; (b) one Opposition member—10 minutes; (c) one further Opposition member—5 minutes; (d) one Independent member—5 minutes; (e) one Greens member—5 minutes; (f) one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers member—5 minutes; and (g) mover in reply—3 minutes. (3) Provide for the resumption of any interrupted item of business at the conclusion of the debate. Motion agreed to. Motions INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reference Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega—Minister for Transport and Roads) (18:35:55): I move: That: (1) The Legislative Assembly disagrees with the Legislative Council proposal for a reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption as set out in its message dated 18 November 2020. (2) A message be sent informing the Legislative Council of the resolution. I note what has occurred and what has been said in the Legislative Council this afternoon. I again wish to indicate to the Legislative Council the seriousness of the issues that have been raised. I indicate very clearly that the Government opposes this motion, and I will go into the reasons why. I think it is important in terms of any referral to the ICAC on any matter that it is done discreetly and appropriately. Specifically in relation to the purchase by Transport for NSW of 4-6 Grand Avenue, Camellia—the site of the stabling yards for the Parramatta Light Rail— I reiterate to the Chamber and wish to make crystal clear, in the way that I have responded to the questions from the member for Kogarah, that I expect Transport for NSW to be fully open, transparent and accountable in relation to the commercial negotiations and acquisition of the property and, of course, issues to do with remediation of the site. I want to ensure that the community has confidence in the agency's acquisition processes. It was on this basis that last Thursday 12 November I wrote to the Auditor-General of New South Wales— well in advance of any of the recent public statements and media commentary—making referral for review on this Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4918
matter. I also indicate to the Parliament that on 17 November I met with the Auditor-General, at her request, to discuss exactly what I had raised in the letter. It relates specifically to the acquisition of the property concerned; it also relates to the remediation of the site. I also indicate to the House that on that same day, being 12 November, I also wrote to the ICAC—again, to give the community confidence in this matter. I did that discreetly, and wanted to ensure that the ICAC was able to make a determination in relation to the matter. The key element is that by seeking to do so—and I again reiterate the importance of Transport for NSW and the processes that go back almost five years—it is fully transparent for everybody to see. I indicate to the Parliament as the Minister for Transport and Roads that in the last five years I have quite literally signed off on many, many property transactions—probably in the hundreds, if you look at the infrastructure program that we have in place. I also indicate that I have concerns in relation to the acquisition of this property and the processes that were followed at the time. That is why it is important that, independent of the agency and of me as Minister, these two agencies—but particularly, and appropriately, the Auditor-General— give that confidence and assurance to the community. The reality is that no one individual has been singled out. In fact, a lot has been said in an effort to smear the entire department, and I am not willing to accept that. The department has highly professional men and women, some who have gone on to be members of this place— indeed, some in the Opposition have come from the department. They know, as I do, the professionalism of the people in the agency. I point out one other thing in relation to the Opposition members in the other place and the arguments that have been put by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey in particular. They are seeking to compel the ICAC to undertake the investigation. I think it is appropriate we actually let the ICAC make the decision as to whether it investigates a matter or not. It is important that the ICAC is able to come to the necessary conclusions itself without compulsion from the Chambers. I take this issue very seriously. I actually did this discreetly and appropriately, and did not seek to have the letter I wrote to the ICAC made public. That said, I also indicated to the ICAC when I wrote to it that I had also written to the Auditor-General. As I have indicated, she subsequently came back to me on 17 November to commence an appropriate assessment in relation to a number of things including the processes around the negotiation; the final settlement à la the cost; and the obvious engagement with the Valuer General through that process by the agency, particularly when it comes to the remediation of the site. The other point I make regarding the Hon. Daniel Mookhey in the other place is that he could have referred this matter himself as an individual member of Parliament—but he chose not to. He chose to be on television. Again I reiterate to those members opposite that at any point a member of Parliament can go forward and make representations to the relevant agencies concerning this type of situation. In closing, I note one other thing completely and utterly separate to this issue. The member for Kogarah and the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who appeared on the nightly news this evening at six o'clock—I note this debate is happening at a quarter to seven—made reference to Mr Rodd Staples. Earlier today I announced that Rodd Staples was going to leave his role as the Secretary of Transport for NSW in February 2021. I remind the House that when these commercial discussions around this acquisition were taking place—to do with a separate project in the agency—Mr Staples was the head of the metro project and was not the project lead in relation to Parramatta Light Rail. There is no doubt that Rodd Staples has played an important role over the last three years in stewarding the New South Wales Government's program in terms of infrastructure and service delivery in transport—a $50 billion-plus infrastructure program. Of course, that is the largest of any agency in the country. I indicated in my statement today that the agency is going to head in a new direction in 2021, building on the solid foundation that Rodd Staples has laid out, including finalising the organisation's restructure following the merger of Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services. I have made it clear that the agency is going to have a greater focus on innovation and technology into the future. There is no doubt that Rodd Staples has seen the agency through the toughest of days, given COVID and the bushfires. But I have indicated—as required, as Minister—that I will have a new focus on the way in which the department will move forward in 2021. There will be a focus on the infrastructure program and innovation, particularly as the State moves out of recession. Mr Staples' record—including almost two decades as an engineer, leadership in both public and private sectors for transport infrastructure and his role as the head of Sydney Metro, which as we all know is this country's first fully automated train network—is incredible. He is unique in Sydney's history because of his strong leadership in relation to the Sydney Metro. I absolutely want to continue to see him play a role in terms of the expansion of the metro network in the years ahead. I indicate to the House that my regional colleague also has made statements in that regard. I make it crystal clear that today's announcement is separate from the issues before the community in relation to Parramatta Light Rail. Again, I indicate that the Government opposes the referral because I have already made referrals to both the ICAC and the Auditor-General. Mr CHRIS MINNS (Kogarah) (18:46:08): The Minister for Transport and Roads concluded his contribution to debate on the motion with the words "I make it crystal clear", but the issue is not crystal clear. The Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4919
budget came down 24 hours ago. The Government has been trumpeting a $100 billion infrastructure plan. The Government has four major transport projects on the run. The current secretary is a former engineer and responsible for delivering all those projects. Our inference from the press conference was that the Minister sacked him. I would have thought if that was gross defamation, the Minister would have told the House that this afternoon—but no. It looks like the secretary has been removed and the Minister said he is heading in a new direction. Seven News reported tonight that this happened because of disputes around cost blowouts and transport delays, but it just so happens that the secretary's removal from the department happened within 24 hours of a major investigation by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey in the other place, The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC in relation to a toxic waste area in Camellia associated with the Parramatta Light Rail. It does not take Eliot Ness to draw inferences together. In some ways, the Minister is being disingenuous when he suggests that ICAC does not have referral power. ICAC does have referral power; the Parliament has referral power. If both Houses agree that an inquiry should take place, then ICAC will conduct the inquiry. Given everything that has happened over the past month—in particular, that all this deeply troubling information has been taking place within Transport for NSW and no-one, other than the Minister, knew about it— why would the Opposition take at face value a suggestion that it should not be referred? For the information of anyone who has to make up their mind whether they support or oppose the motion moved by the Minister for Transport and Roads, I mention that the ICAC makes judgements about inquiries it will pursue based on resourcing. The ICAC does not take every inquiry that comes its way although decisions have to be made about which inquiries it ends up taking. Given that resourcing is in dispute by the Minister's colleague the Treasurer, at the moment I think it is appropriate for this House to say that we want an inquiry in relation to this matter. Given that as recently as last month the Premier of New South Wales was before the ICAC in circumstances where credible evidence exists that someone was running a lobbying and secret commission operation 20 feet from the floor of this House and there was no ICAC inquiry for years despite the Government knowing about it, all the evidence combined falls in favour of a referral by this House. The other House has already moved for a referral and this House should do the same. I recognise that that is an extraordinary step but it is not based on nothing. Indeed, moments ago the Minister for Transport and Roads said that on 12 November he wrote to the Attorney General and the ICAC. Mr Andrew Constance: The Auditor-General. Mr CHRIS MINNS: The Auditor-General, sorry, and the ICAC. That might be a laudable thing to do. I congratulate the Minister on doing it but the suggestion is it was done in a private and confidential capacity and that that was a laudable exercise. I reject that and I put it to the Minister that the Opposition had a right to know that on 12 November. There is no good public policy reason why $50 million worth of taxpayers' money has been ploughed into a toxic waste site in Camellia. The Minister said in this House, "Look, don't worry about it because on 12 November I wrote a letter to the ICAC." Can the Opposition examine the contents of that letter? I put it to the Minister for Transport and Roads that in his reply he should make known to Parliament the subject and contents of the letters to both the Auditor-General and the ICAC. The Parliament has a right to know that. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, a piece of land was bought that the Minister's department valued at $30 million and it was suggested that it was a compulsory acquisition for eminent domain. It ends up being bought for $53,500,000, with estimated remediation costs of above $50 million. The remediation costs went to the new buyer, not the old buyer. All of that liability is on the New South Wales taxpayer. How did that happen? It seems from the reporting that a meeting took place on 28 April 2016. The Minister, who is in the Chamber, signed a briefing note on that date approving the compulsory acquisition of land for the stabling facilities of the Parramatta Light Rail. Two weeks later Transport for NSW did what is described as a "U-turn"— a paper entitled "out of session" in May that year requested Transport for NSW's finance and investment committee approve $53.5 million for the purchase of the land. That was triple the cost of the Valuer General's 2016 valuation—triple the cost. I think this is the nub of the matter. What happened in those two weeks? The Minister signed a briefing paper suggesting that compulsory acquisition was the way to go on the basis that it was toxic land and on the basis that the valuation was $15 million below. Then two weeks later there is a secret "out of session" Treasury department committee meeting—I assume the Minister was not in attendance; I do not believe he was—where it was signed off that the taxpayer would purchase the land for $53 million. What happened? I appreciate that the Minister for Transport and Roads has written letters both to the Auditor-General and to the ICAC, but taxpayers have a right to know what happened. Given the Minister's secretary of the department resigned this afternoon in what can only be described as spectacular circumstances—and I am sorry about that; he may be an eminent public servant and I am not in any way besmirching his contribution to the State—the Parliament does not have a full account of what the hell went on. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4920
The news tonight reported that there was a disagreement about cost blowouts and cost overruns and delayed projects at the same time that there is a massive scandal involving toxic land at the Parramatta Light Rail site. This has real-world implications. The chemical on the site is hexavalent chromium. I am not a compound chemist, but this is the same notorious substance that was highlighted in the movie Erin Brockovich in the real-world town of Hinkley in the United States. It can result in lung cancer and is toxic to the marine ecosystem. There are real-world implications. Remediating that site will be at the cost of the New South Wales taxpayer. The second thing that should be said is that for the past two years—certainly in the lead-up to the 2019 election—the Government repeatedly trumpeted Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2. The business case was to be released in 2017. Construction of stage one would begin later this year or at some point in this term of Parliament. A couple of days ago, out of the clear blue sky, the Minister for Transport and Roads said, "Look, we'll be pursuing trackless trams or B-double buses. We are not sure what the circumstances are." I appreciate that a line Minister is still subject to the financing of the Treasurer, and potentially the Premier, so it may be the case that they have yanked the funding for this project. It may also be the case that the millions and millions and millions of dollars that need to be ploughed into a dodgy property deal are the reason that literally tens of thousands of people who expected public transport and invested hundreds of thousands of their own dollars into a new house or a new unit will not be getting that. I have spoken to them. I am sure the Minister has spoken to them. They are incandescent with rage. They were faithfully told by the New South Wales Government over and over again that if they purchased the property they could expect public transport to go past their house. It is not hard to put the puzzle together: You have a massive cost overrun and blowout with a suspect property deal at the heart of it and a cancelled public transport project for western Sydney. The obvious conclusion is that the Government has wasted a lot of money on this terrible property deal and despite promises made at the 2015 and 2019 elections tens of thousands of people are going to miss out on the public transport that they desperately need, deserve and have paid for with their own taxes. When in opposition the member repeatedly bashed the Labor Party for cancelled public transport projects, and it was fair enough. It has now been 10 years since the Coalition came to power and he is in exactly the same situation, cancelling a public transport project for western Sydney, delaying another one in the Sydney Metro West and sacking, presumably—we have not had it confirmed—his departmental secretary at close of business hour one day after the budget was handed down with virtually no explanation. I ask members not to support this motion. This matter should be referred to the ICAC. It is important for public integrity and it is important to protect the money of taxpayers in this State. Ms JULIA FINN (Granville) (18:56:16): I speak against the Government's motion. It is essential that this Chamber support the Legislative Council's referral of this matter to the ICAC. The Minister may have written to the ICAC about the matter but that does not compel the ICAC to investigate. If this House refers the matter of this grave, grotesque waste of public money to the ICAC then it must investigate. The initial purchase price was $53.5 million, when it was valued at $15.5 million at the time, with the present real value at negative $3 million to negative $7 million. The remediation costs amount to losses of $50 million to date and are ongoing. In supporting the Legislative Council's referral, the Opposition is not seeking to cast aspersions on Transport for NSW. I worked at Transport for NSW for two years and was proud to work there. I also served at City of Parramatta Council when it sought to create the Parramatta Light Rail project. At that time I was curious about the huge enthusiasm for residential development across the Camellia peninsula. I was well aware of the issues around hexavalent chromium. It has been known for about 15 years that the entire peninsula has hexavalent chromium and volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons throughout the groundwater as well as the asbestos legacy from James Hardie. It is a very difficult site. Development can only occur at a high enough density to cover the cost of remediation and that is, in itself, a speculative cost because these are new technologies. That can only be supported by Transport for NSW. It is one of the reasons why there has been so much enthusiasm for the Parramatta Light Rail project from those developers. One of the sites across the road is already before the ICAC as it is one that Daryl Maguire was lobbying for. I note that the Government has walked away from its commitment to rezone the area for residential development and no clear explanation has been given to the community as to why it has done so. I note this stands in stark contrast to the way Transport for NSW is treating the landholders and businesses in my electorate who are going through the compulsory acquisition process for the Sydney Metro West. There are 200 landholders and a whole lot of businesses who have been made appallingly lowball offers. They have been offered the price of units in Blacktown for the price of units in Westmead. Businesses have not been offered any assistance to relocate even though the end of their leases with the New South Wales Government have been brought forward by many years. The entire situation is worthy of investigation. I am extremely concerned about this. The colossal loss of public money is scandalous and the ICAC should be investigating. The entire rezoning Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4921
should probably be investigated but this particular negotiation was at huge cost to the New South Wales taxpayer with the benefit largely accruing to property developers who will then be able to build on adjoining sites. Why should the New South Wales taxpayer be paying for remediation of a site owned by a developer who owns most of the land surrounding the site which is proposed to be rezoned for about 10,000 units across the peninsula? The New South Wales taxpayer will pay for remediation works that are required by the developer for its development to go ahead. We still need these stabling yards for even stage one to proceed but the fact that stage two is not going to proceed is a huge disappointment. The business case for the Parramatta Light Rail is well established and to run it on buses does not stack up, but this loss is not something that the taxpayer should be footing and it deserves thorough investigation by the ICAC. Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (19:01:16): I lead on behalf of The Greens to oppose the Government's proposal. I have a lot of respect for the transport Minister and I have worked to support a lot of the Government's initiatives, particularly with light rail, electric buses and ferry expansion. I commend the Minister for his referral to the ICAC. The question we are facing today is whether we compel the ICAC to undertake an investigation. We say it is critical. It is critical because every day—next week, next month, next year—the department will look to make further acquisitions. We need to know what the processes and protocols are. We need to uncover in a thorough and rigorous way—in a way that only the ICAC can deliver—that these processes stand up to scrutiny. I am particularly concerned about the former Balmain Leagues Club site in my electorate. They are currently negotiating with the metro about that acquisition. On 8 November, PremierState signed up the developer for that company. They are walking around Parliament lobbying everyone who will listen about what that purchase price should be and how that deal should be done. I want to be sure, and my community wants to be sure, that it is done correctly. Lobbyists do not determine the value of acquisitions. That is a shady backroom process, a meeting that is obscured to the public, when it needs to be done openly and transparently with the confidence of the public. The situation where a developer can return $15 million of profit in six months may be legal but the public will say that it should be illegal. It stinks to high heaven that anyone could make $15 million in six months from the taxpayer. There are hundreds of thousands of people suffering because of COVID. They have lost their jobs, they have lost incomes, they are battling and struggling to live on a few hundred dollars a week provided by the Government and yet this developer can walk in and pull a $15 million profit in six months—that is obscene. While I respect the fact that the Minister has made a quiet referral to the ICAC, we should be demanding that this be investigated. It is because of the issues that the transport Minister has raised and the Premier's concerns that this must be acted on. I acknowledge the investigation by the ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald and the journalists involved, who highlighted the concerns that we are debating today. The reason we believe this is important—and I speak as someone who sits on the ICAC committee and as someone who has worked on this issue—is that ICAC's budgets are very carefully considered. The chief commissioner came to the ICAC committee just this year and highlighted the fact that decisions are made very carefully. Sometimes the reason an inquiry can take longer than expected is the significant financial cost and the need to be very careful about how that money is allocated. The Premier said she is concerned about the matter. For goodness sake, a Minister of high standing in this place has referred it to the ICAC. I believe the Parliament should take that step—supporting the concerns of the Minister and the Premier, supporting the concerns of the upper House, supporting the concerns of the Opposition in this place and I am sure of the crossbench—and say that this matter requires thorough investigation. It is particularly concerning because we must have confidence in these acquisitions. My community has gone through this process, as have other communities. We have seen hundreds of compulsory acquisitions. We have seen thousands of homes with substratum acquisitions, and there will be more and more for the M4/M5 Link Rozelle Interchange and potentially the harbour tunnel. People in the community want to have confidence that this process is occurring correctly. I want to be able to stand up, hand on heart, and tell the community that they might not like the acquisition process—and we have fought tooth and nail for hardship acquisitions as well for people who have struggled through noise and impact—but it is being done fairly and legitimately. At face value, that it is not the case here. We call on the Government to act. I understand it seems to have a position that that should not happen. We need to back up those concerns and show the public that we care; people should not have to stand by and wait. This Parliament should act and the ICAC needs to investigate the matter. We oppose the Government's motion. Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange) (19:06:01): I speak on behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in not supporting the Government's motion. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party believe this matter not only warrants referral to ICAC but also should be investigated appropriately. I listened to the contribution of the Minister for Transport and Roads and noted that he self-referred the matter to ICAC on 12 November. It involves essentially a fairly simplistic test. This is a significant amount of money—we are talking over $50 million in taxpayers' money—and the community expects that taxpayers' money will be spent wisely, appropriately and in Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4922
accordance with due diligence. It would appear that has not happened in this case. There is a considerable over-valuation. If someone came to me and said, "We are going to pay you three times what your property is worth", as a seller, I would be champing at the bit. But you would think the Government, with the resources of the State behind it, would have appropriately ventilated, addressed and duly considered the matter. There must be transparency and accountability in the process. I listened to the other speakers in the debate. I note that the transport Minister said his referral to ICAC may, in its own right, initiate an investigation by ICAC but it will not compel ICAC to investigate. We know ICAC has had its resources stripped away in recent years. We know it is under-resourced; we know it is under-funded. I believe it is the expectation of the citizens of this State that referrals for this type, which involve considerable public funding, should be made in appropriate circumstances. There must be transparency in the process; there must be accountability in the process. If the Government had nothing to hide, I would have thought it would support this referral to ICAC. When it opposes it, it makes one form the view and believe it is trying to cover up something. If there is nothing to hide, support the referral to ICAC. For the above reasons, I do not support the Government's motion. Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega—Minister for Transport and Roads) (19:09:00): In reply: I have listened to what members have said. In respect of what has occurred with this transaction, we are all right to be concerned. On the face of it, in term of the value paid, the reasons behind that are not clear in the documents the Labor Party has accessed. I think it is important that the community has confidence in the process—I absolutely agree with all the previous speakers. The member for Balmain referenced acquisitions in his patch. I say to the member for Granville: If she has concerns about those 200 businesses and residents, then come and see me. I am happy to help. The important thing in all this is that the Auditor-General will look deeply into this matter in terms of the processes. I have made the reference to the ICAC. That has happened. I say to the member for Orange I have nothing to hide. A reference to the ICAC would suggest that something corrupt has happened, or there is perceived corruption, and I ask that all be careful and mindful of what is said in the public domain in this regard. One of the reasons I went to the Auditor-General was to ensure, first and foremost, that the processes were followed—in particular, the issues around the valuation at various points through the negotiation and, ultimately, the negotiated settlement. That is important. There are obvious decision points and processes because it is clear there is a process in respect of the financial investments committee that sits within the agency making that decision. That is where the Auditor-General is important. I met with Margaret Crawford. A formal letter was written to her in terms of the issues specifically as they relate to this acquisition. I expect the time frame on that to be as quick as possible to give that confidence to the community. It might be a two- to three-month period. I indicate to the House that I recognise what has been said and share the concerns. Let us allow these agencies and these people to have the authority to make the determinations. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper): The question is that the motion be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 44 Noes ...... 40 Majority ...... 4
AYES Anderson, K Gibbons, M Preston, R Ayres, S Griffin, J Provest, G Barilaro, J Gulaptis, C Saunders, D Berejiklian, G Hancock, S Sidgreaves, P Bromhead, S Hazzard, B Singh, G Clancy, J Henskens, A Smith, N Conolly, K Johnsen, M Speakman, M Constance, A Kean, M Stokes, R Cooke, S (teller) Lee, G Taylor, M Coure, M Lindsay, W Toole, P Crouch, A (teller) Marshall, A Tuckerman, W Davies, T O'Dea, J Upton, G Dominello, V Pavey, M Ward, G Elliott, D Perrottet, D Williams, L Evans, L Petinos, E
Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4923
NOES Aitchison, J Finn, J Mihailuk, T Atalla, E Greenwich, A O'Neill, M Bali, S Harris, D Park, R Barr, C Harrison, J Parker, J Butler, R Haylen, J Saffin, J Catley, Y Hoenig, R Scully, P Chanthivong, A Kamper, S Smith, T Cotsis, S Leong, J Tesch, L Crakanthorp, T Lynch, P Voltz, L Daley, M McDermott, H Warren, G Dalton, H McGirr, J Washington, K Dib, J McKay, J Watson, A (teller) Donato, P Mehan, D (teller) Zangari, G Doyle, T
PAIRS Roberts, A Hornery, S Sidoti, J Lalich, N Williams, R Car, P Wilson, F Minns, C
Motion agreed to. Bills MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 Consideration in Detail Consideration resumed from an earlier hour. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (19:22:04): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 6 and 7 on sheet c2020-291B in globo: No. 6 Application for review by Chief Health Officer Page 12, clause 22(2), line 5. Omit "1 business day". Insert instead "7 business days". No. 7 Application for review by Chief Health Officer Page 12, clause 22(4), line 9. Omit "1 business day". Insert instead "7 business days". These amendments seek to make a simple change to the legislation before us. As it currently stands, the application for review by the Chief Health Officer provides one business day for that review to be conducted. As we have heard, when a person receives a mandatory testing order they do not receive any information about the review process. They do not get told that there is a review process or how they can engage with that process. Then they have one day to activate that review process. Assume that someone is in a situation where they do not know that a review can even take place. Then, in the course of, say, the day they discuss it with other people who inform them that perhaps there is a right to review or that maybe they might want to contact their local community legal centre to see whether they can get some support. That day will have expired and they will have lost their opportunity to have a review conducted. As such, the amendments simply seek to change one business day to seven business days. I appreciate that we may hear from members that they think seven days is too long. I am happy to entertain the idea that we maybe go to three, four or five. But I think we would all agree that, if someone gets an order and it does not even tell them how or where to apply for the review and then the period in which to seek the review is only one day, it actually seems a little like this piece of legislation is trying to make sure that no-one ever seeks a review. It sounds like it is trying to go through a process whereby the person who receives a mandatory testing order never knows that there is a review process. It is trying to placate the concerns that might exist on the Government benches about this legislation by putting in a review process, but then the process is so hidden that nobody knows or is told how to access it. If someone does somehow find out, they only get one day to do it. Once they have found out that it exists, the one day is possibly up by that stage. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4924
All of us would appreciate that if you ran a community legal centre today and were handed one of those mandatory testing orders then it is highly unlikely that you would be able to get advice on what to do about it on the same day and in the same phone call. I imagine that some members of this place have their lawyers on speed dial—or even on retainer—and can probably ring up at any time of the day or night to get the legal advice they need, but most members of the community do not have that luxury or that privilege. We need to recognise that reality. These amendments simply seek to create an extension for the application and review time period from one day to seven business days. I think everyone will agree that that is necessary, and the idea that people need to get legal advice about this is crucial. We need to recognise that people should not be pressured into taking blood tests through coercive behaviour and that there has to be a proper appeals process. It is not a proper appeals process if you do not know about it or have time to request a review. I think that is really problematic. I hope and imagine we will hear that those matters will be dealt with by the upper House inquiry. But we are in the lower House of the New South Wales Parliament, where we are all elected to take positions to represent the views of our community and the policies and principles of our parties. The Greens have made clear we support the principle that if you are going to offer people access to justice then they need to be aware of what the process is. I hope that when it comes to the right to seek a review the New South Wales Labor Opposition, other members of the crossbench and indeed some members of the Government do not believe a one-day review period is an adequate process. The amendments simply seek to allow seven business days as opposed to one business day. I hope that we see some support for the amendments in this place. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (19:27:14): I support these very commonsense amendments from the member for Newtown. In the current bill a person who is subject to a mandatory testing order has only one business day to request a review from the Chief Health Officer. As we have already heard, they may not necessarily even be aware of that right at that point. This provides absolutely no time to get in contact with advocacy and support services, especially if that person has employment, education or carer duties. Most community legal centres do not have the capacity to see clients within one business day and it would be very difficult for most people to understand their rights. The system cannot be fair if people do not have access to advice about their rights and options, or if the appeal period is grossly inadequate. I support the amendments, which go to the wider concern that this bill has absolutely zero safeguards. As the member for Newtown put it, having a 24-hour—one day—period during which to seek a review is certainly not sufficient. The examples that we have been provided with could be traumatic for both people, who could still be dealing with quite traumatising experiences. With this bill, the order is in force within one day. The amendments go to the lack of due process and procedural fairness in the bill. They will have no impact whatsoever on whether transmission has occurred. I strongly support the amendments moved by the member for Newtown. I think seven days is a good period but, as the member for Newtown said, this could potentially be amended. It is an issue that I hope the upper House committee looks at, but the issue of procedural fairness and natural justice should be something we all support. I commend the member for Newtown and the amendments. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (19:29:37): The Government opposes the amendments because they fail to acknowledge that the intent of this legislation is to reduce the time that frontline workers spend waiting to find out whether they have acquired a bloodborne disease. The Chief Health Officer's guidelines are not proposed to be incorporated into the regulations. This provides flexibility to the Chief Health Officer and ensures that he or she can update and amend the guidelines as required. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (19:30:17): I appreciate the Minister's comment that the intention is to do this with a level of speed and to be able to provide reassurance and support to the worker who has made an application for a mandatory testing order. But it is a concerning approach because it suggests that we are putting a review process in place that we would prefer people did not enact or activate, firstly, by not telling them there is a review process or how they can apply for it; and, secondly, by providing such a short time frame that they will be unable in almost every circumstance to activate it. Maybe the Minister wants to just move an amendment to remove the review process from the bill, and then we will see what this bill is really about. It is not about a sense of justice and fairness or about recognising a balance between all the different parties involved. It is clearly an attempt to provide more and excessive powers to certain officers over citizens in New South Wales, without any course for review. It is very important to recognise—and it is really key for people to understand—that there is a way that this could be expedited in line with health expertise. First, if we were dealing with a health bill that covered frontline emergency services workers or other workers who feared they had contracted a bloodborne disease, the Government would immediately provide them with counselling and a support person. Secondly, the Government would immediately provide them with the free medical care they required and with the advice they needed about bloodborne viruses and diseases. Thirdly, if that person was known, then health workers would speak to the person and see whether they were willing to provide and disclose any information about their health in relation to that Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4925
matter. Fourthly, they could then provide the necessary assistance in terms of the medical treatment that would be required for risk prevention as a result of a potential contamination or bloodborne virus transfer. If the Government wanted to take an expedited approach to this then it could remove a whole lot of the stress. It could take testing outside this law enforcement, tough-on-law-and-order mandatory testing approach and put it into a healthcare framework—a harm minimisation framework—where the person who was impacted by this at work was provided with that support and where the person who was inflicting it was also provided with the health care they needed. But the Minister is not interested in actually providing that level of care, counselling and support. We know that because the Minister voted against the amendment that would have seen both the worker and the third party offered counselling and support. We know that the Minister is not here to actually provide that support and care, but for another agenda. That is to deliver on the Police Association of NSW's unrelenting push for the idea of mandatory spit testing to mandatory disease testing and now to the bill before us. We need to call this out because it is not something new. This has been pushed in other States and it has been pushed multiple times in New South Wales. I give credit to all the people who were previously in decision-making roles in the New South Wales Labor Party, the New South Wales Liberal Party and The Nationals that, until this very point, no-one caved in to it. Everybody took a principled stance and said, "That is not how we do things in this State." There might be things that we agree or disagree on, but we do not play politics with this kind of stuff. We do not cave in to this attempt to create fear and additional anxiety in the community, and to create excessive police powers under the guise of doing that. This is a simple amendment. It simply says that if we are going to have a review process, people should have the time to make an application for a review. One day is not enough time for that to happen. That is not enough time for anybody to make an informed decision based on the advice they receive, and The Greens believe it is not a legitimate way to ensure a review process can be accessed. It is for that reason that we move this amendment, which seeks to extend it from one business day to seven business days. We hope the Opposition and the Government stop voting together on this. If they want to vote together, vote for our amendment. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (19:35:20): I acknowledge the Minister's concern for the need for a frontline officer to get results and information as soon as possible, but we need to look at whether that is an accurate assumption. If there were a situation where the potential for this had occurred, it would be important to provide counselling and appropriate health care, as the member for Newtown has stressed. As I have said previously in this debate, you cannot contract HIV from saliva. Mr David Elliott: It is not just saliva that gets tested. Mr ALEX GREENWICH: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection and I have moved amendments to try to tighten this, but the fact is that what we have heard in this debate from various members is the theory that if a frontline officer is spat at, they cannot go back to their family, cannot kiss their wife and cannot hug their kids. I have heard those very words from members. We have heard that they need to have assurance. The assurances come from proper training on how transmission actually occurs. There obviously has been some fearmongering about HIV and AIDS. Mr David Elliott: It is about more than HIV and AIDS. Mr ALEX GREENWICH: I am sorry, Minister, the bill is about more than HIV and AIDS. The bill deals with blood testing, and blood testing in relation to COVID-19 has not proved to be 100 per cent accurate. If the Government is interested in putting in place COVID-19 protections, it has the ability to do so through public health orders during a pandemic. The concern I have—and why I support the member for Newtown's amendment—is that some of the narrative we have heard in this debate goes back to a time when it was said that if you hugged a gay person or if you shook a gay person's hand, you would catch AIDS. That is the tone of some of the debate we have heard. This amendment puts proper due process in place and allows a seven-day period so that a person can seek support and understand what their rights are. What is so bad about that? I commend the member for Newtown and her amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (19:38:50): The Minister is interjecting and raising concerns that it is not just about HIV, that they are not fearmongering or that these are concerns that are not being raised. I make note of a letter received by The Greens from the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine [ASHM], which refers to concerns they have around this bill. ASHM provides clinical expertise, which shapes national leadership and advice on strategic policy, social issues, emerging risks and priority actions related to HIV, and hepatitis B and C. The letter reads: ASHM recognises the difficult, stressful and often dangerous situations that correctional officers, police and other emergency service first responding personnel enter into on a daily basis and along with our sector colleagues condemn any and all assaults inflicted on them in the course of their work. The safety and welfare of all law enforcement officers and emergency services personnel is important and essential for the entire community. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4926
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber agrees with that sentiment. We absolutely agree. ASHM goes on to say: However, proposing that mandatory testing of an alleged perpetrator for bloodborne infections would in some way bring peace of mind to those who have experienced assault is not supported by the evidence. The premise of mandatory testing is based on outdated and unscientific understandings of the transmission of HIV and other bloodborne viruses. It is not supported by global health bodies such as UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation on the basis that it breaches human rights, compromises public health initiatives and other efforts to eliminate HIV and other bloodborne virus transmission, nor is it in line with Australian national HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C testing policies. The key principles guiding bloodborne virus testing in Australia are that testing is conducted ethically, is voluntary and performed with the informed consent of, and is beneficial to, the person being tested. Mandatory testing meets none of these requirements. It is important to put that on the record because we are not debating a health bill. The health Minister is not taking the lead on dealing with the protection of people who are concerned about their health. This is a police bill. The bill has been introduced by the police Minister. Mr David Elliott: No, it is not. It is an emergency services bill, and doctors, nurses and paramedics are captured. Ms JENNY LEONG: Okay. The bill has also been introduced by the emergency services Minister. It is not a health-based approach. It does not listen to the health experts. It contradicts the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine. As far as I am aware, while the Minister may perform a number of roles in the House, one of them is not an expert on bloodborne viruses, HIV, viral hepatitis or sexual health medicine. Mr David Elliott: Neither are you. Ms JENNY LEONG: Neither am I, Minister, but the difference is that I am listening to those experts, and they are saying: The premise of mandatory testing is based on outdated and unscientific understandings of the transmission of HIV and other bloodborne viruses. Mr David Elliott: The nurses want this. Ms JENNY LEONG: I note the Minister's interjection. The nurses also want a pay rise and the Government is not delivering on that. The Government cannot pick and choose what the interests of the public service are in this State. We need to recognise that difficult decisions need to be made. The Chamber needs to provide leadership to the community, which has an unfounded fear around risks of transmissions. That is not to say that people do not have a founded fear in the violence that might be perpetrated against them. That is real and something that needs to be dealt with. But the way that the bill is being presented—as the member for Sydney has mentioned on multiple occasions—is that somehow those risks mean you cannot hug or kiss a family member or your child. That is just plain offensive. We need to talk about the impact of the bill. By having this debate and not talking about the facts and listening to the health experts, we are failing the community and we are failing people who have already been ostracised as a result of previous Government decisions and who will once again be punished by this bill. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper): The question is that The Greens amendments Nos 6 and 7 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being fewer than five members against the question, the question is resolved in the negative. I direct that the names of those members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ayes, 4 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Dr J. McGirr Mr J. Parker Amendments negatived. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (19:50:35): I move my amendment No. 7 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 7 Stay of mandatory testing order while review conducted Page 12, clause 23, lines 18–26. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— If an application for review is made by a third party after a senior officer has made a mandatory testing order, the mandatory testing order is stayed until the Chief Health Officer determines the application for review under section 24. In the bill, a person who has requested a review of their mandatory testing order will still be required to undergo a venipuncture to test for bloodborne diseases or face a hefty fine or significant jail sentence, and a person who Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4927
has been detained and refuses the test could have force used against them to make them comply. As it stands, the only effect of a review request is that the results are withheld from the medical practitioner authorised by the worker. This means that if the Chief Health Officer determines that an application should have been refused, a person would have still been forced to have had a blood test as a result of an unlawful or invalid order. This would be untenable. My amendment stipulates that an application for review will render the entire order ineffective until the Chief Health Officer has made a determination on it. If it is decided that an order should proceed, the test can be conducted as soon as possible and the results can then be released. This is a straightforward amendment that provides a safeguard in the bill to ensure that if a person has exercised their rights and asked for a review, which is currently being limited to one day, then a test cannot be compulsory. For an appeal to have been lodged, it should be accepted that a person has a good reason for doing so. However, as the bill currently stands, the test can be forced upon them. This goes to the concern that the bill contains no safeguards, does not respect due process and can be weaponised against a third party. Not only does the bill mandate that no counselling is offered to a person and time for the review is limited to one day, but also it can force a person to undergo a venipuncture for a blood test. It acknowledges that the test may have been completely inappropriate, but too bad: it will be conducted regardless. This is a very concerning precedent, and my amendment seeks to remedy this issue through the proper process of allowing the Chief Health Officer to make a determination on applications for review. I commend the amendment to the House. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (19:54:06): On behalf of The Greens I offer our support for the amendment moved by the member for Sydney, which would require a stay of a mandatory testing order while a review is conducted. I keep coming back to how this bill would work in practice, because it is almost impossible for me to comprehend that we are debating legislation that would do this. But apparently this is where we find ourselves. A review can be conducted into whether a mandatory testing order was legitimate, but it appears that under the bill the mandatory testing order can occur before the review has made a determination. We will go through the process of how it happens. An incident may or may not occur, because there is no requirement for any independent process to oversee the matter or to confirm that the incident did occur. After an incident may or may not have occurred, the worker makes an application for a mandatory testing order. The worker's superior or senior officer grants that mandatory testing order without having seen any medical advice or any indication that there even could have been a risk of transmission of a bloodborne virus. That person may have absolutely no medical training and no understanding of how bloodborne viruses are transmitted. In fact, they may have just googled it before they decided to make the determination. They may have come across some fake news site or some equivalent site with scare tactics, or maybe they have looked on Facebook and seen something about the risks of AIDS and homosexuals or some other offensive comment like that, and then determined that there is a legitimate reason to make a mandatory testing order. They then make the mandatory testing order on the third party. The third party receives the mandatory testing order. At that point they are eligible to request a review, but the mandatory testing order has no information about the fact that they are eligible for review. I note that the Attorney General is in the Chamber and I hope that he has some concerns about this process. The third party is not informed that there is a review process or how to engage in that process. They then have one day—24 hours—to undertake that review, if they somehow find out in 24 hours that there is a review process. If they are successful in, one, finding out that there is a review process and, two, getting advice on the review process within one day, the test can still go ahead even though they are waiting for a review. The reason they are asking for a review is to review whether they need to have the test, but the test can happen while the review is taking place. I appreciate that the Minister seems very uninterested in supporting any of these reasonable amendments, and I appreciate that he is on a mission to get this bill passed without taking on board any of the genuine, sensible and reasonable concerns that have been raised about it. But surely if someone is appealing for a review of a mandatory testing order, it is important to ensure that the mandatory testing order does not take place before the review is conducted. That seems to be a basic and common understanding of what it means to request a review of something, because if it has already occurred by the time the review is determined then it really misses the point of the review. It is also important to point out that in the amendment of the member for Sydney, this is the point at which the Chief Health Officer is involved in the process. For the first time in this long series of events that may or may not have occurred, it is the first time that a health professional's opinion would be involved in the process. Up until now there may have been someone who is expert in the area of policing or prison systems or the Ombudsman overseeing the process. This is the first time that someone with any medical expertise would be engaging with the determination. Mr David Elliott: What's a paramedic? Ms JENNY LEONG: I note the Minister's interjection, but the reality is that we are talking about a number of agencies here, many which do not have health expertise. So it is unacceptable to say that. But if the Minister is not worried about the idea of health oversight, why on earth would he not support this amendment? Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4928
Business interrupted. Business of the House SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS: DIVISIONS Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla—Attorney General, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence) (19:59:16): I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that for the remainder of this sitting the maximum time for divisions shall be seven minutes. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (19:59:34): I support the suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the Leader of the House. I greatly appreciate the full and thorough debate on amendments that we are able to have and I acknowledge that the member's motion may help to move things along by reducing the time for divisions. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Bills MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 Consideration in Detail Consideration resumed from an earlier hour. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (20:00:10): The Government opposes the amendment moved by the member for Sydney, as it fails to appreciate that the intent of the legislation is to reduce the time that frontline workers are left without information relating to potential exposure to bloodborne diseases. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper): The question is that amendment No. 7 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being fewer than five members for the question, the question is resolved in the negative. Ayes, 5 Mr A Greenwich Ms J Leong Dr J McGirr Mr J Parker Amendment negatived. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (20:04:40): I move The Greens amendment No. 8 on sheet c2020-291B: No. 8 Consultation about guidelines Page 16, clause 32(3), line 21. Omit "Service." Insert instead— Service, (f1) the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, (f2) the Mental Health Commissioner, (f3) the head of Aboriginal Affairs NSW, (f4) the Chief Executive Officer of Multicultural NSW, (f5) the Corporate Sponsor, Sexuality, Gender Diversity and Intersex, NSW Police, (f6) the Corporate Sponsor, Aboriginal Engagement, NSW Police, (f7) AIDS Council of NSW, (f8) Positive Life NSW, (f9) the Chief Executive Officer of the NSW Users and AIDS Association, (f10) the Sex Workers Outreach Project Inc, (f11) a person who has expertise in Indigenous health, (f12) the Scarlet Alliance, (f13) the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine, Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4929
(f14) Hepatitis NSW, (f15) the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council. This amendment seeks to add additional government organisations and non-government organisations to the list of organisations that will be consulted about the guidelines to be developed about the mandatory test regime. Members will note that part 9 new section 32 (3) contains a list of people who the Chief Health Officer is to consult with: the Secretary, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, the Commissioner of the State Emergency Service and the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service. This amendment seeks to add additional organisations and positions to be consulted as part of the development of the guidelines. We feel it is important for the bill to recognise the scope and scale of the kinds of stakeholders that are involved in the implementation of a bill such as this. We believe that the following should be added to the list to be consulted under the guidelines: the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board; the Mental Health Commissioner; the head of Aboriginal Affairs NSW; the chief executive officer for Multicultural NSW; the Corporate Sponsor for Sexuality, Gender Diversity and Intersex for the NSW Police Force; the Corporate Sponsor for Aboriginal Engagement for the NSW Police Force; the Aids Council of New South Wales; Positive Life NSW; the chief executive officer of the NSW Users and AIDS Association; the Sex Workers Outreach Project; a person who has expertise in Indigenous health; the Scarlet Alliance; the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine; Hepatitis NSW; and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council. Obviously, the Chief Health Officer has the capacity to consult with those organisations as she wishes. We add these organisations because it is important to identify all the different parts of the community that will be impacted by the bill. I recognise that the Minister has said there is no intention in the bill to cause additional division or problems between, say, the LGBTI community and the police, and that there is no intention to vilify anybody here or to single anybody out to cause harm. As an act of goodwill to show that is not the intention of the bill, the Government's support would be welcomed. All that is required is that these organisations be consulted by the Chief Health Officer. There is no change to the implementation of any part of the legislation. The amendment simply recognises that there are communities expressing concern about the need for the bill and the health risks it presents. We would hope that, given how long we have been debating the bill and the amendments, at the very least the Minister would recognise that bringing on board additional expertise and support to provide guidance to the Chief Health Officer would be valuable. I have a feeling that if we were in another time and in another place, and if the Minister had a different view about my politics, maybe this amendment would be supported. It would be a real shame that just because the Minister and I may have different views on things like how we engage with police, the emergency services or previous counterterrorism issues it would somehow cause the Liberal-Nationals Government not to take on board what is a reasonable suggestion to expand the groups to be consulted about the guidelines. I appreciate that we might hear from the Minister and he may have concerns about some of those organisations, but at the very least he should support the idea that other government agencies that are relevant to this should be included as a vital part of the consultation process. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (20:09:58): I support the amendment moved by the member for Newtown about consultation and the list of stakeholders to be included. The amendment goes to the establishment of guidelines by the Chief Health Officer and the entities with whom the Chief Health Officer needs to consult in forming those guidelines. Currently the bill limits those to a number of government departments that represent frontline workers, and I fully support the inclusion of those entities and bodies. If we are to have faith in the process that will come with the bill, there has to be full and thorough consultation with all impacted parties. As I have outlined multiple times, my concern is that I do not want to see any further disruption between the police or other emergency services and vulnerable groups. To ensure that outcome one would hope that there would be full and thorough consultation with those groups. The amendment moved by the member for Newtown not only includes organisations that the New South Wales Government regularly consults with—like the Aids Council of New South Wales, for example. It also includes government agencies like Multicultural NSW. Importantly, it includes the corporate sponsors for sexuality and gender diverse people, and Aboriginal engagement within the police. Those are two positions which will have to deal with many of the struggles that will come with the implementation of the bill. Whether members like it or not, there will be struggles. All the amendment seeks to do is make sure that the views of a range of other key stakeholders are heard when forming the guidelines. Doing so will help the implementation of this policy. I support the sensible amendment moved by the member for Newtown. I appreciate the consultation she has undertaken to build the robust list of people, which is all about ensuring that when and if Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4930
this legislation comes into effect there has been proper consultation with those bodies. Again, this is a safeguard around good process, full legislation and the formation of guidelines. I support the amendment. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (20:12:53): The Government opposes the amendment. We believe it is cumbersome and unnecessary. I have heard from the member for Newtown ad nauseam over the course of the debate that I am not a medical practitioner and therefore probably not competent to take part in some of these debates. However, the Chief Health Officer is competent. She is a healthcare professional and I would expect that she has the maximum amount of flexibility to consult as widely as she needs to and not be limited to the list presented by the member for Newtown. Some of the people that she might have to provide advice on behalf of may not be captured by those groups that the member for Newtown has listed. They may include the RSL or the Vietnam Veterans Association. Let us not restrict ourselves. Let us not dictate to the Chief Health Officer, who has served us so well over the past six months, about who and what she needs to consult with. For that reason, the House should reject the amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (20:14:11): I point out that we are not dictating who the Chief Health Officer should be consulting with. We are saying—and I think this is really important—that the list that is put in the guideline for consultation is deliberately put there. The suggestion that we have a cumbersome list but the list in the legislation is not cumbersome is missing the point. I am not coming out of nowhere and putting in a cumbersome list of people who need to be consulted when there was no list before. There is a list of names here. The list refers to the Commissioner of Police, the secretary, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, the Commissioner of the State Emergency Service and the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service. The problem is—and this is the important point—that this list requires consultation with people who are part of enacting this mandatory testing order. In fact, they are the decision-makers. As senior officers, they will potentially be the ones who oversee the decisions that are made. They are directly involved. The idea that the people listed would be only those people is cause for concern. It is also important for us to recognise that this list will send a message to the people who read this legislation, particularly in the context of the upper House inquiry. That is why I looked to the shadow Minister to see whether there was any support for inserting in the bill organisations like the Aids Council of New South Wales [ACON], Positive Life NSW, the Sex Workers Outreach Project [SWOP], the Scarlet Alliance, the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine, Hepatitis NSW, Multicultural NSW, the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Mental Health Commissioner. Putting that list in the bill sends a message to people that we recognise the impact of this bill is broader than just the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, Fire and Rescue NSW, the State Emergency Service and the NSW Rural Fire Service. It says that we recognise this will impact all of the community. This legislation is not just for those top-level officials within those emergency services; it will have an impact on all people in the community. It is very important to point out—and I think the member for Sydney made this very clear—that if the Government votes against this amendment it will be voting against the inclusion of its own agencies and the Corporate Sponsor of Sexuality, Gender Diversity and Intersex, NSW Police, and the Corporate Sponsor of Aboriginal Engagement, NSW Police, from being listed as people to be consulted by the Chief Health Officer. I recognise that this debate has gone on for a while, but it is important for us to make sure that all of this is placed on record. The Minister for police will come in here and vote against an amendment that will ensure we listen to the people in the NSW Police Force with the expertise to assist the vulnerable communities we have been talking about and are concerned about. I appreciate that maybe the Minister does not want to hear from the Sex Workers Outreach Project, maybe the Minister does not want to hear from ACON, maybe the Minister does not want to hear from Hepatitis NSW or the Scarlet Alliance or Positive Life NSW or the Mental Health Commissioner or Aboriginal Affairs NSW. The New South Wales police commissioner talks up the commitment to diversity within the NSW Police Force, the commitment to building good relationships with the LGBTI community and the commitment to building good relationships with the Aboriginal community. That the Minister will then vote against an amendment that seeks to put the corporate sponsors of the New South Wales police on the list of people to be consulted is something that needs to be considered. It is up to the Minister to amend the list to include the people he believes it is reasonable to list. But I think it is crucial to expand the list to demonstrate it is not just the commissioners or senior Health bureaucrats but community members and people who represent different areas of health expertise who need to be consulted. I appreciate that the shadow Minister refers regularly to the fact that Labor will support an inquiry into the bill and consider amendments to it in due course, but this does not need an inquiry. This is about including groups like ACON, Positive Life NSW, SWOP, Indigenous health experts, the Scarlet Alliance, medical experts, the Mental Health Commissioner and Aboriginal Affairs NSW. It is about recognising Multicultural NSW. It is about Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4931
voting to support those groups being consulted on the bill. I hope that, at the very least, Labor wants to hear from those community stakeholders when it comes to the implementation of this bill. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (20:19:11): I welcome the Minister's comment that the Chief Health Officer is empowered to consult with a wide group of people and organisations. We hope the Chief Health Officer will do that, and it is obviously a welcome statement. As the member for Newtown clearly said, there is significant concern about this legislation and its implementation. With this amendment, we hope to send a message that specific organisations will be consulted on the rollout of the guidelines in the bill. That is a very sensible approach that acknowledges the implementation of the bill will be problematic but, for it to be done in a harmonious way, key groups need to be consulted in establishing the guidelines. I support The Greens amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that The Greens amendment No. 8 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being only five members in the minority having challenged my decision, I declare the determination of the House to be in the affirmative. I direct that the names of those members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ayes, 5 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Dr J. McGirr Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Amendment negatived. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (20:25:07): I move my amendment No. 8 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 8 Chief Health Officer's guidelines to be adopted by regulation Page 16, clause 32(4), line 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (4) The guidelines have effect only if adopted by the regulations. (5) Despite section 2, this Act does not have effect until guidelines have been adopted under subsection (4). Forcing someone to take a blood test to determine whether they have HIV or another bloodborne disease is a significant impost on their human rights. The rules that define and limit the circumstances when mandatory testing can be ordered must be transparent and based on evidence. This bill provides for guidelines to help senior officers make determinations, medical practitioners to provide advice to workers and persons to take blood from a person subject to an order. It should therefore significantly alarm all members that the bill will allow the issuing of mandatory testing orders and, as a result, mandatory blood tests to proceed whether or not the guideline has been issued. Furthermore, the guidelines cannot be contested in any way and are not subject to any scrutiny. As we have heard in debate on the previous amendment, the member for Newtown and I have tried to ensure an increased number of organisations to be consulted but, unfortunately, that amendment was not supported. I note that the Government seeks to do a fair amount of work by regulation that is sometimes appropriate. I also note that non-government parties often ask for the regulations to be made clear and defined before the legislation comes into effect. My amendment has two purposes. First, it is very much a procedural amendment to make sure that the guidelines are in place before the bill is enacted, which is a straightforward concept that has been called for in a number of bills by the Opposition, and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, and I have called for on every possible occasion. It is more significantly important now. Given we have been told by the Government that it does not wish the bill to be used in a perverse way and that it has given assurances that this is just about the best interests of the first responder worker, let us make sure that the guidelines are in place. Let us make sure that it is clear what a person can or cannot do, and can or cannot say. Let us make sure that the supports that are offered are clear, which is what this amendment seeks to do. This amendment will ensure that the operations of the bill, and therefore mandatory testing orders, cannot proceed until the guidelines have been issued. Furthermore, the guidelines will be required to be set out in the regulation to ensure that the Parliament can provide oversight through access to a disallowance motion. This is a critically important amendment. From a procedural standpoint I hope that the Opposition and other crossbenchers can at least seek to support it. I am sure this amendment will attract much discussion in the upper House inquiry. But again this amendment seeks to provide those vulnerable groups who are concerned about the bill with some assurance that the rules will be in place before the bill comes into force. Without such an assurance there will be a great deal of concern and alarm. I commend the amendment. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (20:29:03): On behalf of The Greens I offer our support for amendment No. 8 of Mr Alex Greenwich in regard to the Chief Health Officer's guidelines to be adopted by regulation. This Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4932
amendment is very much about the processes of how these things work. As Mr Alex Greenwich has articulated, this is a sensible amendment that seeks to put the guidelines into the regulations and, crucially, to ensure that the Act does not take effect until the guidelines have been adopted. I know the New South Wales Labor Party, the Opposition party in this Chamber, has taken a position already. We have heard it articulated and spoken of publicly in the media that things are deferred off to regulations, and bills are enacted before the regulations have been seen. We also know that the upper House has a good and strong history of sometimes raising concerns about regulations and then having to go back and redraft things. We know the Opposition has a clear position on ensuring that guidelines are included in regulations, the regulations are then put in place, people are made aware of them and they are adopted before the Act comes into effect. It is particularly important in this case because on a number of occasions the Minister has said in discussions that the intent of amendments will be dealt with in the guidelines or in the regulations. Health will have oversight of and input into this Mandatory Disease Testing Bill through the guidelines. As the bill stands, there is no requirement for those guidelines to be in place before the mandatory testing regime starts without the passing of this amendment. There is also no ability for the Parliament to have any oversight over those guidelines. If we put the guidelines in the regulation, the Parliament, at least in the Legislative Council, will have some oversight. In addition, the Act cannot come into effect until the guidelines are in the agreed regulations. This amendment is very important in determining whether this Chamber will pass on the responsibility for all of those things, and put its trust and faith in the Minister to act in the best interests of all of the community in New South Wales. I do not know whether the shadow Minister, New South Wales Labor and the crossbenchers feel comfortable about that. If they do not they could support this relatively procedural amendment, which would require the guidelines to be put into the regulations, and then require the regulations to come into effect before the Act can be administered. It is particularly crucial in the context of thinking about how this will be conducted. Under the review process people will not be informed that they can ask for a review when they receive a mandatory testing order. If they somehow manage to find out how to apply for a review, they will have only one day, or 24 hours, to ask for that review. We have heard a lot of detail about how that will happen: Potentially people will be told about the review process in the guidelines or alternatively in the regulations. Instead, this mandatory testing order regime could be enacted before we have any of those guidelines and before there is any health involvement in any of these decisions or discussions. Simultaneously there will be no oversight by the Parliament if we have concerns about those guidelines or the regulations. I hope that this amendment will get support from both the Government and New South Wales Labor. It is particularly interesting to note, and important to put on record, that New South Wales Labor has consistently voted against the amendments moved by me and Mr Alex Greenwich in relation to this bill, and consistently voted with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Minister responsible for this Liberal-Nationals bill. It is important to note that out in the world there is a concept of what the Opposition is in this place. But as we have heard a consistent deferral of a decision by New South Wales Labor in the past many hours that we have been debating the bill and then it votes with the Government, it makes me question how strong the Opposition is and how principled is its stance on matters relating to protecting and serving the community. I ask the Opposition to take a strong stance, and support this amendment. Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) (20:34:13): I am opposed to the amendment proposed by the member for Sydney. I have a high regard for the member for Sydney's input and ability, and I understand the sentiments of what he proposes. However, I caution the House that to enact legislation that enables guidelines to be incorporated in regulations is a fundamental error. A practice has developed in this State, which I consider to be scandalous, whereby guidelines or codes of conduct are being given legislative effect by regulation. What that means is some bureaucrat sitting in a department can change a guideline arbitrarily without anybody knowing about it, and that is given legislative effect or legal effect by the authority of this Parliament. The fact is, it is for the Parliament to decide to impact upon people's rights, not some bureaucrat tinkering with guidelines. The Opposition has proposed—and it has been well articulated by the member for Auburn—that the appropriate place to resolve the problems with this legislation is in the other place through the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The bill proposed by the Government does have a substantial impact upon the civil rights of citizens of this State. During times of crisis, or for the reasons that have been articulated by both the Minister and the shadow Minister, there are times when those rights have to be impinged upon for the protection of everybody, but getting the balance right is the most difficult thing. That is why it is appropriate that those members in the other place, who are not controlled by the Government of the day—thank heavens—can apply a more independent and open mind. The police Minister is the last person who should be given the fundamental right of impacting upon the civil rights of citizens in this State. I say that if their rights are to be impinged upon that should occur by legislation Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4933
and not by regulation. I ask members to imagine that the police Minister is going to issue some regulation that would allow the arbitrary imprisonment of those they did not like—and that would be this police Minister, I can tell you. I would be the first to be subject to the impact of any regulation that he would sign! I understand the sentiments expressed by the member for Sydney and supported by the member for Newtown. I understand their concern about the impact on the civil rights of citizens of this State. But it is naive in the extreme to suggest, firstly, that somehow or other there should be some regulation power in the hands of a Minister that takes away the rights and freedoms of a citizen. Secondly, it is even worse to suggest that there should be guidelines that enable regulations to be adopted that would take away the rights of citizens. As I say, the position of the Opposition has been well articulated by the member for Auburn, and that is for the appropriate solution to these amendments to be determined in the other place. Certainly, with the best will in the world, these amendments are not appropriate in the circumstances—particularly the mode of reason contained in what is proposed to amend clause 32. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (20:38:32): As mover of the amendment, I would like to respond to the member for Heffron's contribution. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Heffron and his contribution to this House. My amendment does not give the regulation-making powers of the guidelines to the Minister; the bill, as supported in the second reading debate by the New South Wales Labor Opposition, does that. My amendment states that the guidelines—which are the rules and the code of practice on the implementation of this—must be in the regulations. We have to know what they are before the bill comes into effect. That is what my amendment is seeking to do. Mr Ron Hoenig: I said it should be in legislation, not in regulation. Mr ALEX GREENWICH: That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. Just to that point of clarification—and I agree with the member for Heffron that far too much is being left to regulation. I agree that we need to make sure that things are made clear before laws come into effect. That is what my amendment is seeking to do today. However, I acknowledge the concerns that the member for Heffron raised about the bill and its impact on civil liberties and other concerns. This is a straightforward amendment that goes to ensuring that stakeholders can trust the implementation of this by understanding what the guidelines are. As the member for Heffron said, the Government does not control the upper House. As such, my amendment also provides for the ability of the upper House, if there is a concern with those guidelines, to deal with it in that place. Most of the content and the "vibe" of the member for Heffron's contribution is more of an argument for my amendment than against it. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (20:40:45): I am horrified that the member for Heffron believes that if I found myself in the unfortunate situation of having arbitrary powers to incarcerate people I would even consider him being anywhere near the top of the list. There are plenty of my own family, friends and colleagues who would go way before him. The Government will be opposing the proposed amendment from the member for Sydney. I note that the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word "guidelines" is "a piece of advice". As the member for Heffron quite rightly and well articulated, you cannot define advice—particularly, in my mind, for a scientist such as the Chief Health Officer. I would have thought the Chief Health Officer would need to consider any number of variables when considering this particular legislation. Therefore, forcing her—or him, as the case may be—to consider any guideline or any piece of advice, which may or may not change from one situation to another or one period of time to another, is ludicrous. For that reason, the Government opposes the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that amendment No.8 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being five members in the minority having challenged my decision, the question is resolved in the negative. Ayes, 5 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. McGirr Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Amendment negatived. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (20:47:54): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 on sheet c2020-291B in globo: No. 9 Delegation Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4934
Page 16, clause 34(1), lines 42 and 43. Omit "a person of a class prescribed by the regulations". Insert instead "another senior officer". No. 10 Delegation Page 16, clause 34. Insert after line 43— (1A) However, a senior officer cannot delegate the exercise of a function in relation to an application for a mandatory testing order to another senior officer who is or has been involved in or connected to the incident that resulted in the application for the order being made. These two amendments deal with the powers in the bill to delegate to another senior officer or another officer the responsibility of determining a mandatory testing order application. Given the serious nature of this oversight, it is the view of The Greens that if a delegation is to take place it should be from one senior officer to another senior officer. The concern is that it is important to recognise the seriousness of this matter. One would hope that as part of the guidelines that will be developed, there will be training for senior officers on how to apply or assess an application for a mandatory testing order and then how to make a decision in that regard. The Greens, in moving this amendment and having consulted with a number of groups and organisations, which have expressed concerns about the bill, consider that delegation should be to another senior officer, recognising that senior officers will have the expertise to make that determination. Amendment No. 10 ensures that a senior officer cannot delegate the exercise of a function in relation to an application for a mandatory testing order to another senior officer who is or has been involved in or is connected to the incident that resulted in the application for the order being made. The reason for this amendment is that the legislation as it currently stands involves the risk of delegation of this function to another senior officer who was connected or involved in the incident. Obviously that would be far from ideal. The scenario of delegation to another senior officer at the same level seems to be the appropriate way to handle both the need for a senior officer to delegate the responsibilities and at the same time recognising that the senior officer is trained and aware of how to conduct their responsibilities. This is a very serious bill and has vast ramifications for civil liberties and human rights. It forces people to have blood tests against their will. The idea that a senior officer would be responsible for that is at the very least a safeguard. The amendments will ensure that another senior officer will take charge of that responsibility if the original senior officer determining the matter is unable to do so. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (20:51:06): This bill allows a senior officer to delegate the role to another officer in line with regulations. It is a matter of concern that there are no limits on how this delegation can be used. Under the bill as drafted, it could be delegated to a junior officer or officers who were somehow connected to an incident and enables mandatory testing orders to be used to gang up on vulnerable people. The amendments will make it clear that the senior officer must delegate the role of determining an application for a mandatory testing order only to another senior officer. Furthermore, that delegation must ensure that the decision is independent. Again, these amendments seek to put a safeguard in this bill. They seek to protect vulnerable people and to put in place proper and due process, which otherwise is not in the legislation. These are straightforward amendments that would go to alleviating a lot of the concerns that have been outlined by me, the member for Newtown and even members of the Labor Opposition, who have raised concerns about this bill. I support the amendments. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (20:52:33): I acknowledge the contributions to the debate of the member for Sydney and the member for Newtown. I advise the House that the Government will not support the amendments. Serious consideration has been given to the ranks determined by this legislation by both the Cabinet and the agencies. The officers referred to hold a rank that reflects significant training and significant experience. It is standard operating procedure that is very common in all combat agencies and reflects the fact that commissioners cannot always be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It also reflects the fact that at some stage members of these combat agencies reach a rank. When they do, they are authorised to make executive decisions. I think that these amendments are probably the most unnecessary of all the amendments that the member for Sydney and the member for Newtown have recommended. The amendments reveal a complete misunderstanding of the manner in which rank structure works in combat agencies and a misunderstanding of how experienced are those who reach the ranks that are identified in the bill. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (20:54:04): As these are the last amendments I will be moving, I state for the record my disappointment that the Minister throughout this debate, rather than engage in discussion about the contents of the bill, has made slurs against my character. Mr David Elliott: You called me a misogynist. Ms JENNY LEONG: I think that is a fact, Minister. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4935
Mr David Elliott: Point of order: I ask the member for Newtown to withdraw that comment because it was offensive. She has no understanding of my personal circumstances. To suggest that I am a misogynist is offensive and, even by her very low standards, quite crude. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I ask the member for Newtown to consider withdrawing that statement. Ms JENNY LEONG: If the Minister takes offence to that, I am happy to withdraw it. I do not think we need to continue on in the debate with name calling across the Chamber. It is disappointing to me that throughout the course of debating this bill the Minister has implied on a number of occasions that I do not understand the legislation, that I do not comprehend the legislation and that I do not understand the complexities of the internal bureaucracy in the processes of our emergency services. He suggested that I had not read the legislation and made a number of derogatory remarks suggesting that I had not consulted or spoken to his office. He has praised the member for Sydney. I agree that the member for Sydney does a very fine job. As a representative for women in this Chamber, as well as for the people in the electorate of Newtown, it is important for me to place something on record: It is very disappointing that after hours of debate, and after serious consultation with significant groups around these amendments and constructive engagement with other Ministers in the Liberal-Nationals Government who recognise that I do my homework, it is offensive that the Minister makes snide insults and remarks in order to discredit me in the context of the debate. Mr David Elliott: I learnt from you. Ms JENNY LEONG: I do not appreciate the Minister's interjections. I ask that he be called to order. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I was about to do that. The Minister will come to order. Ms JENNY LEONG: It is important to recognise that historically this Chamber has been a place where men come to debate our laws. Times have changed. There are now women in this Chamber who may have a slightly different approach or style in relation to how issues are placed on the agenda. Some members may call us hysterical, others may call us angry, nasty or passive, but we are debating these amendments and it is unacceptable that a Minister, in the context of this debate, would make those comments about a member. We have engaged with these amendments. At any point the Minister and the Government have the numbers—and we have seen it happen on the renewable electricity bill. If the Minister was genuinely interested in consulting on any of these amendments the Government could have moved the House on to another bill. We have four other bills on the business program. We could have had a conversation about that, but we did not. Instead, we had personal insults thrown across the Chamber in the middle of the debate. It is not appreciated by the community. They see how people are treated in this place, which makes it important for us to call it out when we see boys club type behaviour occurring. I know the Minister does not want to hear it. I could see he was offended by the comment that I made. It is important to reflect that if we want the diversity of our community represented in this place then we need to change the way in which we do things. That requires everybody to be okay with the idea that we face these realities. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that The Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 on sheet c2020-291B be agreed to. A division has been called for. There being only five members in the minority who have challenged my decision, I declare the determination of the House to be in the negative. I direct that the names of those members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ayes, 5 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Dr J. McGirr Mr J. Parker Mr G. Piper Amendments negatived. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I call the member for South Coast to order for the second time. I call the member for South Coast to order for the third time. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (21:03:11): I move my amendment No. 9 on sheet c2020-272G: No. 9 Oversight of Act by Ombudsman Page 18, clause 35. Insert after line 15— Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4936
(3A) Also, the Ombudsman may require a senior officer to provide demographic information about third parties subject to orders and applications for orders. We know that new and expanded police powers are regularly used against people who experience disadvantage. We have seen sniffer dogs introduced to target drug traffickers used as a reason to stripsearch young people, and we have seen move-on orders introduced to get drunk partygoers out of quiet neighbourhoods used on homeless people instead. No stated commitment can change the fact that it is likely that mandatory testing orders will be used disproportionately against people who are homeless, who have mental health concerns, who struggle with addiction, who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, who are LGBTQI, who have complex emotional problems or who are disadvantaged. In the bill the Ombudsman has been given an oversight role in the operation of orders. It is essential that the Ombudsman has access to demographic information surrounding orders in exercising their function and determine any emerging and disturbing trends. My amendment will require a senior officer to provide demographic information about third parties, subject to orders and applications, so that the Ombudsman has the ability to make conclusions as to whether marginalised groups are being targeted. The amendment will strengthen accountability and transparency. I call on members to support it. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (21:05:09): As much as I disagree with some of the motives behind the member for Sydney moving this amendment, as evidence of my pluralistic approach to politics and my benevolence as the police Minister, I am actually going to allow the Government to support this amendment as I also believe that information is power. By getting the data we will be able to prove to the member for Newtown that we are not all misogynists and not everyone involved in the policing fraternity is racist or intolerant. I think that data is going to go a long way in proving that the intent of this legislation has been embraced by the Police Force and is for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I support the amendment to ensure that the Ombudsman's office has the information it needs to carry out its functions under the Act. I thank the member for Sydney for coming and having a chat with me this morning so that we could discuss this like grown-ups. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (21:06:22): I support the member for Sydney's amendment relating to the Ombudsman's oversight role and ability to require a senior officer to provide demographic information on third parties subject to orders and applications for orders. I have never said that everybody is a misogynist, nor do I believe that everyone in the NSW Police Force is racist. What I have said consistently in this Chamber and in the public domain is that I believe there is a systemic racism problem within the NSW Police Force. In fact, I believe there is a systemic racism problem in police forces across the globe. Systemic racism is real and it is why we have seen the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement in this country and the United States. Anyone who equates the idea of calling out systemic racism with the accusation that I believe all members of the NSW Police Force are racist clearly does not understand the concepts of systemic racism, white privilege and what it means to have systemic problems within our society. It is absolutely crucial that the Ombudsman has oversight of these roles. By praising the member for Sydney for his negotiation skills, in a back-handed compliment to him, the Minister has once again insulted me and said that the member for Sydney and himself discussed it like grown-ups, implying that others with amendments in this place are not grown-ups. As women in this place and as people who do not comply with the Minister's concept of how you are supposed to "do" Parliament—in backroom deals, discussions and negotiations—at what point do we stop this from happening? I am interested in transparent democracy where we consider amendments on their merits and we debate them in the Chamber. That the Minister can suggest we are not behaving like grown-ups because we do not go and have those conversations secretly behind closed doors is an insult. I do not confer any criticism on the member for Sydney. He does his job and he does it well in the interests of his community, but it is important to recognise that there are other ways to do democracy. That does not mean that you have to always have closed-door conversations. That might be the way the Minister likes to act. It might be that his ego requires me to knock on his door and request his support. My hope would be that his office and the department would be in a position to they look at amendments on their merits and see if they actually improve the legislation. Some might suggest that is not how things work and that we should change the way we do it, but if acting like grown-ups means hurling insults across the Chamber like the Minister has done to me for most of the day, then I am quite happy to not be a grown-up. Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (21:09:43): Obviously the Government has signalled its intention to support the amendment, as have the crossbenchers. It will obviously pass the House and, to the great relief of my colleagues upstairs, there will not be a division. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4937
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (21:10:04): I acknowledge this has been a long debate that has covered a great deal of amendments and that many members have contributed. It has been an important debate for me and the member for Newtown to address a number of concerns. As a member of the LGBTI community, this bill is personal. For the community that I represent, it is personal. For the member for Newtown and the communities that she represents, it is personal. We come from electorates where there have been incidents—not just in past decades but in past years and months—of inappropriate police action towards vulnerable groups. We are not making up those incidents for media reasons. They are under investigation at the moment. It is of great concern to us, and to our communities that we represent, when legislation is brought in to provide new powers to police without safeguards. I acknowledge that the Government has supported my final amendment and I appreciate that, but there needs to be a great deal of process around the bill. I acknowledge that those concerns have also been reflected by members of the upper House—members from multiple parties including the Government—and this bill will not be passing the Parliament this year. The bill will be looked at by a Legislative Council committee and all of the issues that the member for Newtown and I have raised will be subject to much discussion. Stakeholders will finally be able to contribute. In our strong opposition to this bill which we consider to be extremely dangerous, I hope the member for Newtown and I have been able to identify and put our concerns about the lack of safeguards in the bill on record to identify the issues that need to be addressed by the Government, and to explain that when you are providing someone with a new power you need to consider the way in which those powers could be misused. As I have said, there has been a great deal of concern from advocates and HIV and AIDS organisations. There has been a great deal of concern from a range of other organisations supporting sex workers, multicultural communities and Indigenous communities, and unfortunately those are founded on a history of poor police treatment. As I said in my opening remarks some 12 hours ago, my amendments are based on evidence and on a great deal of concern. No doubt we will continue debating this bill, which fortunately will not pass the Parliament this year. I will continue to raise those concerns next year and I look forward to working with upper House colleagues who will hopefully see the danger and overreach of the bill and defeat it. I commend the amendment to the House. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (21:14:00): I thank the advocates and organisations that have stood with the member for Sydney and me in bringing these amendments, preparing them and providing us with their evidence and expert opinions and advice. I acknowledge that this amendment will be agreed to. It is very disappointing that none of the other amendments were supported. As the member for Sydney said, it is important to note that while the bill may not be defeated in this Chamber—because I expect Government and Opposition members will vote in the affirmative—it will go to an inquiry, which will allow for further scrutiny of the clear concerns that members in opposition to it have raised. Members have been debating the bill for close to 12 hours. I clarify that the member for Sydney and I raise our concerns not to spend hours speaking on amendments but because our role in this place is to represent the voices of those who are not heard and to make sure that the community feels represented in the Parliament. While there may not be support for these amendments to the bill, many groups and advocates are thankful for those voices that we amplify. I acknowledge the work of the member for Sydney and his staff for making sure that we have thoroughly raised the concerns we share. It demonstrates the arrogance of the Government in it pursuing the bill without taking on board stakeholder suggestions for improvements. I welcome the fact that the bill will now go to an inquiry, which will provide another opportunity for improvements to be considered. Despite this amendment being agreed to and even if all the other amendments had passed, the bill is still unnecessary and the Government should realise how problematic and divisive it is. Mr David Elliott: I said that. Ms JENNY LEONG: Mr Assistant Speaker, I would appreciate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services not interrupting me when I am speaking. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Minister, this is the last amendment. We have two minutes left in the debate. Ms JENNY LEONG: It is very important that this bill goes no further. At any point the Government could choose not to send the bill to the Legislative Council and take it to an inquiry but instead withdraw the bill. It is not based on health advice or on evidence or on any expertise that is needed to provide support to those who might fear the kind of situation the bill would create. I hope that after having listened to the debate on the amendments proposed, the Opposition and Government members will apply pressure on their leadership to change their parties' positions on mandatory testing. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that amendment No. 9 on sheet c2020-272G of the member for Sydney be agreed to. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4938
Amendment agreed to. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that clauses 1 to 18, and schedules 1 to 2 as amended be agreed to. Clause 1 to 18, and schedules 1 to 2 as amended agreed to. Third Reading Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time. A division has been called for. There being three members in the minority against the question, the question is resolved in the affirmative. Noes, 3 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Motion agreed to. BUSHFIRES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Returned The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments. I set down consideration of the Legislative Council amendments as an order of the day for a later hour. STRONGER COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) BILL 2020 Consideration in Detail Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments. Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 12 November 2020 No. 1 GOVT No. 1 [c2020-255E] Page 2, clause 2. Insert after line 9— (2A) Schedule 2[3], to the extent it inserts section 289VA, commences on 1 September 2021 or on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, whichever is sooner. No. 2 AJP No. 1 [c2020-257B] Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 12— [1A] Section 9 Objects of Act in relation to domestic violence Insert after section 9(3)(f1)— (f2) the intersection between animal abuse and domestic violence, and No. 3 GRNS No. 1 [c2020-233A] Page 8, Schedule 2[3]. Insert after line 11— 289UA Other parts of proceedings may be heard in camera (1) The court may direct that any other part of any proceedings not specified in section 289U in relation to a domestic violence offence, or the entire proceedings, be held in camera. (2) The court may make a direction under this section on the court's own motion or at the request of a party to the proceedings. (3) In determining whether to make a direction under this section, the court is to consider the following matters— (a) the need of the complainant to have any person excluded from those proceedings, (b) the need of the complainant to have any person present in those proceedings, (c) the interests of justice, (d) any other matter that the court considers relevant. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4939
(4) The requirement under section 289U that any part of the proceedings in which evidence is given by a complainant be held in camera unless the court otherwise directs still applies whether or not a direction is made under this section. (5) If the court makes a direction under this section, it may, either absolutely or subject to conditions, exempt any person from the direction to the extent necessary to allow that person to be present as a support for a person giving evidence or for any other purpose that the court thinks fit. (6) This section does not affect— (a) the entitlement of a complainant to have a person or persons present when giving evidence under section 306ZQ, or (b) the entitlement of a vulnerable person to have a person present when giving evidence under section 306ZK. No. 4 GOVT No. 2 [c2020-255E] Page 9, Schedule 2[3]. Insert after line 11-
289VA Arrangements for complainant giving evidence in proceedings for domestic violence offence when accused person is unrepresented (1) This section applies to proceedings during which the accused person is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner. (2) A complainant cannot be directly examined in chief, cross-examined or re-examined by the accused person, but may instead be examined- (a) by a person appointed by the court, or (b) through the use of court technology. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the regulations may prescribe the following— (a) a class of person who may be appointed by the court, (b) the type of technology that is suitable for use, (c) the procedures that apply for asking questions of the complainant. (4) A person appointed by the court is to ask the complainant only the questions that the accused person requests that the person put to the complainant. (5) A person acting in the course of an appointment under this section must not independently give the accused person legal or other advice. (6) The court does not have a discretion to decline to appoint a person under this section, or to decline the use of court technology under this section, despite anything to the contrary in section 306ZL or another Act or law. (7) This section applies whether or not an audio visual link or other similar technology, or alternative arrangements, are used by the complainant to give evidence. (8) If a person is appointed in proceedings before a jury, or court technology is used, the Judge must— (a) inform the jury that it is standard procedure in these cases to appoint a person or use technology to put the questions to the complainant, and (b) warn the jury not to draw any inference adverse to the accused person or to give the evidence any greater or lesser weight because of the arrangement. (9) This section extends to proceedings instituted before the commencement of this section, including proceedings that have been partly heard. (10) If a person appointed under this section is an Australian lawyer, anything done or omitted to be done when acting in the course of the appointment or otherwise in accordance with this section does not, if the thing was done or omitted to be done in good faith, subject the person personally to any action, liability, claim or demand. Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla—Attorney General, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence) (21:22:12): I move: That the Legislative Council amendments be agreed to. For the benefit of the House, I will note the four amendments that were agreed to in the Legislative Council. The bill contains two amendments to the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 that explicitly recognise the intersection between animal abuse and domestic violence. They will expressly prohibit harm to an animal belonging to a protected person in the mandatory order that applies in all apprehended violence orders that prohibit the damage or destruction of property, and provide that intimidation includes conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of harm to animals belonging to a protected person. I acknowledge the advocacy for these Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4940
amendments by the Hon. Emma Hurst, MLC, who moved another amendment that was not opposed by the Government. Amendment No. 2 will amend section 9 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to provide that the Parliament recognises "the intersection between animal abuse and domestic violence". Violence or the threat of violence directed towards animals in domestic and family violence situations is used as a form of control and power to retaliate against and manipulate victims during a relationship and after separation as a punishment for leaving. This Animal Justice Party amendment will complement the other provisions in the bill, and I thank both the Hon. Emma Hurst and the Animal Justice Party members for their close engagement with them. One amendment moved by Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC, was agreed to in the other place. The Government did not oppose The Greens amendment No. 3 on the schedule of amendments. This will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to introduce a power for the court to direct parts of domestic violence offence proceedings to be held in camera, or in other words for the court to be closed. This power can be exercised on the court's own motion or at the request of either party to the proceedings. The amendment was drafted so that it is almost identical to an existing equivalent protection for complainants in prescribed sexual offence proceedings in section 291A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The amendment ensures consistency between domestic violence offence proceedings that involve sexual offences and those that involve other physical assaults. I acknowledge that there may be some impact on the operation of courts, including the potential for an increase in time to justice. But, appropriately, the discretion for the court to make an order to close the court is very wide. This amendment recognises that there may be circumstances where it is in the interests of the administration of justice to conduct other parts of the proceedings in a closed court, such as when other vulnerable witnesses are giving evidence. I thank Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC, for moving this amendment. The Government moved amendments in the other place, which appear as amendments Nos 1 and 4 on the schedule of amendments. These amendments will insert a new provision in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to prohibit a complainant in domestic violence proceedings from being directly examined in chief, cross-examined or re-examined by an accused person who is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner. Instead, the complainant may be so examined by a person appointed by the court or through the use of suitable courtroom technology, as prescribed by the regulations. Currently an accused person who is unrepresented is able to directly question a complainant on their evidence. A prohibition of this nature currently only applies when the proceedings concern sexual offending, a child or a cognitively impaired witness. The Government has been considering this reform for some time. There is a clear gap in the law when it comes to domestic violence, and this important amendment will address that. However, the amendment did not progress in the bill as originally introduced to Parliament due to the need to develop an implementation model that would not significantly impact on time to justice in the courts. On reflection and after consultation with my parliamentary colleagues—including Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC, and the member for Blue Mountains—the Government decided to proceed with reform in the current bill but with a delayed commencement date to allow time for operationalisation. This will allow the reform to commence once an appropriate model has been settled, as the legislative vehicle will already be in place. Domestic violence has a devastating effect on its victims. The physical, psychological and emotional impacts can be significant and long lasting. It is important, however, that victim-survivors feel empowered and able to report these crimes, knowing that they will be supported throughout the process in the best possible way. This amendment, together with the other court entitlements provided by the bill, will strengthen the criminal law's response and processes in these circumstances. An accused always has a right to test any evidence the State brings against them in support of the charges alleged. This is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. A tribunal of fact is entitled to hear all of the evidence provided by a witness. This process is referred to as cross-examination and is an important step in reaching a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The process of cross-examination is inherently confrontational, can be emotionally draining, and may span a number of hours or even days. Being questioned about deeply personal issues and experiences of domestic abuse is especially harrowing. Many victim-survivors may be fearful of the accused and have ongoing safety concerns for themselves and their children. Some may even refuse to attend court at the prospect of being directly questioned by the accused. The purpose of this provision is to provide a protective layer between an unrepresented accused and the complainant. This will ensure that the complainant is not directly exposed to an accused's questioning, including hearing the tone and tenor of an accused's voice which, in itself, may be traumatic. It also may assist a complainant in being able to give their best evidence, which is often impacted if they are fearful in answering a question or too upset to speak clearly and coherently. Minimising the trauma for complainants in domestic violence proceedings Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4941
is in the interests of the administration of justice. This protection may mean that fewer breaks are required by a complainant, which will save court time and also may encourage the reporting of these serious offences. It also complements the other provisions in the bill, including the right to appear remotely in proposed section 289V, which is another entitlement that seeks to limit a complainant's exposure to the accused. I now turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 4 in the schedule, if agreed to, will amend the bill to insert a proposed section 289VA into the Criminal Procedure Act. Its drafting is largely consistent with the drafting of existing protections in section 294A for prescribed sexual offence proceedings. Under proposed subsection (2), a complainant in domestic violence proceedings cannot be questioned by an unrepresented accused person. Rather, the accused's questions may be put to them through a person appointed by the court or through the use of suitable technology, such as a device with text-to-speech software capabilities. This is similar to the role of an intermediary or interpreter. No matter which procedure the court elects, it is intended that the complainant will never be directly cross-examined in any way by the accused, and a court is prohibited from refusing the protection under section 289VA (3). There is no discretion to decline to appoint a person or use any other alternative means to conduct the questioning. This amendment does not seek to remove the accused person's right to represent themselves, nor their right that the complainant be cross-examined. It simply prohibits the accused from conducting that cross-examination in person. Consistent with the protections for sexual assault complainants and vulnerable persons in the Criminal Procedure Act, any person appointed by the court need not be a legal practitioner and is not to give the accused any legal or other advice. The usual adversarial rules will still apply, where the prosecution may object to any question posed and the judicial officer must ensure all questions are admissible in accordance with the rules of evidence. This includes section 41 of the Evidence Act, which requires a court to disallow any questions that are unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive. In order to facilitate the development of an operational model for this provision, including relevant procedures for the use of technological devices, the amendment will commence on 1 September 2021 or by proclamation, whichever occurs first. The delayed commencement is provided for by amendment No. 1 in the schedule of amendments. The Department of Communities and Justice will develop an implementation model in consultation with stakeholders. I thank domestic violence stakeholders and prosecution bodies—especially members of the Domestic and Family Violence and Sexual Assault Council—for advocating for the reform. I thank all those I mentioned in my second reading speech. They are all passionate advocates for reform in this area and I thank them for their hard work and expert advice. I thank and acknowledge the member for Blue Mountains and Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC, for engaging with the Government on this amendment and the bill more generally. I am grateful to work with them on this important issue of tackling domestic and family violence. Overall, the protections for complainants in this bill—including the amendments agreed to in the other place—seek to balance the accused's right to a fair trial, the public interest in the prosecution of domestic violence offences and the principles of open justice with the need to safeguard complainants and witnesses from unnecessary trauma and to enable them to give their best evidence. I commend the amendments agreed to in the other place to the House. Ms TRISH DOYLE (Blue Mountains) (21:32:28): I lead for the Labor Opposition on the Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2020. The Labor Opposition accepts the Legislative Council's amendments and supports its resolutions. I take a moment to acknowledge those who work in the domestic violence sector—many of them my stakeholders. As the Minister noted, they are champion advocates. I noted them in my previous speech in this place but I will do so again. I acknowledge the team at Domestic Violence NSW, Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia, Women's Safety NSW, the Women's Legal Service NSW and all of our community legal centres. I also acknowledge the Minister's staff, Department of Communities and Justice staff and my colleagues here and in the other place. It is the aim across the political spectrum that we strengthen laws around the prevention of domestic violence. I particularly acknowledge all of those who work on the ground in services, who feel that still they are underfunded and under-resourced. They work at or beyond capacity every day, but they are committed to saving lives, and they do. They make a difference. As I have always said about this issue, this is political, this is professional, and for me it is deeply personal. For all those victim-survivors and those who are no longer with us, this is for them. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (21:34:41): The Greens support the Legislative Council's amendments. They are clearly in line with the key asks from stakeholders who have been working and advocating for a long time in the space around domestic violence. The amendments will go a long way to improve the outcomes for victim-survivors of domestic and family violence in the State. I give a particular shout-out to Hayley Foster and the team at Women's Safety NSW and Liz Snell and the team at Domestic Violence NSW for all of their impressive and strong advocacy and expertise, without which these important reforms would not have been Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4942
achieved. The bill is the result of decades of work from both of these organisations but also advocates for domestic violence reform in our justice system across the State. I commend them for their tenacity and support. I also acknowledge the work of my colleague and fellow feminist in the other place Ms Abigail Boyd, who is The Greens domestic violence spokesperson in New South Wales, and her team, Alysha, Matthew and Danielle, for their efforts in getting some vital amendments across the line. Members know it is one thing to be able to provide a level of commitment and support to these ideas, but to go about the complex effort of drafting the amendments and negotiating to get them up is a whole new level of complexity. I understand and acknowledge the heavy lifting done by Abigail and her office to work with the Minister, the Animal Justice Party and others in the upper House to deliver on these amendments for the sector. The sector has been calling for these changes for so long and sometimes what it takes is a fierce feminist and activist who is committed to seeing these reforms in the other place, and The Greens certainly have that in my colleague Ms Abigail Boyd. We feel that the bill has been improved because we have had a collaborative working arrangement with the Minister, the Attorney General and the other parties involved in the discussions around the bill. I highlight in particular The Greens amendment to insert a new provision that a court could direct parts of domestic violence offence proceedings be held in camera. Currently in New South Wales all domestic violence hearings take place in an open court, which means that victim-survivors are often faced with the prospect of giving evidence about deeply personal matters, including violence and abuse, in front of family and friends and the defendant's family and friends, and anyone else who happens to wander into the courtroom. Obviously, this can be extremely confronting and invasive and can significantly impact whether or not they attend court at all. This amendment means victim-survivors now have the right to have their matters heard in a closed court, removing a significant barrier that currently deters many women from attending court. This will vastly improve the justice outcomes for women and increase the likelihood of offenders being successfully held to account. This is an important reform. The other important reform that is crucial to highlight was originally a Greens amendment but was eventually moved by the Government, and I hope shows the level of collaboration and commitment to this reform. This is something that has been advocated for for decades by key stakeholders, domestic violence advocates and feminist activists within this space. This amendment means that defendants who are not represented can no longer directly cross-examine the victim-survivor on the evidence that they have given against the defendant. I do not say this lightly, but this amendment loosens the hold of the patriarchy on our justice system and that is very welcome to women and victim-survivors in the State. It is clear that a perpetrator being given the opportunity to directly interrogate their victim-survivor in open court is unacceptable, but until now it has been accepted practice. By the time the victim-survivor reaches the courtroom they have already relived the experience. The idea of being interrogated in a public forum by their abuser is extremely distressing. It is one of the main reasons why many women choose to not go to court and pursue charges. These significant barriers to justice have now been removed. Again, I commend all of those involved for getting us here: Women's Safety NSW, Domestic Violence NSW, the many domestic violence advocates, feminists and allies. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Attorney General on the bill. The bill also recognises that animal abuse is a form of domestic violence in New South Wales. That is a win for providing people with protection in the State. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to. Motion agreed to. DRUG SUPPLY PROHIBITION ORDER PILOT SCHEME BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (21:40:31): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Government is pleased to introduce the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. The bill implements the New South Wales Government's election commitment to introduce drug supply prohibition orders [DSPOs], which will give police new powers to search convicted drug dealers and manufacturers, as well as their homes and vehicles, at any time without a warrant. It is anticipated that the DSPO scheme will serve two purposes. First, it will assist police to effectively and efficiently gather evidence of drug supply and drug manufacture. Secondly, it will have a disruptive and deterrent effect on a person subject to a DSPO who may reconsider whether re-engaging in a lifestyle involving the manufacture or supply of illicit drugs is worth the increased risk of police detection and further conviction. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4943
Under the DSPO scheme police will be able to apply for a DSPO against a person who is 18 years of age or older and has been convicted of a serious drug offence in the last 10 years. For the purposes of the DSPO scheme a serious drug offence will include drug supply or manufacture offences involving not less than the indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, and other drug offences relating to the supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs. A DSPO application will be made to an authorised magistrate. The potential subject of the DSPO is not entitled to be told about the application and is not permitted to make a submission. This is necessary to protect confidential criminal intelligence that may form part of an application, which was a key priority for the New South Wales Government when designing the DSPO scheme. DSPO applications are also not required to be decided in a courtroom. An authorised magistrate will be able to make a DSPO if satisfied that the person subject to the application meets the eligibility criteria in relation to age and criminal history and is likely to engage in the supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs. As an additional safeguard, the role of oversight commissioner has been created for the DSPO scheme. The role of the oversight commissioner will be to work with police throughout the application process and, if required, make a submission to an authorised magistrate regarding a DSPO application, including objecting to an application. An authorised magistrate will not be able to make a DSPO unless the oversight commissioner has had a reasonable opportunity to make a submission in relation to the DSPO application. A person who is subject to a DSPO will be able to apply to the Local Court for the order to be revoked after a minimum of six months. This time period strikes an appropriate balance between allowing sufficient time for a DSPO to effectively operate to disrupt and unsettle drug supply and manufacture operations and providing the opportunity for the person who is the subject of a DSPO to prove that such an order is no longer necessary. The DSPO scheme will operate as a pilot in four locations across the State: Bankstown Police Area Command, Coffs-Clarence Police District, Hunter Valley Police District and Orana-Mid Western Police District. The locations represent a cross-section of different policing environments across the State and include three regional police districts and one metropolitan police area command. The bill sets out that the pilot scheme period is a period of two years from the commencement of the legislation. This will enable the pilot to run for a period of two years, at which point the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research will review the pilot. The proposed DSPO model is based on the successful firearm prohibition order scheme. Firearm prohibition orders have been operating effectively for some time now and the New South Wales Government expects that DSPOs will have a similar disruptive and deterrent effect on drug supply and manufacture. I turn now to the detail of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill provides for the specific powers that may be exercised by police when a DSPO is in force. When a DSPO is in force against a person, a police officer will be able to stop, detain and search that person without a warrant. A police officer will also be able to enter and search a dwelling at which the DSPO subject resides, premises that the police officer reasonably suspects are owned by the DSPO subject or are under the direct control or management of the DSPO subject, and premises that the police officer reasonably suspects are being used by the DSPO subject for an unlawful purpose involving the manufacture or supply of prohibited drugs. A police officer will also be able to stop, detain and search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft being driven by, or otherwise under the control or management of, or occupied by a person subject to a DSPO and any vehicle, vessel or aircraft parked on land that is for the use of premises that are subject to the search power. Items that can be seized during a DSPO search are outlined in clause 4 (2) and include anything that the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds is stolen or that may provide evidence of the commission of an offence involving a prohibited drug, or is a dangerous article. Clause 4 also contains restrictions on the use of the DSPO powers. First, a police officer will only be able to exercise a DSPO power within a pilot area or an area the police officer reasonably believes to be in a pilot area. Secondly, a police officer will only be able to exercise a DSPO search power if it is reasonably necessary to determine whether the DSPO subject is involved in the commission of an offence involving prohibited drugs. Clause 5 of the bill outlines the eligibility requirements for the DSPO scheme. A DSPO can only be sought against an eligible person, who is a person who has been convicted of a serious drug offence within the previous 10 years and who is at least 18 years of age at the date of application. The definition of "serious drug offence" primarily captures offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 involving supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs at indictable quantities or above. Certain other offences that relate to drug supply or manufacture are also included in the definition of "serious drug offence", such as offences for the possession of pill presses, possession of precursors for the manufacture of drugs and for organising drug premises. Clause 6 of the bill outlines the application process for a DSPO. A police officer or other person on the police officer's behalf will be able to apply to an authorised magistrate for a DSPO against an eligible person if the police officer reasonably believes that the eligible person is likely to engage in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4944
Clause 7 outlines the requirements for a DSPO application. An application must include information such as the identity of the eligible person, the details of each serious drug offence that the eligible person has been convicted of, or any practicable alternative means that may be reasonably available to prevent or obtain evidence of the eligible person engaging in the supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs and details about any attempts to use those alternative means. Details of any previous unsuccessful applications and previous orders against a subject will also need to be included. A DSPO application will not be able to be made unless it is approved by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. Clause 8 of the bill requires the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the oversight commissioner is given a notice containing information about a DSPO application, including information contained in the supporting affidavit. This notice must be provided as far in advance of an application being made as is practicable to allow police and the oversight commissioner to work through any issues with the application before it is lodged. Clause 9 of the bill provides the grounds on which an authorised magistrate may make a DSPO on application by the police. For a DSPO to be made, the authorised magistrate must be satisfied that the person who is subject to the application is both an eligible person and is likely to engage in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. If an authorised magistrate decides to make a DSPO, the authorised magistrate is required to make a record of the reasons for making the decision and the evidence used to support that decision. The DSPO application will be an ex parte application, meaning the person who is the subject of the DSPO application is not entitled to be told about the application and is not entitled to make a submission in relation to the application. Additionally, no person, including the subject of the DSPO application, is entitled to know the reasons for the decision to make a DSPO and is not entitled to be given access to any document that formed part of the application. The application is not required to be decided in a courtroom. Clause 10 of the bill provides a list of matters that the authorised magistrate may take into account when determining that a person is likely to engage in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. The list is not exhaustive but includes criminal intelligence, assets or cash out of proportion to income, or drug-related associates. The authorised magistrate retains discretion when considering the application to take into account any matter that they consider to be relevant. Clause 11 provides that a DSPO must be signed by the authorised magistrate and include his or her name, and also outlines the information that must be contained in a DSPO. Clause 12 provides that a DSPO commences on the day it is made by the authorised magistrate; however, the DSPO search powers cannot be used until a copy of the DSPO has been personally served on the subject of the order. Clause 13 of the bill provides that a person who is subject to a DSPO can apply to the Local Court for the order to be revoked. Revocation of a DSPO can be sought by the subject of the order after six months from the day the order commences or at any time by the Commissioner of Police or the oversight commissioner. If an application is made to revoke an order, the Local Court can revoke the order, affirm the order or vary the term of the order. A DSPO can only be revoked if the Local Court is satisfied that the order is unreasonably onerous, that the DSPO subject is not likely to engage in the supply or manufacture of drugs or that the risk of the DSPO subject engaging in the manufacture or supply of prohibited drugs could be mitigated in another way. Clause 14 of the bill requires the Commissioner of Police to prepare and supply reports to the authorised magistrate and to the oversight commissioner at the conclusion of the DSPO. Clause 15 of the bill establishes the role of the oversight commissioner. A person cannot be employed as the oversight commissioner unless the person is an Australian legal practitioner with at least seven years of legal practice experience and either be a current or former judge or judicial officer of a superior court of record, or be eligible to be appointed as a judge or judicial officer of a superior court of record. Clause 16 of the bill provides for the appointment of authorised magistrates under the DSPO scheme. Authorised magistrates will consider DSPO applications in their personal capacity, not as officers of the Local Court. A magistrate must therefore consent to being appointed as an authorised magistrate by the Attorney General. An authorised magistrate who is exercising a function conferred on them by the Act will have the same protection and immunity that a magistrate has in relation to proceedings in the Local Court. Clause 17 of the bill creates a regulation-making power. In addition to a general regulation-making power, regulations will be able to prescribe requirements for applications, for example, procedural requirements, and also prescribe forms. Clause 18 provides the sunset clause for the Act. The Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Act will be repealed three years after the day it commences. The Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill delivers on an election commitment of the New South Wales Government. These reforms send a clear message that drug-related crime will not be tolerated in our community and that we will continue to support the important work that police do every day in fighting crime on the streets. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4945
Second Reading Debate Ms LYNDA VOLTZ (Auburn) (21:51:14): I speak to the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020 on behalf of the New South Wales Opposition. The Labor Opposition does not oppose the bill. We sought amendments in consultation with the Government in the upper House, and I will speak to those later. The object of the bill is to establish a pilot scheme for drug supply prohibition orders in four pilot scheme areas: Bankstown, Coffs-Clarence, Hunter Valley and Orana-Mid Western police districts. There is a sunset clause for a period of two years. During the operation of the pilot scheme, a police officer will be able to seek the making of a drug supply prohibition order against a person who is over 18 years of age and has been convicted of a serious drug offence in the last 10 years. This will be done through a magistrate but not in an open court. The order will come into effect once the order is formally served on the person against whom such an order is made by a police officer. The person against whom the order is made will not be able to appeal that order for a period of six months after it is first served. Once the order is made it will permit a police officer to stop, detain and search the person and search certain vehicles, vessels, aircraft or premises without the requirement for a warrant. These powers are able to be exercised only in a pilot scheme area. The police officer may also enter and search a dwelling at which the person resides or premises that the police officer reasonably suspects are owned by the person, are under the control or management of the person, or are used by the person for an unlawful purpose involving the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. The police officer may also search any vehicle parked at the dwelling or premises. The requirements of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act will still apply for any strip search. An authorised magistrate can make a drug supply prohibition order against a person if the magistrate is satisfied that the person is an eligible person and is likely to engage in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. There are a number of matters that the magistrate may take into account when making an order, including information that may be adverse to the application for the order, such as steps that the eligible person has taken to stop or reduce the risk of the person committing drug related offences; whether the person associates with other persons, other than in relation to a lawful drug treatment or rehabilitation program, who are involved in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug; whether the person is a member of, or associates with, a criminal group within the meaning of section 93S of the Crimes Act 1900; and whether the person has cash or assets that are significantly out of proportion to the person's income. Currently the Local Court can revoke a drug supply prohibition order under the Act on the application of the person who is subject to the order. However, the application cannot be made until six months after notice of the order is first served. As the order is not given in an open court, it rules out any appeal process until the person has been subject to the order for a significant period. The Opposition believes that there needs to be some independent mechanism earlier than six months to review the order and provide a safeguard to ensure there is no gross miscarriage of the intent of the legislation within that time. Currently the bill allows under section 13 (9): An application for the revocation of a drug supply prohibition order may be made by the Commissioner of Police at any time. Amendments were moved in the upper House, in consultation with the Minister's office. I thank his staff for their consideration of this amendment. The amendment extends that power to the oversight commissioner. The bill lays out the serious drug offences that will be subject to these orders. One concern relates to clause 5 (2) (c), which states a serious drug offence is: (c) an offence against section 23(1)(a) or (b) or (1A), 24(1) or (1A) or 25(1), (1A), (2), (2A) or (2C) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, but not if the offence relates only to an indictable quantity within the meaning of that Act … The upper House amendments have moved that threshold from a trafficable quantity or a small quantity. The Act as it was originally written had a very low threshold, for instance, for cannabis plants the small quantity limit was only five plants and there was no trafficable quantity. The threshold for a serious drug offence would have meant six plants. That has sensibly been moved to an indictable offence, which has set the level at 50 for both indoor and outdoor cannabis plants. The change also significantly raises the level for schedule 1 drugs, such as MDMA, for which a small quantity was 0.25 of a gram and the trafficable quantity was 0.75 of a gram. That would have meant that if a person carried a small number of tablets with a high MDMA content, he or she could be picked up within this serious drugs threshold. That has now been raised to 1.25 grams as part of the raising of the threshold to an indictable quantity under changes made in the upper House. These sensible amendments to the bill have allayed some of the concerns, particularly with regards to having oversight within the first six months of the bill to address any concerns. It is important to understand that this bill will establish a pilot scheme that will be undertaken in four distinct areas, about which police have raised significant concerns. Those areas include Bankstown and some regional areas. One only has to go to towns like Dubbo to realise the scourge of ice and the effect it is having across the whole community. On a street where Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4946
families used to live reasonably happy lives, it takes only one house or one car from which drugs are being sold to turn that street into a nightmare. Police in areas where the pilot scheme will be established have identified four matters of serious concern. The bill gives sweeping powers to the police that they do not generally have, but the supply of drugs has to be cut off in those areas. People cannot be held at the mercy of hardened criminals working the supply chain. I am not talking about a couple of teenagers running around the streets with a few pills in their pocket; I am talking about hardened criminals who use sophisticated technology, including encryption, and new modes to exploit young people and children. The police have identified this problem. The member for Bankstown has spoken to me about her concerns in Bankstown. As the member for Auburn, my constituents have called me to speak about their streets being turned into a living hell, with stabbings and fights occurring. Residents want this problem to be addressed. The Opposition supports this legislation, which will give police a chance under this pilot to break the drug supply chain. The pilot has a sunset clause of two years, during which time the Parliament can oversight the results of this program. The parliamentary scrutiny will look at whether the legislation should continue in the future. We care about kids and about people being exploited. We do not want them at the mercy of these hardened criminals. They submit young women to sexual servitude. They take young kids off the street and turn them into drug couriers and they do not hesitate to use violence. The best thing we can do is to give our police the powers to be able to move the sellers away and to get to the drug supply chain and arrest the people who are supplying it down the line. That is why this legislation is worth supporting. The Labor Opposition has supported it in the Legislative Council and has moved amendments to tighten up oversight. Mr NATHANIEL SMITH (Wollondilly) (22:00:47): I support the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. The bill creates a new legislative framework for a pilot scheme in New South Wales to strengthen the operational options available for police to respond to illegal drug dealing and manufacture in New South Wales. The new Drug Supply Prohibition Order scheme—referred to as the DSPO scheme—will pilot a new type of order for law enforcement that will enable searches of a person, their premises and their vehicle to determine whether that person is involved in the commission of an offence involving a prohibited drug. The scheme will target convicted drug dealers who are considered likely to re-engage in drug supply or manufacture. If a DSPO has been issued in respect of one of these persons, the bill will provide for a period where police are permitted to conduct a range of searches without the need for a further warrant. These searches could happen at any time with no requirement for police to give advance notice of when they might arrive to conduct the search. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program reports valuable data about drug use around the country. The figures are alarming and reflect that drug use is still a pertinent and persistent issue in New South Wales. As an example, the program estimates that more than 9.8 tonnes of ice is consumed in Australia each year. That is disgraceful. The rate of consumption of ice in Australia ranks third among 26 countries. The data affirms that ice remains by far the most consumed illicit drug in New South Wales and the nation. For an individual, harmful drug use can damage both physical and mental health, it can cause employment issues and homelessness, it can lead to involvement in the criminal justice system and, in extreme circumstances, it can result in death. Families are often the ones who bear the brunt of these consequences. The impacts also are felt more broadly, with drug use placing a burden on our health system, courts, police, government agencies and support services. The most recent quarterly crime statistics released by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that incidents of drug supply or manufacture continue to be detected in our community. These statistics show that that in the 12 months from July 2019 to June 2020 there were over 1,000 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in cocaine; over 400 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in narcotics; over 1,000 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in cannabis; over 2,000 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in amphetamines; over 600 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in ecstasy; and over 600 recorded incidents of dealing, trafficking in other drugs. On top of this, there were over 1,000 recorded incidents of cultivating cannabis. These are alarming numbers, indicating that there continue to be drug dealers operating in our community. It is more important than ever that we give our police the best possible tools we can to take swift action to shut these dealers down. The powers included in the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Bill 2020 will focus on convicted drug dealers or manufacturers who, when they return to the community, are considered likely to be involved in the supply or manufacture of a prohibited drug. The DSPO scheme created by this bill will enable police to focus on convicted drug dealers who are deemed to be at risk of offending again. While this type of scheme is new in the context of drug enforcement, similar powers have been provided to the police by the Government in relation to other criminal behaviours. For example, in 2013 this Government strengthened the search powers afforded to police under the firearm prohibition order [FPO] scheme to ensure that persons subject to a firearm prohibition order could be searched to determine their compliance with the order. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4947
I am advised that the NSW Police Force considers that the firearm prohibition order search powers have been an effective tool in reducing gun violence. They prevent firearms coming into the possession of individuals who may later use them for gun violence and also facilitate the removal of firearms from individuals previously authorised to hold them but who are no longer deemed suitable. The imposition of a firearm prohibition order can allow for heightened scrutiny of those engaged in criminal enterprise and, if breached, they provide for serious penalties. Since the powers around firearm prohibition orders were strengthened by this Government, they have become a key operational tactic employed by the NSW Police Force to keep the people of New South Wales safer and to target hardened criminals. The DSPO scheme and the search powers included in this bill adopt some of the features of the successful FPO scheme by providing our police with similar types of search powers that target another cohort of our community that profit off harm to other people: illegal drug dealers and manufacturers. It is entirely appropriate that the Government builds on its successful track record in relation to the FPO regime by extending a similar concept to the scourge of illegal drug dealing and manufacture. Drug dealers and manufacturers are actively engaged in placing New South Wales people at risk of serious harm, and it is important that we give our law enforcement the strongest tools that we can to disrupt their illegal activity. Under this bill, when a DSPO has been issued in respect of a convicted drug dealer, police will be required to serve them with a copy of the order. Once this procedural step has been completed, the DSPO subject will be on notice and police can conduct searches as operationally required. The order will explain to them the effect of the order—that police have the authority to turn up to their home, stop the vehicle they are driving or conduct a personal search to ensure that they are not involved in an offence involving a prohibited drug. This means that if the subject is conducting drug deals or running drug operations in one of the pilot scheme areas, they will not be able to hide their illegal activities from police. I am pleased to note that the bill includes clear seizure powers for police if they encounter certain items in the conduct of a search. If police discover anything that may provide evidence of a drug-related offence, they will have authority to seize it. Not only will this get these items out of the hands of drug dealers but it will also ensure that appropriate legal actions can be commenced and drug offenders held to account. We know from the firearms prohibition order experience that schemes like those proposed in the bill work. We can have confidence that police use them as intended to disrupt and deter targeted illegal activity. The DSPO scheme created by the bill will enable police to focus on convicted drug dealers who are determined to be at risk of offending again and give them nowhere to hide. We cannot tolerate people continually choosing to put our communities at risk by continuing to participate in drug dealing or manufacturing. When our police identify people who are making this choice, we need our laws to support them do what they need to do to keep the rest of us safe. Illegal drug activity, dealing or manufacture has no place in this State. The scheme in this bill will provide another tool to assist our police to stamp it out whenever it is detected. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (22:08:43): I contribute to debate on the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. A week before the 2019 State election, at the height of the public debate around illicit drug use at music festivals, the Premier announced her intention to introduce the legislation we are debating in this Chamber. As the Premier doubles down on a law-and-order approach to the challenge of illicit drugs, in contrast the Labor Opposition announced that it would establish six detoxification and rehabilitation clinics across New South Wales, including one in Dubbo and one in western Sydney. That announcement was part of a broader suite of policies designed to continue what Labor has done in Government when it comes to laws on illicit drugs: We listen to the medical and scientific evidence, canvass the research from the medical and legal experts and hear the stories of those with lived experience of drug use. Labor strongly argued for another NSW Drug Summit and continues to do so. A drug summit is the best way to take a holistic approach to the issues around illicit drug use and ensure that a law enforcement approach is balanced with one that understands the value of compassion and the importance of evidence. The bill before the House today tips the balance even further towards a law and order approach. The bill establishes a two-year pilot scheme for drug supply prohibition orders in four pilot scheme areas: Bankstown, Coffs-Clarence, Hunter Valley and Orana Mid-Western police districts. A drug supply prohibition order can be made against a person who is 18 years of age or older who has been convicted of a serious drug offence in the past 10 years. In effect, the order allows a person to be detained and searched without a warrant and for vehicles or properties to be searched. Items may be seized if they are believed to be involved in the production or supply of illicit drugs or used for other illegal purposes. The orders would be made by magistrates where they are satisfied that the person is likely to engage in the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. These orders would be made behind closed doors, and such an order would be in force for 10 years. The bill establishes an oversight commissioner to assist, guide and manage the process of issuing orders. The oversight commissioner must have the opportunity to make a submission to a magistrate before an order is Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4948
issued. The bill defines the "serious drug offence" subject to the orders as broadly encompassing the cultivation of prohibited plants, owning drug manufacture apparatus, or the manufacture or supply of prohibited drugs. The bill ascertains that the orders would not apply if the original offence related to small quantities as defined by the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. However, the original definition of a "serious drug offence" as set out in the bill raised concerns for many because it set an unnecessarily low threshold for issuing a drug supply prohibition order. The Law Society of New South Wales contends: As currently drafted, a 19-year-old person, previously convicted as a juvenile, and placed on a community based order for deemed supply of five to six MDMA pills at a festival, could be subject to these extraordinary powers, if a police officer reasonably believes they may be engaging in supply of a prohibited drug. While a Magistrate may not exercise their discretion to make an order in such circumstances, we consider that the legislation needs to be amended to protect against unintended consequences. I note that the Legislative Council agreed to amend the definition of a "serious drug offence" to clarify that orders only apply to an amount above an indictable quantity. This will have the effect of clarifying the threshold at which a drug offence is deemed to be serious enough to issue an order, particularly with respect to the cultivation of cannabis plants and the measure of MDMA and other recreational drugs. I note that the Legislative Council also moved to empower the oversight commissioner to make an application to revoke an order at any time after an order is made. It beggars belief that under the Government's initial approach an order would not be able to be appealed for a period of six months. This is an important amendment that acknowledges the concerns of the Law Society of New South Wales and others that the minimum waiting period to apply for a revocation was deeply unfair. The Legislative Council also amended the original bill to ensure magistrates, when considering whether to issue an order, must consider factors that may be adverse to the making of that order. This includes: (a) information that may be adverse to the application for the order, including steps that the eligible person has taken to stop or reduce the risk of the person committing drug-related offences The amended bill now demands that a magistrate must take these and other factors into account rather than simply giving them the option to do so. It will mean magistrates must take into account the actions a person has taken to rehabilitate and move past their prior conviction. These agreed amendments go some of the way to resolving issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the bill. However, I note there are still considerable concerns with the bill, and I urge the Government to consider addressing these concerns. Labor supported an amendment in the Legislative Council to amend the definition of what constitutes a "serious drug offence" to those committed by persons under the age of 17. Sadly, that amendment was lost. I again urge the Government to consider how this bill might impact those in the juvenile justice system. In fact, I urge it to consider how it might impact the juvenile justice system itself. As the Hon. Penny Sharpe and others noted in their contributions in the Legislative Council, the juvenile justice system is predicated on the belief that you get a second chance when you turn 18. I am concerned this pilot sets a really dangerous precedent that says that young people over 18 can continue to be punished for the crimes they committed when they may have been only 10 years old. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has said of this provision: Juvenile offences should be excluded. The inclusion of juvenile offences renders young people open to breaches of their civil liberties for acts committed when they were children. The consideration of past juvenile offences is contrary to the well-established principle that rehabilitation is paramount when sentencing young people. I urge the Government to contemplate what that means for our understanding of juvenile justice and what it means for the young people who this scheme could impact. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties and others have raised concerns over the length of time in which police can apply for an order. They note: We are strongly of the view that the 10-year period within which police can apply for an order is too long and places people at risk of being subject to these extraordinary powers for a period that is simply unacceptable. We are also concerned that the lengthy period may also have the unintended impact of interfering with rehabilitation efforts. Reducing the period in which these orders can be made would go a long way to reducing the unintended consequences of the bill and limit the reach of these orders, and so too would reducing the decade-long period in which an order could remain in place. Stakeholders also have raised a number of other significant concerns with the process around which an order is made, including the fact that it is made behind doors. They raise specific concern that under clause 9 (8) of the bill there is currently no requirement for the subject of an order to be given information about why the order is being made, or the evidence upon which such an order is being made. This is pretty extraordinary and flies in the face of the expectations of most people about the way our justice system operates. The Law Society of New South Wales states: This is likely to undermine public confidence in the scheme and in the administration of an impartial justice system in NSW. It would be better if orders were made in an open court and, as the Law Society notes, there are provisions under existing laws for closed courts and suppression orders that would have the same effect as the secrecy put forward by this bill. I urge the Government to consider these measures that will reduce the potentially damaging impacts Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4949
of these orders. While I appreciate all members in the House are united in our goal to reduce the impact of illicit drug use in our communities, it is critical that we treat this as a health issue. I reiterate my strong view that politicians are not the experts when it comes to illicit drug policy. In fact, politics has no place whatsoever in how we approach the issue. Invariably, the result is a narrow focus on law and order approaches that perpetuate the failed "war on drugs" and which further entrench the criminalisation of drug use. Criminal law specialist Ugur Nedim and journalist Paul Gregoire have characterised the bill as "the Liberal Nationals simply [wanting] to enhance the war on drugs to the point where those once found guilty will always remain guilty". Others have raised concerns that the bill constitutes a double penalty and sets a dangerous precedent whereby those convicted of a crime are considered to be guilty in perpetuity, or at least for the rather arbitrary period of the next 10 years. A core tenet of our criminal justice system is the belief that a person who has committed a crime is able to be held accountable for those crimes, incur the consequences and not reoffend. But this bill presumes recidivism. It is predicated on a notion that a person convicted of a serious drug offence is likely to reoffend and must trade in their civil liberties for a decade. It is too easy to dehumanise those who are subject to these orders but, as people well know, those who traffic in drugs and misery are people who make a mistake, and they may have to pay the price for a decade. [Extension of time] I share the concern of legal experts that we will lose an important principle at the foundation of our criminal justice system. I do understand the anguish of families who have lost loved ones to illicit drug use. I have met with many of them and I have heard their stories. I understand the fear and damage that illicit drugs have wrought in many communities. But I reiterate that we cannot merely arrest our way out of this issue and warn that this bill is not the silver bullet that the Government promises. The Government instead must show real leadership, set aside its ideological obsession and stubbornness and commit to holding a drug summit that brings all the voices to the table and engages people from across government, the not-for-profit sector, the health sector and from the justice sector. A summit would afford us an opportunity to properly examine all the evidence, find the right mix of responses and take the politics out of drug policy in New South Wales. It would put an end to the narrow and punitive approach represented in the bill before the House today. Mr GURMESH SINGH (Coffs Harbour) (22:19:48): My contribution to debate on the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020 will be brief. One of the very first neighbourhoods in which I doorknocked during the campaign leading up to the 2019 State election was a neighbourhood that was feeling the full effects of the ice epidemic occurring in the Coffs Harbour area. This bill and the provisions for the trial will go a long way towards helping to solve the problem of drug use by targeting drug dealers rather than drug users. This bill is an important tool for our law enforcement agencies to have in their attempts to stop drug use at the dealer stage. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (22:20:38): I strongly oppose the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020, which represents another mistaken attempt to address drug use through law and order policies and the false belief that community safety relies on encroachment on human rights. Under the bill, police in the Bankstown, Coffs-Clarence, Hunter Valley and Orana-Mid Western commands will be able to seek a drug supply prohibition order against any adult who has been convicted of a serious drug offence. The order would allow a police officer to stop, detain and search that person, their home and any vehicles they own or that are parked at their premises without a warrant. These are extraordinary, excessive and unnecessary powers with few checks and balances to prevent misuse. Police can already search persons suspected of supplying illegal substances and their property by obtaining a warrant. The bill will not just capture hardcore criminals supplying trafficable quantities of drugs but also people who have been convicted of supplying smaller quantities. Someone who supplies drugs to fund a drug habit or addiction could be subject to an order, as could someone who supplied drugs taken recreationally. An example is a person who takes MDMA recreationally and was caught supplying five or six pills to their friends to take together at a music festival or party. If the persons in these cases continue to take drugs, police could make a case that they are likely to supply again. The offence could have occurred up to 10 years ago, including juvenile convictions when the person was a minor. There is significant evidence that treating drug users as criminals adds harm, prevents people from getting help and it sends them down a path of criminality with impacts on health, welfare, income and employment. The trial will take place in three regional areas and Bankstown. I share concern that the powers, like many excessive police powers, will disproportionately impact Indigenous, marginalised and disadvantaged people. It is not enough to say that the powers will be used only on big-time criminals when there is strong evidence that police use all the powers available to them in dealing with all crime. When drug sniffer dogs were introduced in public places in 2001 we were told it was a necessary tool to stop major dealers and traffickers, yet they have been used to facilitate stripsearching minors, young people, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for suspected personal use of drugs. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4950
There are few safeguards for family members or others who live with the subject of an order and no obligation on police to demonstrate to the courts how an order will impact others. I am especially concerned about children and vulnerable family members, including people who are frail or have a disability. There is no natural justice built into the bill. Police can conduct property searches when the subject of a drug supply prohibition order is not there and there is no requirement to provide notification. People subject to orders will have no right to request a revocation for the first six months of the order. I repeat that these orders can be used against people convicted of possessing smaller quantities. This bill is just another attempt to look tough on drugs without regard for human rights. Criminal involvement in the drugs trade is better addressed by taking a health approach to drug use, addressing the root causes of addiction, helping people to get support and legalising personal use as first steps. It is time that this Parliament matured on drugs policy, stopped criminalising the small-time players and started looking at evidence-based approaches. I oppose the bill. Mr DUGALD SAUNDERS (Dubbo) (22:24:40): I speak in support of the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. I have a personal attachment to this bill. The initial plans surrounding this plan were announced in my electorate by the Deputy Premier during the last election campaign. I had been pushing quite hard for some time for flexibility to better support our Police Force in connection with a crime spree that was occurring at Wellington at that time. During a visit to the town we caught up with a number of local business owners who talked about the concerns they had with drug dealers. Essentially, they were getting away with whatever they pleased because police officers did not have the ability to do the job they often needed to do, including searching vehicles without first getting a warrant. This bill is about providing better support to our police officers to fight illegal drug supply and manufacture in our community. It is not about banning personal use. It is about stopping those in our community who are providing drugs. By giving the police enhanced powers to focus on drug dealing in the community we are stepping up the response to the harms of drug-related crimes in our community. The regional focus is very welcome. I am grateful that we are looking to empower the Police Force and police decisions where needed. I commend the bill to the House. Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (22:26:15): While I note that the scheme in the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020 is a pilot, which I am more inclined to support, I also note that the bill contains a number of elements of significant concern. Most importantly, I have great concerns about the bill as it relates to juveniles or offences committed as a juvenile, the length of time given to an order and the somewhat limited scope given to magistrates when considering an application for a drug supply prohibition order [DSPO]. Proposed section 5 of the bill provides that such an order can be made against any person over the age of 18 who has been convicted of a serious drug offence at any time in the previous 10 years. I have concerns about the 10-year time frame and will return to that matter later, but I am strongly of the belief that juveniles should be excluded from the scheme, or crimes committed by someone as a juvenile should be excluded from the scheme. I share the concerns held by others, including the Law Society of New South Wales, that this provision appears to be a significant overreach, particularly as it relates to the definition of a trafficable quantity of drugs. I note that this definition has been the subject of some debate for many years. For example, six MDMA pills might generally contain 1.25 grams of MDMA or five grams of amphetamine, which is considered a trafficable quantity. Yet in the vast majority of cases in which someone is convicted of possessing that amount of illegal drug they had it for personal use. It is my understanding that in most cases there was little or no evidence that the drug was being distributed or sold to others. That said, if we have a situation where a 17-year-old is caught at a music festival with 1.25 grams of MDMA, and that person is rightly charged and convicted, that conviction as a juvenile can be used as the sole justification for a police raid on the person's house eight, nine or 10 years later on the suspicion that they may be supplying drugs. To my mind, that is a considerable overreach. Surely there are other mechanisms already available to police. If a 25-year-old is believed to be supplying and distributing drugs, and police have reasonable evidence of that happening, surely they do not need a court-issued DSPO based on a crime that person committed as a juvenile to search that person, raid their home or search their car. In considering an application for a DSPO in such a case a magistrate would not be required to consider that the earlier crime was committed as a juvenile. A magistrate would be allowed some discretion, but this legislation is open to unintended consequences, which I am very uncomfortable with. We have specific protections around juveniles for a reason and I believe this is an unwarranted erosion of those protections. I understand the Government's intentions, and I am supportive of our police and the role they play in the fight against illegal drugs and their supply, but I am unconvinced that this bill provides a tool that does not already exist. There are alternative means of obtaining and/or collecting evidence. If the threshold applied in this bill is simply that the police believe a person is likely to engage in the supply or manufacture of a prohibited drug then there are alternate ways and means of dealing with that—they do not need to rely on a previous charge, especially as a juvenile. I note that proposed section 10 (2) requires police or another applicant to advise a magistrate of alternative means or justifications for the drug supply prohibition order, but that provision specifically states that it is not an essential consideration for the magistrate. I place on record Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4951
my concern that the 10-year threshold appears to be an extraordinary amount of time for a convicted person to be subject to the powers of a drug supply prohibition order. I would submit that five years might be more appropriate. We need to get the balance right between strict prohibition enforcement and the longer term and desired need for rehabilitation, particularly for someone who was a minor at the time of the offence relied upon to justify a drug supply prohibition order. As I acknowledged earlier, while I have specific concerns with this bill which I hope the Minister will take on board, I note that it will be trialled for a period of two years with a report back to Parliament and a sunset clause after three years. I am satisfied that there is no malice intended with this bill, but there may be unintended consequences. I do believe, however, that there are enough checks and balances at this point for it to be supported as a trial. For that reason, I give it my cautious support. Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (22:31:31): As my colleagues in the other place made abundantly clear, The Greens absolutely oppose the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. This bill creates a pilot scheme for drug prohibition orders which will apply in the Bankstown Police Area Command and the Coffs-Clarence, Hunter Valley and Orana Mid-Western police districts for two years. Under the scheme police will be able to seek an order for a person who has been convicted of a serious drug offence. If the order is made police can stop, search and detain people without a warrant. It is clear that this is a bad bill. I acknowledge the work of my colleague in the other place and spokesperson for justice, David Shoebridge, who successfully amended the bill to have the scheme apply only to indictable offences. There are a lot of other reasons why The Greens oppose this bill. There are a lot of reasons why it is a bad bill. The scheme is essentially another version of the very dangerous suspect target management program [STMP], where people are placed on a list without their knowledge and can then be subjected to unlimited searches and other oppressive police interactions. In the community of Redfern in my electorate this is of particular concern, with the young people being placed on the STMP without being informed and then being targeted without reason. They are not a suspect in any matter, but they are placed on a list and targeted. There is no substantial evidence that this has any impact on offending or community safety. There is some evidence to suggest that this kind of interaction and action by the police causes a disconnect between the police and those young people and marginalised groups damaging the long-term relationship. I acknowledge that the Law Society of New South Wales and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties have both raised concerns about this bill. It is important to recognise the impact and problems caused by schemes such as the STMP upon young people, people of colour and marginalised groups when they are searched every day for no identifiable reason. There will be more civil cases against police, more big payouts from the public purse and mistrust of police will increase if this bill is passed. Sadly, it looks like this bill will pass. It is an indictment on the Government. While members of the New South Wales Labor Party have raised concerns about the bill, unfortunately we are seeing a bit of a pattern. That is probably not surprising because successive governments in New South Wales have taken a tough law-and-order approach and a war-on-drugs approach. It is not just the current Liberal-Nationals Government that has taken that approach. While Labor members in this place and the other place have expressed their genuine concerns, outrage, disgust and shock at elements of the bill, at the same time the Labor Party supports the bill. It is supporting the Government to implement more crackdown through the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill. It is very clear that the police Minister is not listening to the community when it comes to their concerns around policing in this State. The people of New South Wales do not support the unchecked increase in police powers. They do not support the endless erosion of people's civil liberties. People are marching on the streets, calling for a roll back of police powers and for more support for their community—rather than just more cops. The police Minister is only listening to the Police Association and to the demands from police for more and more powers and more and more money. The member for Balmain raised this point with me earlier. Imposing these oppressive law-and-order regimes on the community is like constantly patching up a hole. We do not change community behaviour or solve the challenges that create drug addictions and drive people to have addictions by increasing excessive and oppressive police powers. Practices and behaviours are changed by taking a harm minimisation approach. I do not think it is too much to ask that searches by police should be limited to circumstances where they can show they have a legitimate reason to conduct one. This legislation would allow police to stop, search and detain people without a warrant. Search warrants exist to ensure that police, with no evidence, do not unfairly target individuals. Mr Speaker, once again I ask that the Minister be called to order. It is a continuing theme when I speak. The SPEAKER: The Minister will be quiet. Mr David Elliott: She was talking through my speech. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4952
The SPEAKER: I was not in the Chamber at the time. Ms JENNY LEONG: I was not in the Chamber during the police Minister's second reading speech. Search warrants exist to ensure that police with no evidence do not unfairly target individuals. It is the job of members in this place to make sure that people in positions of power, like police officers, are held accountable for their actions. In the past few decades police have been given more and more powers. More and more public funding has been used to fight the so-called war on drugs, and it has not worked. Over the past five years drug offences are up. For most citizens in New South Wales the war on drugs is more of a danger to them than the drugs themselves. It is appalling that late tonight NSW Labor will join with the Government to pass this Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill. It is a disgraceful bill and The Greens oppose it strongly. We have serious concerns about the impact it will have on vulnerable citizens in our community. Mr ROY BUTLER (Barwon) (22:38:30): I contribute to debate on the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. I state in the strongest terms that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports any measure to tackle the scourge of drugs in our communities. Too many families have been ripped apart by drugs and drug crime. Many bright young people have had their future taken away from them by drugs. As a drug and alcohol counsellor I have seen the impact of illicit drugs on individuals, the community and the criminal justice system firsthand. Individuals who are addicted to drugs or experiencing withdrawals from drugs deserve our help and I am on the record as requesting more drug and alcohol rehabilitation and detox facilities in my electorate. I reiterate that need today. The issue of drugs must be tackled by government at all levels and at all stages, from caring for those experiencing withdrawals from drugs to using the full weight of the law to disrupt the supply and manufacture of drugs. To that end, we support the Government's bill, which will give the New South Wales police additional powers to disrupt the supply of drugs into our communities. The intent of the bill is to give police new powers to search convicted drug dealers and manufacturers, as well as their homes and vehicles, at any time without a warrant. These new powers aim to disrupt the supply and manufacture of illicit drugs and to deal with serious drug offenders who continue to engage with drug supply. The Hon. Scott Farlow in the other place stated in his second reading speech: … [the] scheme will serve two purposes. First, it will assist police to gather evidence of drug supply and drug manufacture effectively and efficiently. Second, it will have a deterrent effect on a person subject to a DSPO, who may reconsider whether re‑ engaging in a lifestyle involving the manufacture or supply of illicit drugs is worth the increased risk of police detection and further conviction. Members of the community who want to profiteer from the suffering of others through the supply of illicit drugs should not feel comfortable in our society. The police should have the power to undertake activities that make drug manufacturers and dealers uncomfortable. People who engage in illegal behaviour that destroys other people's lives should constantly be looking over their shoulder for the inevitable day that they are caught. The new powers will go some way to enabling our police to undertake that work. I raise an issue that I would like the Minister to address in his reply. Clause 4 provides that if a drug supply prohibition order [DSPO] is in force against a person, a police officer may, without a warrant, enter and search the premises, which may be the person's home, premises that a police officer reasonably suspects are owned by the person or under direct control or management of the person, or premises that the police officer reasonably suspects are being used by the person for an unlawful purpose involving the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. That clause also allows a police officer to stop, detain and search a vehicle being driven by or otherwise under the control or management of the person or occupied by the person. I hold concerns that innocent members of the community who are in no way involved in the drug trade will be caught up in this clause—for example, a rideshare driver, a taxidriver or the driver and other occupants of a pub courtesy bus who unknowingly occupy a vehicle with someone involved in the trade of drugs. The drug dealer sees the red and blue lights in the rear vision mirror and squirrels away the drugs under the seat or in a glove box and says, "They are not my drugs. I have never seen them. I have just hopped into this taxi", or bus or car. What happens to the driver in that scenario? On the subject of the searching of a premises that a police officer reasonably suspects is under the direct control or management of the person, the example I put is a bar manager who decides to trade drugs from the premises. The owner has no idea and is then faced with a search by police, the shutdown of their premises and the tarnishing of their reputation for being associated with the drug trade. Additionally, as the clause stands and as I read it, that could be any venue within the pilot scheme area—any cafe, pub, bar or home that a thug chooses to deal drugs from. Again, innocent people could get caught up. I ask the Minister to address the circumstances in which those powers could be used by police. I understand the benefit of those types of powers in regional New South Wales where covert methods of policing are ineffective due to small populations, but too many innocent people have already had their lives destroyed by drugs. Let us ensure we do not destroy reputations in Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4953
the quest to halt drug distribution. Aside from those two issues, I reiterate that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports the bill. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (22:43:22): In reply: I thank the members—is the member for Newtown finished? Ms Jenny Leong: I was not speaking. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: Yes, she was. I thank the members who represent the electorates of Wollondilly, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Summer Hill, Auburn, Sydney, Newtown, Lake Macquarie and Barwon for their very positive contributions to the bill, particularly those who actually read the bill and raised some very important questions— Ms Jenny Leong: Point of order— The SPEAKER: What is the member's point of order? Ms Jenny Leong: I am not sure of the standing order. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment that I was speaking. I was not speaking in the Chamber while he was talking. I ask that he correct the record as I find his suggestion insulting. The SPEAKER: I will put that to the Minister. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: Now that the member for Sydney has confessed that it was him— The SPEAKER: That is now on the record. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I thank all members who contributed to debate on the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Bill 2020. The Government proposed some sensible amendments in the Legislative Council that have been included in the bill. These include an amendment to proposed section 5 (2) (c), which changes the definition of "serious drug offence" to clarify that a conviction for one of the offences listed is only considered a serious drug offence if it relates to an indictable quantity or more. Other amendments were made to proposed sections 13 (9) and 13 (10) to provide that the oversight commissioner will be able to make an application for revocation of a drug supply prohibition order [DSPO] to the Local Court. The member for Barwon raised questions around the circumstances in which a police officer might search a vehicle or premises under a DSPO. This bill provides that a police officer will be able to enter and search a dwelling in which the DSPO subject resides if a police officer reasonably suspects that the premises is owned by or under the direct control or management of the subject, or is being used for an unlawful purpose involving the manufacture or supply of a prohibited drug. The bill also provides that a police officer will be able to stop, detain and search any vehicle driven by, otherwise under the control or management of, or occupied by a person subject to a DSPO. A police officer will only be able to exercise a DSPO search power if it is deemed to be reasonably required to determine whether the subject is involved in the commission of an offence involving prohibited drugs. I note the concerns raised around the eligibility criteria of the DSPO regime extending to all persons who have been convicted of a serious drug offence in the past 10 years, including persons convicted of a serious drug offence as a juvenile. The application requirement in the bill already makes clear that the DSPO cannot be made in respect of a person under the age of 18 years. This clearly focuses the intent of the scheme on adults. If a person was previously convicted of a serious drug offence as a young person, and as an adult still poses a risk of engaging in drug supply or manufacture, it is entirely appropriate that the NSW Police Force has the full suite of options available to it. The threshold in the bill relating to the criminal history of a person relates to convictions in the past 10 years. This means that if a young person's only relevant offences were dealt with through a legal process that does not result in their conviction, those offences would not meet the criteria in the bill and the person would therefore not be eligible under this scheme. This includes situations where a young person has been diverted from the criminal justice system, or where a court has not made a conviction. A conviction for a serious drug offence is a very serious matter, and this bill ensures that DSPO applications are available for persons with such a conviction in the previous 10 years. At the last election the Government made an important commitment to provide more tools to police to disrupt the supply and manufacture of prohibited drugs. This was one of the policies on which Government members were elected, so we are honouring this 18-month-old promise. Members opposite think that the policy was not democratically endorsed, but it was. Mr Gareth Ward: We won. Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: This bill delivers on that commitment by assisting police to effectively and efficiently gather important evidence and deter persons subject to DSPOs from re-engaging in illicit drug Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4954
activities. These reforms support the important work that police do every day to fight crime and send a clear message that drug-related crime will not be tolerated. I acknowledge the NSW Police Force and the Department of Communities and Justice for their efforts in developing the bill for parliamentary consideration. I particularly thank my staff, who have engaged with a number of members who offered valuable input that has been incorporated into the bill. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. A division has been called for. There being only three members in the minority having challenged my decision, the question is resolved in the affirmative. I direct that the names of those three members be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Noes, 3 Mr A. Greenwich Ms J. Leong Mr J. Parker Motion agreed to. Third Reading Mr MATT KEAN: On behalf of Mr David Elliott: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (RESERVATIONS) BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby—Minister for Energy and Environment) (22:53:16): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. As the bill was introduced in the other place on 22 October 2020 and is in the same form, the second reading speech appears on pages 16, 17 and 18 of the proof Hansard for that day. I commend the bill to the House. That is how it is done! Second Reading Debate Ms KATE WASHINGTON (Port Stephens) (22:53:38): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the National Parks and Wildlife Legislation Amendment (Reservations) Bill 2020, and take my lead from the Minister for Energy and Environment in appreciating that brevity is definitely the order of the evening. The bill amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. This Government periodically adjusts the boundaries of national parks and reserves, and the proposals regarding this in the bill are uncontroversial. However, I am always the first member to question the Government's environmental intentions, and I will scrutinise any proposal regarding the carving up and returning national parks to the control of council or State government agencies. With the benefit of a briefing from the Minister's office, for which I am grateful, and with our scrutiny of the proposals that are contained in the bill, the Opposition has no concerns with the revocation of the parcels. They largely relate to additional infrastructure, particularly roads. One larger proposal relating to Winburndale Nature Reserve, which was 45.2 hectares, did raise some eyebrows, so we went to the plan of management. When the plan of management came into effect in November 2007, it was anticipated that a number of boundary alignment issues would need to be addressed in the future. That is what this bill does. The Labor Opposition does not oppose the bill. Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) (22:55:52): I support the National Parks and Wildlife Legislation Amendment (Reservations) Bill 2020, which proposes some practical and necessary amendments comprising some essential administrative corrections and enabling priority public infrastructure projects to proceed. The bill will also return culturally significant land to the Aboriginal community and will assist and support the care and rehabilitation of our endangered koalas. Specifically, the bill will revoke a very small part— just 0.6 hectares—of Roto House Historic Site in Port Macquarie, which is home to the dedicated staff and volunteers of the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital. The revocation will remove the land already used for the koala hospital to facilitate its transfer to registered charity Koala Conservation Australia Inc. at no cost in recognition of the critical conservation and public education functions that it delivers. The Port Macquarie Koala Hospital, which supports koala conservation activities, is located on disturbed land on Roto House Historic Site. Removing this small area of land from the historic site is an important step towards fulfilling the objective of expanding the koala hospital. This step is critical to ensuring that the koala hospital can move forward with designing, planning and constructing the planned expansion as soon as possible. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4955
It will ensure that the hospital is able to deliver critical care for injured koalas for many years to come and to build better community understanding and appreciation of one of our most iconic and beloved native animals. It also provides continuing support for bushfire recovery. The 2019-20 bushfires had an acute impact on koala populations right across New South Wales, and the species will take many years to recover. On the mid North Coast many koalas were injured and burnt, particularly in the critical bushland of the Lake Innes Nature Reserve. During the bushfires the hospital played a critical role in responding to the evolving wildlife emergency, taking in severely injured koalas and nursing them back to health. Bushfire impacts on koala populations have been severe. While not all rescued koalas were able to be saved, the koala hospital has continued to successfully return as many koalas to the wild as possible. The hospital is run by the not-for-profit organisation Koala Conservation Australia Inc. It is one of the key koala rehabilitation facilities in New South Wales and its staff are leading experts in koala care and research. I thank every one of those volunteers for their tireless work. I also thank the other wildlife volunteers and carers right across New South Wales. The outcome of the bushfires would have been even more devastating for our koalas if not for their commitment. The work of the koala hospital was widely recognised in the media and by the community via generous donations of money—including from all over the world—during and following the last bushfire season. Koala rehabilitators are at the front line in responding to the impacts of many critical threats to koalas, such as habitat loss, car strike and dog attack. The broader rehabilitation sector has considerable expertise in koala care and plays an important role in educating the community about koala conservation. Rehabilitators have an important role as first responders to help injured, sick and orphaned koalas. In addition, they contribute to important conservation outcomes—not only the recovery of individual koalas but also the collection of data on koala locations and health and places that are hotspots for koala threats, all which helps future management planning. Koala rehabilitators need support to help improve the safety and health of koala populations. This bill will help to provide that support in a recognised koala hotspot. It will also support better community engagement in koala conservation by providing improved facilities for volunteers and visitors. The Government is committed to stabilising and increasing koala populations across the State via the NSW Koala Strategy. The future transfer of land to enable expansion of the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital will help meet a key objective of the strategy: to support volunteers and their organisations engaged in the rescue and rehabilitation of koalas to ensure they have the skills, resilience and resources needed to effectively and efficiently respond to sick and injured koalas. Expanding the koala hospital will provide enhanced outcomes for koalas entering rehabilitation, especially in relation to welfare and husbandry whilst in care. Release rates and post-release survival rates will be monitored and may show signs of recovery and improvement. Port Macquarie is an area of regional significance for koalas in New South Wales. The State Government has recognised the important community service that the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital provides and has already allocated $5 million from the NSW Regional Growth – Environment and Tourism Fund to support the proposed expansion of the facility. On that note, I commend the Minister for his work on the bill. I am very pleased to support it. I look forward to his next visit to Port Macquarie— Mr Matt Kean: Next week. Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS: Next week—and to the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital. I know that he will be very impressed by the work that is done at the hospital, not only in rehabilitating koalas and caring for those that are injured and sick but also in getting a much better understanding of their incredible work in collecting data and conducting research that is recognised internationally. All of that is important in making sure that we continue to support the growth of koala populations across the State. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (23:01:49): On behalf of The Greens, I speak in support of the National Parks and Wildlife Legislation Amendment (Reservations) Bill 2020. The bill makes some significant environmental and cultural revocations of land. We have just heard from the member for Port Macquarie about the important transfer relating to the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital. The bill will also transfer land adjacent to the Davidson Whaling Station to the Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council. The Greens think these transfers are important. We support the bill, particularly where it protects the future of koala populations and restores culturally significant land parcels to the care of traditional owners. I acknowledge the Minister's commitment to increasing the footprint of national parks in New South Wales, and I acknowledge the investments that have been made to help expand the national parks footprint. The Greens congratulate the Government on that and encourage its progress even further. National parks represent some of our most important environmental, cultural and tourism assets. Their preservation is absolutely critical not just for locals, visitors and the ecological values themselves but also for future generations to enjoy. The major point I wish to make is that most of the revocations in the bill address boundary changes that are pretty much administrative. Of course, one of The Greens' concerns is that major projects, such as Snowy 2.0, Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4956
have been approved through legislation that circumvents this process. It is particularly concerning that the granting of a lease under the National Parks and Wildlife Act for the expansion of the Snowy 2.0 project and its power generation activities allows activities that would not otherwise be permissible in a national park. The Greens think this process is positive but we will continue to be vigilant and request that the Government acknowledges that major infrastructure projects can act outside of these arrangements, which can significantly impact on national parks. The Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (Snowy 2.0) Bill 2018 has the capacity to have very significant impacts on national parks. We call on the environment Minister and all those who are involved in that process to be aware and make sure that our national parks are protected. It is very late at night, so I conclude by saying that The Greens urge the Government to continue respecting national parks as the priceless environmental assets that they are. They should not be traded away. When it comes to major infrastructure projects, we need the Government and the Minister to be particularly vigilant. The Greens recognise the positive measures in the bill and accordingly we support it. Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby—Minister for Energy and Environment) (23:04:29): In reply: I thank members representing the electorates of Port Stephens, Port Macquarie and Balmain for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Gurmesh Singh): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Third Reading Mr MATT KEAN: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Private Members' Statements HORNSBY RELAY FOR LIFE Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby—Minister for Energy and Environment) (23:05:17): As we battled the COVID-19 pandemic this year it stopped many parts of our daily lives. What it did not stop is cancer. The pandemic has made it more difficult for those living with cancer and undergoing treatment. This is why the 2020 Hornsby Relay for Life was more important than ever. Over the past 10 years I have supported the amazing organising team at the Hornsby Relay for Life who raise money for cancer research. The event is in its seventeenth year and covers one of the largest areas of any relay, stretching from the northern beaches right down the North Shore to Brooklyn. Until this year Hornsby Relay For Life has been held at Rofe Park in Hornsby Heights as a 24-hour family festival, with a full program of live entertainment, ceremonies, kids activities, food and lots of fun. Teams register and take turns to walk, run or jog and they do this relay style, with the aim of keeping at least one team member on the track for the entire 24 hours. Since becoming the member for Hornsby I have always joined the teams as they make their final laps to the finish line. I am always amazed at their stamina, having already walked for 24 hours before that. Every team and participant fundraises to provide vital support for Cancer Council NSW research, education programs, prevention and support services. However, this year, like many other events, the organising committee had to make the difficult decision to replace the live event with a virtual event, and that is how Relay Your Way was born. The online event encouraged people to walk, run or move however they chose for 24 hours during November. Relay Your Way launched on Saturday 31 October with a Raise Your Spirits virtual event, replacing the usual opening ceremony. This included an acknowledgement of country by emcee Dan Milne and a welcome from Hornsby relay chair Julie Attwood. I thank Julie for all her work. I also sent a video of support for all those participating in this year's event. Cancer survivor, organising committee member and Team Nic captain Nicola MacGee read the oath and there were shout-outs from Australia and around the world as well as music, fitness and dance features. During November the Relay for Life team have had daily prompts and weekly activities for teams were promoted on social media. It has been great to watch my Facebook page filled with so many locals getting involved in this year's online event. Traditionally, Relay for Life also runs a number of events that participants and teams take part in during the lead-up to the 24-hour festival. These have still happened, just differently this year. The survivors and carers morning tea was held online on Friday 13 October. This paid tribute to cancer survivors and their carers. Beautifully presented gift boxes assembled by Kirsty Smith and Camryn and Keira Gower were delivered to their Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4957
recipients by committee members Joanna Gower, Amy Langron, Nicola MacGee and Cancer Council NSW representative Olly Woolrych. The annual Hope Ceremony, remembering friends and loved ones lost to cancer, will be a special event held online via social media on Sunday 29 November. Usually participants are asked to donate cans of food to use as weights for their candle bags for this event. These cans are then donated to Hornsby Connect. This year they are asking teams to follow a "reverse advent calendar" and collect food items during the month to create hampers which will be collected and delivered to Hornsby Connect at the end of the event. The raffle, one of the most popular fundraisers, has also been moved online this year thanks to the RaffleTix virtual platform, with the raffle to be drawn on Sunday 29 November. For the first time last year the Hope Ball was held in the Hornsby RSL showroom, which I was pleased to also support. They raised an amazing $15,000 from that event. It was not able to go ahead this year but they hope it will be back bigger and better next year. Since 2003 Hornsby Relay for Life has raised in excess of $1.3 million, with 891 teams and a total of 5,662 individuals participating in the event. Last year $97,585 was raised, and this year the relay has already raised $22,000 of its $60,000 target. Not even a pandemic can stop this organising committee from putting on an amazing event. To switch everything online is not an easy task and there are certainly some dedicated and hardworking volunteers who made this happen. The committee is headed up by the amazing and unstoppable chair, Julie Attwood. For the Attwoods it really is a family affair with Julie's son Jackson also on the organising committee this year. Last year Riley trekked 30 kilometres and organised a fundraising movie night. The rest of the amazing 2020 organising committee is made up of Joanna Gower, Kirsty Smith, Anna Nicholson, Daisy Brown, Amy Langron, Melissa Long, Matt Long, Nicola MacGee, Samantha Yep, Ruth Swadling, David Anderson, Fleur Lendering, Stuart Gabriel and Leah Pascoe. I thank them for their hard work to ensure that the event could go ahead this year. I also thank the 25 teams and 136 participants registered for this year. The teams are: Aknoon Cultural Centre, Giggles n Jiggles, Rangers Baseball, Amazing Asquith, Team Sally, The Ancient Geeks, For Kelly, Hornsby Heroes, Make Every Day Count, Bill's Gift, 204 ACU, Cirque Du Sore Legs and many others. There are more businesses than I am able to acknowledge today; however, I would like to mention the major sponsor, Hornsby RSL Club, which is always happy to give back to our local community. I thank Hornsby Relay for Life for all it does to stop cancer in its tracks. BATYR BEING HERD PATHWAYS PROGRAM Mr EDMOND ATALLA (Mount Druitt) (23:10:25): I recognise BATYR, an organisation that has developed its own preventative mental health program, the Being Herd Pathways initiative, aimed at helping to support young people seeking employment by minimising the stigma surrounding mental health and helping them to gain the confidence needed to find stable employment. BATYR, founded in 2011, has a singular goal: to break down the stigma of not reaching out for support when suffering from mental health issues. BATYR is an organisation for young people, by young people. It delivers educational programs in communities by partnering with schools, universities and local services such as headspace and WISE Employment to smash the taboos around mental health. The research that informs its programs indicates that when young people hear positive, relatable stories from their peers, it reduces the stigma surrounding mental health and increases early help-seeking and intervention. Specifically, I congratulate BATYR on its Being Herd Pathways program. The program is specifically targeted to empower young people who are not in employment, education or training, known as NEETs, and is designed to support young people to overcome their mental health challenges and to find meaningful employment. Of every 30 students in Australia, seven will be dealing with a mental health issue, yet only two will reach out for support, leaving five suffering in silence. There are direct correlations between mental health illnesses and a lack of purpose and seeing oneself as a burden. BATYR's vision is that all young people engage in positive conversations about mental health and are empowered to reach out for support when needed. Pathways is an opportunity to turn what is commonly seen as a disadvantage into an advantage. Of the 200 participants who have participated in the program, 50 per cent have found meaningful employment or are engaged in study and 90 per cent were more likely to seek mental health support. It is for that reason that programs such as this are much needed and invaluable in assisting our young people to take charge of their futures. Finding a vocation can considerably increase a person's sense of purpose and belonging and can help to improve overall mental health enormously. Some 60 per cent of our young people not studying or working will experience mental ill health. The effects of COVID-19 have also had a significant impact on our young people's mental health and wellbeing, with 213,000 young people losing their jobs due to the pandemic. BATYR was quick to initiate the pathways@home digital solution, tailoring the Being Herd Pathways to work both online and in person. It is my understanding that the current funding for the program is about to end. No commitment has been made to continue funding the program to date. This seems unbelievable, given the program's success rate. Some 90 per cent of Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4958
participants reported that they are more likely to reach out for help for their mental health and over 50 per cent of participants have reported engaging in training, education or employment as a result of participating in the program. Today's youth are the future of New South Wales. Programs such as Being Herd Pathways are vital in assisting our young people to find gainful employment and encouraging them to address their mental health needs and reducing the stigma associated with mental health, which will only benefit us all into the future. This program has had, and continues to have, an extremely successful impact on the way our young people view mental ill health and themselves; it is commendable and should be supported by this Government. TRIBUTE TO OLLIE HALL Mr MICHAEL JOHNSEN (Upper Hunter) (23:15:09): I note the sad passing of an Aussie bush rugby legend and Scone resident, Mr Ollie Hall. I join with many in my community and this House, I am sure, in expressing my sincere condolences to Ollie's family. I knew Ollie well as he was not only a very famous Scone sporting legend but also a former financial services client of mine. While there were many fine remembrances of the man written, including in our local Scone Advocate, I was struck by a particularly good piece written for a Sydney northern beaches paper, where of course Ollie played for Manly. With the indulgence of the House, I will read some passages from that published remembrance. The Classic Wallabies website describes Ollie Hall, who passed away this week aged 67 after a lengthy battle with cancer, as the son of a grazier who epitomises all that is good about country rugby. The piece continues: A strong, likeable loose head prop with a deep love of the game, Hall had a most interesting life. Outside of representing his country in rugby union, Hall was also a farmer, a contractor, a jackeroo, a mining technician and an actor. Ollie was born in 1953 in Wellington, New South Wales, and played rugby for Yeoval, Wellington, the Dubbo Roos, Scone Brumbies and the Hay Cutters. From 1974 to 1978 he represented New South Wales Country. After a period away from the game, Ollie arrived at Manly late in 1982 at the age of 30 and played 56 games, including the 1983 grand final against Randwick that Manly won. He won the Chad Paton Award for the most outstanding player in the club as well as selection for Sydney, New South Wales and the Wallabies in their end of season tour to France and Italy. He played five games for Australia. Ollie Hall was right on Wallabies coach Alan Jones' radar ahead of the famous 1984 grand slam tour but unfortunately suffered two serious knee injuries. In his best Manly Marlins team, club president Cam Douglas recalled that such was the look of Ollie, with his burly physique and shock of blonde hair, that he was recruited from the Round Bar of the Steyne Hotel to play a part in Mad Max III: Beyond Thunderdome with Mel Gibson and Tina Turner. As Ollie told The Scone Advocate: I worked on Mad Max III for 10 months. I was the longest employed. My role was as Tina Turner's bodyguard, but I was also an assistant to [the Master] Angelo Rossitto and did some stunt work. So that was my initiation into the film industry. Ollie would go on to play Tiny in the television miniseries Fields of Fire in 1987 and work alongside Tom Selleck and Alan Rickman in Quigley Down Under in 1990. In between acting gigs he came home to the bush where he helped the Scone Brumbies win the 1989 premiership. "The last two decades of his life were spent in the Upper Hunter mining, farming and coaching junior rugby in Scone", said Manly Marlins media on the club's Facebook page. Ollie is survived by his wife, Myff, and children, Laura, Tim, Ashton, Chester and Charlton. Ollie was "a hard old bushie who never took a backward step; he came from Scone and played for Australia; he was a classic, laconic bushie; he was an absolutely great bloke". I am sure that this House will agree that they are fine words indeed by which to remember Ollie. Vale, Ollie Hall. DUNMORE LAKES SAND MINING Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama—Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services) (23:19:04): In August of last year I stood in this House to express my opposition to a proposal for the Dunmore Lakes sand mine expansion that threatened one of the most beautiful features of my electorate, the Minnamurra River. Today I put on record my complete and utter disgust at the decision by the Independent Planning Commission to approve the expansion of this mine. On Monday the commission approved the application by Dunmore Sand and Soil to modify its existing development consent to extract around 1.3 million tonnes of sand from two new pits over three years. In my inaugural speech in this place I talked about how important preserving and protecting our local environment is for me and my community. Since becoming the local MP, I have been strident in standing up for our community on such important matters as opposing coal seam gas in water catchments and protecting prime agricultural land. I have also spoken out against the overdevelopment and overcrowding of our precious and special villages. Last August I voiced my serious concerns that the sand mine proposal sought a modification to an existing application more than a kilometre away from the originally approved mine, which will extract an additional 300 million tonnes of sand with the potential to impact coastal wetlands, endangered ecological Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4959
communities like the Bangalay Sand Forest and have a potentially devastating effect on tourism and the scenic beauty that our region is renowned for. I have already advanced the view that this application was not a modification to an existing consent, and I see no need to revisit this argument. However, in its decision on Monday, the commission stated, "On balance the impacts associated with the application are acceptable and in the public interest." Having listened carefully to the voices of locals, I can assure the House that this proposal is not in the public interest and does not enjoy community support. I have been contacted by literally thousands of people from across our region who have expressed their unequivocal objection to this proposal. In fact, last year almost 5,000 locals signed a petition opposing the development with hundreds flocking to James Oates Reserve at the Minnamurra headland to raise concerns about ground erosion and the siltation of local waterways. The commission said, on page 17 of its findings, that it carefully considered the views of the community through public submissions and comments received through public consultation. But when the public is so firm in its opposition to this application, how can the commission seriously say that it has considered the views of the community who are opposed to this application and then approve it? I do not know who the commission was talking to, but it was not talking to locals. Our natural beauty should not be unnecessarily put at risk for "economic and social benefits through the continued development of the site". The decision from the commission acknowledges that there are predicted impacts on water quality, groundwater, flooding, coastal wetlands and flora and fauna. These things are simply too important to risk. I appreciate that the commission has consulted with both Kiama and Shellharbour councils, residents and the wider community, but I feel that this proposal has not been given the rigorous attention and critique that it requires. I have always placed on record my concerns with stage 5A covering flood-prone areas and stage 5B concerning the Minnamurra River. An environmental assessment shows that stage 5A covers flood-prone land, including Rocklow Creek. Stage 5B covers the Minnamurra River. Our community holds concerns that an extractive industry of this intrusive nature will impact on the delicate backdrop and would result in ground surface erosion and in siltation of local waterways. Indeed, locals will tell you that the area covered by stage 5B is very low lying, which could have deleterious impacts on groundwater resources and surface water with significant impacts on adjacent wetlands. Those risks are simply too great to satisfy a mining company's needs. I join with my community in being absolutely appalled by the decision of the Independent Planning Commission to grant the Boral and Dunmore Sand and Soil extraction project an expansion which will certainly not satisfy locals' views. I want the people of Minnamurra and Kiama to know that I will always oppose this project and, whilst I respect the independent processes, I do not agree with this decision. BANKSTOWN-LIDCOMBE HOSPITAL Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) (23:24:09): I inform the House of my severe disappointment that my community of Bankstown has once again been treated as an afterthought in the Liberal Government's budget. On the eve of the 2019 State election, the Premier announced to much fanfare that if re-elected the Government would deliver a brand new $1.3 billion Bankstown hospital. This promise was at the core of the Liberals' campaign in both my electorate of Bankstown and in the neighbouring marginal electorate of East Hills. The promise was that the Government would commence early works construction, in addition to planning during this term of Government. That announcement was made on 13 March 2019, and the budget released in June of last year did not allocate any funding for this project whatsoever. Twenty months later I open the 2020-21 budget papers to discover—to no great surprise, I am sorry to say—that this Government has yet again failed to allocate a single dollar for this much-lauded new Bankstown hospital. What this means is that not one dollar will be allocated to the new hospital until at least the second half of this Government's term, if at all. We were promised that construction would be underway during this term of Government, and yet as we near the halfway point we have no funding allocated and we have no location. In fact, there are only two things that we do know about this new hospital. First, the budget papers revealed for the first time that the hospital will not be completed until at least 2028. That is nine years and three State elections away from when it was promised in March 2019. I cannot remember that message appearing on any of the Liberal election flyers at the time. I say that the hospital will not be completed until at least 2028 because I am familiar with this Government's track record of delivering infrastructure—or not delivering infrastructure—in this area in a timely fashion. The 2018-19 budget papers said that the $25 million redevelopment of the current Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital's emergency department would be completed in 2020. Then the 2019-20 budget papers said that the redevelopment of the emergency department would instead be completed in early 2021. I note that the most recent edition, November 2020, of the newsletter published by the Department of Health features a statement that the project will Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4960
be completed in early 2021 next to a picture of the Minister for Health and the member for East Hills. The completion date is now June 2022. I now know from the most recent information I have, from the Canterbury Bankstown Torch, that there are six short-listed sites for the new hospital. We do not know what those sites are. However, the budget has revealed that it will be a greenfield site, meaning the Government will purchase land for this new hospital, despite there being an existing site where the hospital is located and a Department of Education site across the road. Our community has learnt that despite the Government promising it would find a site quickly, it has failed to do so. This poses the question whether it will even meet the 2028 deadline. Another issue my community has major concerns about is that in purchasing a greenfield site for the Bankstown hospital, what will become of the existing hospital site? I recently spoke to a motion moved by the member for Manly relating to the wonderful master planning for the old Manly Hospital site to create a community health precinct. I ask the Government if the same will be offered to the community of Bankstown. What will become of the existing hospital site? We do not want to see the site being sold off to developers and we lose a wonderful potential for a health precinct on that site. I reiterate that the people of Bankstown and East Hills deserve better, they deserve a state-of-the-art hospital which they were promised back in March 2019. KU-RING-GAI ELECTORATE Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Ku-ring-gai) (23:29:12): This year has certainly been a year like no other. New South Wales has experienced some of the most extraordinary times. This time last year the year ahead was not clear: Our nation was still in one of its worst droughts and the Black Summer bushfires had started to ravage our State, destroying homes and livelihoods. Shortly after, the pandemic reached our shores. We saw cases grow in hundreds and our community had to learn to live with all kinds of restrictions, which impacted our lives both socially and economically. I take this opportunity to thank our frontline workers for everything they have done and will continue to do. I thank our doctors, nurses, ambos, paramedics, police officers, RFS volunteers, contact tracers, teachers, pharmacists, shopkeepers, childcare workers and bus and train drivers, just to name a few. Without their dedication, commitment and courage, our State would not be in the positive position it is now. Despite the challenges of 2020, light has shone in my electorate with the exciting announcements of the completion of major projects and the overall civic-mindedness of the Ku-ring-gai community. As the member for Ku-ring-gai, one of my favourite times of the year is attending the end-of-year assemblies. It is truly an uplifting three weeks. Sadly, this year is a little different due to the pandemic. I was fortunate enough to attend the St Leo's Catholic College year 12 graduation ceremony recently. I thank Principal Anthony Gleeson for his warm welcome and I commend the school's COVID-safe plan. Even if its physical doors could not be open to everyone, it was great to see the ceremony being live streamed to the students' relatives and friends. The year 12 cohort of 2020 has endured a lot. I congratulate every student on the completion of their HSC exams and wish them the best of luck for the years ahead. I thank the teachers, staff, volunteers, parents and family members in our community, who are the custodians of our youth and who have had to adapt the most to our ever-changing world. It is a sign of our times that technology and digital infrastructure has played a critical role in keeping our world connected, particularly with the running of our electorate offices. My usual Friday constituent meetings were suddenly on Zoom, community messages were being recorded and streamed, and our office kept working but was physically closed to the public for a short time during the height of the pandemic. My staff—Deanna Turner, Di Woods, Miki Nicholson and Janet Newing—gave me great support over the past year; they are very experienced and hardworking. They have had many challenges due to the disruption of the year and at times have had to deal with very distraught constituents. I wish their families and them a restful summer holiday. In welcome news, 2020 saw the announcement and completion of major infrastructure projects in my community: NorthConnex opened to motorists last month; Waitara Public School and Ku-ring-gai High School both had extensive upgrades completed under the New South Wales Government's statewide education investment; and all railway stations in my electorate have now been funded to be made accessible to all individuals, with lifts to be installed under the Transport Access Program. This year also saw our community come together like never before. The Civilian Army was formed in conjunction with KNC—formerly known as Ku-ring-gai Neighbourhood Centre—and volunteers from our community, led by the independent schools who helped the vulnerable in our community. As this is the last sitting week for the year, I take this opportunity to address the State budget. Our Government's joint focus is to safeguard the health of its citizens and to restore economic activity. The 2020-21 budget sets a path to build our economy for a post-pandemic world. Funding of $46 million has been earmarked to support 100 new school-based wellbeing nurses, and $6 million has been allocated to establish Community Wellbeing Collaboratives to tackle suicide clusters. There is a massive $107 billion infrastructure investment to Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4961
create jobs across the State in areas including health, education and transport, and for 200 new and upgraded schools. As well, $29 billion has or will be invested in New South Wales' COVID-19 response and recovery. There is no doubt that this budget is a stimulus budget that backs the people of New South Wales, turning a year of adversity into an era of opportunity. As we near the end of 2020 and our lives are going back to some degree of normality, I thank everyone in our community for their resilience over the past year. Everyone will have their own story and every individual will take away their own unique learnings. I wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and happy new year. Stay safe and I look forward to a brighter 2021. STATE BUDGET AND WOLLONGONG ELECTORATE Mr PAUL SCULLY (Wollongong) (23:34:09): The Government, I expect, would not have been pleased about the front-page reaction—or rather the lack of it—to its budget announcements in most of the major rural and regional papers today. It seems that most measures have gone in one ear and out the other, barely raising a heartbeat. But in time, perhaps, they will raise the blood pressure of communities on Sydney's urban fringe and in regional New South Wales. I particularly note the front page of today's Illawarra Mercury, which declared "Budget black hole". The Mercury was not referring to the $16 billion deficit this year; rather, it was referring to the Illawarra being a black hole for budget spending on new initiatives. I would refer to others, but most of them did not mention the budget. Why? It is because I think most people have recognised that the budget was big on announcement and small on details. It was a series of heroic assumptions strung together in the hope that the people of New South Wales will miss the inescapable Liberal-Nationals' DNA: This a budget based on privatisation, wage cuts, tolls and more Sydney-first mentality. Changes to payroll tax have been heralded this morning as a panacea for the difficulties that small businesses are facing, despite the fact that around 95 per cent of businesses in New South Wales do not pay payroll tax. In Wollongong fewer than 1,000 businesses pay payroll tax. No doubt some will benefit, but it needs to be recognised that around 15,000 businesses in the Wollongong area will not get any benefit from this measure. There is a large number attached to the Government's planned infrastructure spending. It is large, at least in part, because hidden in those figures are the multibillion-dollar budget blow-outs on projects. The public sector wage freeze not only is a blow to public sector workers and their families but also sets a new wage growth benchmark for the private sector. As a result, the wage price index over the forward estimates is flat. To be clear, that means low wages growth in New South Wales is now locked in and will hinder the economic recovery—the result of a deliberate policy of the Government. There should be no faith that anything in this budget is going to change the continued low wages growth that households throughout New South Wales have been struggling with for years. And while low wages growth is effectively locked in by this budget, tolls will continue to rise by at least 4 per cent a year, every year, no matter what for decades to come. Is it any wonder that people are already saying that this is the budget, and this is the Government, that New South Wales can no longer afford? As the details of the budget and various initiatives emerge over the days and weeks ahead, there will be ample time to hold the Government to account for the implementation of budget measures. Yesterday's Budget Speech and the flurry of ministerial media releases was the easy part. Implementation is difficult, and that is where the rubber hits the road. But it is what really matters. That is how households will or will not benefit; support for small business is or is not delivered; and whether the social and economic dividends of various measures are spread fairly throughout New South Wales. In Wollongong I have a close interest in making sure that the Government implements a number of measures successfully. The first is the construction of lifts at Unanderra Station. The budget allocated the first tranche of funding but I will not be satisfied, and my community will not be satisfied, until there are three lifts operating along with other improvements to the station. I want the Government to at least stick to its earlier commitment to award a construction contract by the end of this year, and to start construction mid next year. Of course, I would prefer construction to start sooner but now the Government has finally bowed to sustained pressure and committed the funds, it is time to give us construction start and end dates. The people of Unanderra and surrounding suburbs, who struggle with the 72-steps challenge every day at the station, deserve nothing less. I also note that Wollongong is finally out of the sin-bin when it comes to sports grants. Previously the Wollongong local government area had been ineligible to apply for any sports facility funding grants. That was unfair and wrong. I drew it to the attention of successive Ministers, with what some may kindly describe as monotonous regularity. At least this Acting Minister listened and Wollongong is back in the game, able to apply for funding—which was all we asked for in the first place. Sadly, the Government has not made any attempt to make up for what we had missed out on, but at least it now accepts that Wollongong is part of New South Wales when it comes to sporting grants. I also want to know a clear timetable for the use of the Out and About vouchers in Wollongong. It is clear that this program was not on the Government's agenda until it was leaked to The Australian newspaper because Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4962
the details of how the program will be administered simply do not exist, nor does a date for when businesses in Wollongong will be able to benefit from the vouchers. This is pretty shoddy work for a 10-year-old government, particularly one with a Premier with a reputation for swotting the detail. Stimulus needs to flow to all parts of the economy and poor planning by this Government means that it will not do so for some time. If the level of attention to detail that has been put into announcing a number of these measures is matched in all the budget measures, New South Wales will suffer. If this Government is going to up-end years of philosophical objections to government intervention and finally recognise that governments do play a substantially important role in the modern economy, it needs to get the detail of implementation right because the people of New South Wales depend on it. PANCREATIC CANCER Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (23:39:22): Worldwide, Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month is November and World Pancreatic Cancer Day is on 19 November. Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a dismal prognosis and the five-year survival rate is now just over 10 per cent. My father, Brian O'Neill, was one of about 3,000 Australians diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2018, and ironically he was diagnosed in November. Like most Australian families, mine had not been much aware of this illness until it hit us. My father passed away the day after the New South Wales State election in March 2019—the day after I was elected to represent the great electorate of Coogee and just four months after his diagnosis, which is in line with the median survival time for people with this disease. Pancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in both men and women in Australia, the third most common cause of cancer death overall and is predicted to be the second most common within the next decade. The survival rate for pancreatic cancer has only improved very slightly in recent years and a major factor is late diagnosis, when the disease is often locally advanced or metastatic. In this month of November one practical thing we can all do to assist in combating this disease is to spread awareness of its symptoms. Most of us, including GPs it seems, have little knowledge of the disease. The only medium-term symptom my father displayed was a very sore back, but later pain in the abdomen, a loss of appetite and weight loss. The Cancer Council of Australia lists these and other symptoms on its website. Be aware and spread the word! We can also support medical research. I am proud to say that the electorate of Coogee is home to a leading group of medical researchers headed by Associate Professor Phoebe Phillips in the Pancreatic Translational Research Group at the University of New South Wales. Phoebe and her team are focused on developing new ways of destroying tumour cells in the pancreas, which are very resistant to chemotherapy. Their focus is on identifying novel therapeutic approaches for pancreatic cancer, including targeting the extensive scarring that enhances pancreatic cancer progression. It is, however, very disappointing and sad that efforts to combat pancreatic cancer have been set back this year by factors associated with COVID-19. It is shocking that this Federal Government and State governments have stood by as universities have retrenched large numbers of medical researchers, whose positions it would seem were only made possible by the fees collected from international students. What an appalling situation. We may win the fight against COVID-19 but how long will it take for our medical research facilities in institutions such as the University of New South Wales to recover? Raising awareness of pancreatic cancer and its symptoms, making a tax-deductible donation to pancreatic research, supporting a friend dealing with this dreadful disease or even just wearing purple—the official pancreatic cancer colour—are some of the ways we can all help in the fight against this dreadful disease. I call upon the Government to fund our vital medical research facilities properly and, particularly in this month of November, I call upon the Government to increase funding for pancreatic cancer research. HASTINGS SECONDARY COLLEGE PORT MACQUARIE AND WESTPORT CAMPUSES Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) (23:43:05): I will provide further details to the House in relation to the New South Wales Government's commitment to significantly upgrade both the Port Macquarie and Westport campuses of Hastings Secondary College. However, before commenting on this issue, I first want to highlight the incredible investment there has been in education across all our communities since the Liberals and The Nationals came to government in 2011. The electorate of Port Macquarie has been the beneficiary of this education infrastructure focus and that is no more evident than in Lake Cathie, where community pride in our local school is palpable. In Tuesday's budget the commitment to education was strengthened, and I congratulate both the Treasurer and the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, Sarah Mitchell, on the announcement of more than $19.7 billion to be invested in the provision of world-class education to students right across the State in 2020-21. In relation to the Hastings Secondary College, the upgrade of the two Port Macquarie sites has been on the drawing board for a number of years and the master plan presented to the school community was overwhelmingly supported by teachers, parents and students. Not surprisingly, everybody was excited about the substantial upgrade Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4963
that was proposed. The announcement for the upgrade, which was first made public in February 2019, was welcomed and applauded by the Port Macquarie community. However, since that time representations to my office reflect a waning of enthusiasm, with the revelation that the proposed upgrade is now very different from the original master plan that was presented for community consultation back in 2018. The Port Macquarie Campus, which is now more than 50 years old, was to be substantially overhauled with the demolition of several buildings but now, according to correspondence I have received from the P&C and as articulated by a number of parents, the project to be delivered by School Infrastructure NSW is very different from the original plans. President of the P&C, Belinda Green, wrote to me recently and shared her concerns on behalf of the parent body. She said: There are many upgrades that were proposed in the 2018 Master Plan that have not been included in the current plans including at the: Port Macquarie Campus • New 2-3 story library, senior study and STEM Lab • Refurbishment and extension of the Administration Building including new entrance to the school, Café to be operated by the hospitality learning unit. • Refurbishment of the existing community hall to a performing arts centre • Relocation & refurbishment of the COLA and sports court • Demolish of C Block and construction of a new 2-3 story building housing TAS, Visual arts etc • Relocation of science to the existing library and refurbish to reflect a flexible and adaptable learning environment. The upgrades to the Port Macquarie Campus ultimately provide some new facilities, however only 12 of our 30 plus classrooms, which are all very aged and outdated, actually end up being refurbished. At Westport Campus the • New COLA for the basketball courts for all weather activities • New Forecourt are no longer included in the planned upgrade. Mrs Green is particularly concerned that the current proposal for the upgrade to the Port Macquarie Campus is based on modelling that reflects the campus' ultimate capacity of around 650 students. Currently the number of students at the campus is 764. I think Mrs Green rightly questions why School Infrastructure is using outdated modelling to determine current and future upgrade requirements. A number of parents contacted me about the lack of community consultation, as was promised in February this year. Parent Mark Stewart wrote in an email to my electorate office: I am concerned that this process is proceeding in an opaque and non-transparent way with no open/transparent reference or consultation with general student, parent or community body. He goes on to say: This is not what was promised at the start of the year. Building is due to start in only a few months, which raises the very real and serious prospect that the renovation will not be fit for purpose due to the lack of genuine consultation with those who will need to use the facility. I thank the Minister's office and her staff for allowing me opportunities last year and in 2020 to discuss the planned upgrade to Hastings Secondary College. These past discussions had also included issues relating to the commitment for a new PCYC in Port Macquarie that will be accommodated on the Port Macquarie Campus site. I am pleased to acknowledge that negotiations with the PCYC and some initial challenges with the construction of this long-awaited infrastructure appear to have been resolved. I will put on the record my sincere gratitude to School Infrastructure, the PCYC staff, the Hastings Secondary College school community and the Minister's office for working collaboratively to ensure that this community facility will be one that we can all be exceptionally proud of. I also again thank the Premier for joining me last month on a visit to the Port Macquarie Campus. I know she was extremely impressed with the calibre of the student leaders she met. As the local member, I could not have been more proud introducing her to the wonderful students and dedicated teachers. As a parent of former students at this school, I know firsthand the professionalism and commitment of the entire school community. I thank them for providing quality education to each and every student. On behalf of that community at Hastings Secondary College, I ask that the Minister press pause on the upgrade and allow time for further consultation with all stakeholders, advocate for more funding to deliver the refurbished and modernised educational facilities as promised in the 2018 master plan, and deliver a project that we are confident will serve this school community well into the future. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4964
HIGHER SCHOOL CERTIFICATE STUDENTS Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (23:48:09): For the Class of 2020, nothing has gone quite to plan. Not only have these remarkable students had to grapple with ancient history, biology or algebra on Zoom, they have also had to navigate the difficult path of becoming an adult largely on their own. They have missed out on the rites of passage that make Year 12 such a special time: graduations, end-of-year celebrations and even the process of farewelling high school and friends. They have managed an incredibly difficult academic year too, some dealing with limited access to the internet, interruptions from bored younger siblings, or trying to balancing the stress of study with the stress of perhaps a parent losing work during the pandemic. I am taking this opportunity today to speak to Year 12, 2020: You have made us so incredibly proud. You have risen to the challenges of 2020 with conviction, hope and resilience. You have succeeded despite everything this year has thrown at you: bushfires, COVID-19 and recession. I know you are just getting started. If 2020 cannot stop you, nothing will. This year 68,673 students are on track to complete their HSC. Each has their own story about how they have overcome the obstacles of this pretty tricky year. I will share just one of them with you. Anna Le, a student at Marrickville High School, has proven herself to be a strong, capable and resilient young woman who has excelled academically despite tough obstacles over the past two years. Due to family circumstances, Anna found herself moving from Perth to Sydney to live with her grandmother when she was in Year 11 and attending a new school in a new city just months prior to the outbreak of the global pandemic. Anna embraced life at Marrickville High School and quickly became part of the school family. She impressed teachers with her can-do attitude, friendly nature and strong work ethic, and was voted school captain by her peers and teachers. She excelled academically, consistently achieving A and B grades and, despite experiencing financial hardship, she enthusiastically gave back to the community through school fundraising initiatives and volunteering outside of school throughout the year. The pandemic has not been easy for Anna, who has balanced her studies with caring for her grandmother. She is an extraordinary young woman who has taken the year in her stride and achieved so much. Anna is not alone. I encourage all those students from across the Summer Hill electorate who have taken on leadership roles and contributed so much to their school communities: Ashfield Boys High School's Jordan Ddibya and Jonathan Chen, Bethlehem College's Jessica Clemente and Barbara Farhat, Casimir College's Peter Ikonomopoulos and Lara Smith, Christian Brothers High School Lewisham's James Threlkeld, Patrick Alexiadis and Anthony Fortini, De La Salle College's Michael Rahme, Felix Colvin and Antonio Mercurio, Dulwich High School of Visual Art and Design's Audrey Ormella and Christian Chorbadjian, St Maroun's College's Mickael Sassine and Raymond Truong, Marrickville High School's Anna Le and Oscar Sachs, and Trinity Grammar's Spiro Christopoulos, Ethan Bateman, Lewis Dobbin and Joshua Yeah. Each of these students has done an extraordinary job balancing their school and community work in so many ways. They have worked to make sure this difficult year has been a little safer, calmer and more "normal" for their fellow students. Of course, students do not do it alone. When the lockdown came into effect, teachers across New South Wales began quickly adapting to online learning, ensuring students had the resources and support they needed to learn. Day and night, teachers were there to support students and so, too, were their parents and families. Year 12 and the HSC is a tough slog for families as well. This year, more than ever, parents have had to step up and help manage their children's mental health. Recent research has shown that 70 per cent of year 12 girls felt anxious about exams and 47 per cent were stressed about the state of the world in general—far higher than their male counterparts. A key driver in young people's anxiety is the lack of certainty about what will follow high school, with youth unemployment at all-time highs and the lingering health restrictions meaning young people are less certain about the path forward than ever before. These are difficult and confusing times, but if there was ever a group of young people with the optimism and resilience to overcome the obstacles and achieve their dreams, it is definitely the class of 2020. They are extraordinary. I know they will achieve extraordinary things. I offer to year 12 students across the inner west my sincerest congratulations and best wishes for the future. SALUTE TO DUBBO BUSINESS AWARDS Mr DUGALD SAUNDERS (Dubbo) (23:52:57): Yesterday in this Chamber the Treasurer delivered a budget that was heavily directed at infrastructure and stimulating business in the wake of a terrible 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a massive impact on our lives and the measures that had to be put in place by the Government to get on top of the health crisis unfortunately resulted in a heavy burden on business owners and employees. None of us has ever gone through this before and hopefully the wonderful work done by frontline staff in conjunction with the Government will ensure that we never have to go through it again. While the year has been tough, it has also forced businesses across every industry to look at becoming more flexible and innovative. That was recognised in Dubbo last Friday night when the Dubbo Chamber of Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4965
Commerce showed its own flexibility and innovation by hosting the 2020 Salute to Dubbo Business Awards at Taronga Western Plains Zoo. Chamber President Matt Wright and his board have been great supporters of local businesses for many years, and their advice and advocacy have never been more important than during the pandemic. In a normal year the Rhino Awards, which are named after one of the iconic species at Taronga Western Plains Zoo, would be held at a large function centre with a massive crowd on hand and a huge number of gongs being handed out. But, of course, current restrictions meant that was not possible. Not to be deterred, though, the chamber board cut the number of categories, cut the number of attendees, opted for an outdoor venue and still found a great way to honour some of the region's businesses. Along with my wife, Karen, I was honoured to attend the event. It was truly a celebration of our diverse, energetic and resilient business community. There were six categories and four of them were people's choice, with online voting open to residents of the region. The Ploughman's Rest Tavern at Wongarbon—a fantastic pub—won the award for Dubbo's Favourite Hospitality Business, beating a quality field of nominees that included Cakes By Amy Rutherford, Rhino Lodge, Food At Yours and the Short Street Store. The award for Dubbo's Favourite Tradie saw Casey Rutherford from CJ Rutherford Roofing take the gong in a strong field that included Brendan Powyer from Peter Parkes Design & Construction, Gordon McDermaid from Gordon McDermaid Carpentry, Ian Gratton from GPS Plumbing and Ryan Shields from Wheel-Conn Crete. The Service With A Smile award went to Bev Onley from Daily Scoop at Majo's, ahead of Bevan Charlton-White from My Foot Doctor, Jack Browne at Macquarie Geotech, Kaail Bohm from Delroy Terry White Chemmart Pharmacy and Tayla Hallinan from Short Street Store. The final people's choice award was Dubbo's Most Popular Business. It drew a strong field of nominees, including Carlton House Childcare Centre, Daily Scoop at Majo's, Orana Threadz and Beauty, and Urban Edge Dance Studio. Ultimately, it was Katt, Georgia and Leah from Millennial Brow Co who took home the award, just three years after they started up the business in Georgia's dad's garage. They are making the world a better place, one brow at a time. The other two awards handed out on the night were for businesses that met the challenges of 2020 with diversification and innovation. SJ Shooter Real Estate, headed up by Samuel Shooter and his wife, Laura, took out the award in the small business section, ahead of Axxis and Ruby Maine, while Summit Cranes claimed the award in the large business category ahead of Fitness Focus Dubbo and Orana Mall Pharmacy. There were some really great businesses nominated and really great businesses recognised. Obviously there can be only one winner in each category, but it showed that everyone involved in business ownership in our region is a winner—particularly this year. At Mudgee, the local chamber of commerce is looking to do something fairly similar with its 2020 Magnificent Mudgee Business Awards, which will be held in December. A couple of months ago I met with the new board of the chamber. Its members were a bit worried about their ability to host the annual Clock Awards. The combination of COVID and a new board meant they were in danger of not proceeding. However, I am pleased to say the chamber has opted to run awards in a similar way to Dubbo. It is important that people who have put so much effort into their businesses for 2020 have an outlet to not only be recognised for their efforts but also decompress and enjoy a COVID safe social outing. Finally, given this is the last opportunity I will have in this Chamber for 2020, I thank everyone who has done so much to enable us to get through what has been one heck of a tough year—all the business owners and supporters who have been on board since COVID-19 started. This time last year we were dealing with bushfires and the drought; this year we have been confronted with a pandemic. I know my electorate office has been inundated with concerns from constituents relating to every possible aspect of the pandemic, and I know that has been the case across the board. It has not been easy for anyone this year, but somehow we are now only a few weeks away from Christmas. I think the New South Wales response from a health and economic perspective has been phenomenal. I wish everyone a happy and safe Christmas, and all the best as we head into a brand-new year, which hopefully will be a cracker. SUICIDE PREVENTION Dr JOE McGIRR (Wagga Wagga) (23:57:57): This year we have responded quickly to the pandemic as a State and as a nation. We increased our hospital resources and took effective public health action. But the work is not over. As we move into recovery, we face new challenges. One of these is mental health and suicide. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suicide is now the leading cause of years of productive life lost in Australia. Some 115,000 years of productive life are lost to suicide compared with the next highest cause, ischemic heart disease, with 78,000 years of productive life lost. We have made great progress in cutting the death rate for cancer and heart disease, but not for suicide—not for this tragedy for families, communities and for our society. It is especially so in rural areas. According to the Mental Health Commission of NSW report Regional Profile, the suicide rate for the Murrumbidgee is twice the rate of the New South Wales average—a Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4966
pattern repeated across the State. We know this loss: life taken too soon that rocks our rural communities to their core. I am concerned that this may get worse after our year of the pandemic, coming after the terrible bushfire season. I acknowledge that in the wake of the pandemic we have had a budget for economic recovery from the Government. But we need a strategy for a mental health recovery. Professor Ian Hickie, who is currently Co-Director, Health and Policy, at the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney, says, "We have done a great job this year of orientating our health system to respond to the physical effects of the virus. In 2021 the issue is going to be: Can we do the same thing for mental health?" Professor Hickie talks about a system already struggling to deal with this issue. For example, he speaks of the disconnect between emergency departments and follow-up care, and the fact that our system is run by two separate governments: the hospital system, run by the State, and the primary care system, run by the Federal Government. We are all too aware of this in rural areas. It is this disconnect that is at the heart of many problems in rural health. For example, I understand that currently Wagga Wagga, the largest inland city in New South Wales, has only one privately practicing psychiatrist. This is a stark reminder of the dysfunction still in our health system. However, on a positive note, it is Murrumbidgee Local Health District policy that all who present to emergency departments after a suicide attempt must be assessed by mental health clinicians and referred for further assessment and care. This can be done by a mental health clinician using video technology to access any emergency department in the district. Perhaps this system should be examined more broadly in New South Wales and Australia. Sadly, many who take their lives—perhaps as many as two-thirds—do not make contact with our public health hospital system; it is actually not clear that they have made contact with the primary care system. How do we reach people who suddenly, perhaps because of their situation—the loss of a job, the breakdown of a relationship—make that fatal decision? There does not seem to be an easy answer to this. I note initiatives of community training in mental health first aid. In my region, health staff are working with other agencies to provide a coordinated response to suicide prevention. For example, there are programs to train members of the public in suicide awareness and response skills. I note the Government's announcements for additional mental health funding, especially in schools, and for mental health and community wellbeing. I welcome these announcements, as they are somewhat outside the traditional health system. But the fact is that much more research and work is needed in this area. It is even more of a concern as we recover from the pandemic. This year has been hard for many, as lockdowns and social distancing have often cut us off from our support networks at a time of highest stress. There has been some good news, with the NSW Suicide Monitoring System reporting there has been no spike in suicides in New South Wales despite the pandemic to this point. However, I know there is concern amongst health professionals and community workers that we will see stress emerge in the recovery phase. We cannot afford to become complacent on this issue. Our work on suicide prevention must continue. The supports of government will be wound back over the next six months, which is understandable, but we need to be aware that that will increase pressures on people, particularly our vulnerable people. I call on the New South Wales Government to redouble its efforts on suicide prevention and work closely with the Federal Government. This is a real health issue—as real as any physical illness. It deserves our full attention. PENRITH ELECTORATE INFRASTRUCTURE Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith—Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney) (00:02:48): On this, the last occasion to speak in the Chamber before the end of the year, I summarise what has been quite simply an extraordinary year. I think back to New Year's Day, with bushfires across the South Coast. I found myself driving down to the South Coast to be with my close friend and colleague the member for Bega through what was a most traumatic time. Coming to the end of that bushfire period I thought, "Surely there is an opportunity for the year to get better", only to be hit by COVID and to see so many of our members across the western Sydney and Penrith communities being challenged. Schools and sports were disrupted. However, it has been inspiring to see the way the community has been able to respond and to pivot—perhaps 2020's word of the year—to find a new way of doing things. Through the course of all of this tumult and turmoil the Government has been able to continue to deliver for the people of the Penrith electorate. Particularly important infrastructure projects such as the upgrades to Mulgoa Road and Northern Road continue at pace. Recently we announced the acceleration of stage two of the Nepean Hospital redevelopment. This will see over $1 billion invested in Nepean Hospital to ensure that this part of western Sydney has the health infrastructure that it needs to meet our growing community. The Government has also taken significant strides towards laying out the long-term strategic vision for western Sydney, particularly with the development of the aerotropolis and the Western Parkland City Authority. I thank everyone at the authority and the Greater Sydney Commission who have helped me in delivering what we have been able to achieve. I also thank the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for its very strong support. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4967
We have made significant strides in our place-based economic development strategies, particularly around the establishment of Tech Central in the southern part of the Sydney CBD. We have secured the global headquarters of Atlassian as an anchor tenant there. In the long term, this will substantially change the southern end of the CBD, create Australia's answer to Silicon Valley and put Sydney on the map when it comes to technology firms. At Westmead the health and innovation district continues to go from strength to strength. It will attract more investment and I am absolutely confident that we will see strong support from the education sector in that particular precinct in the near future, really solidifying it as the economic generator in the central city. All those things do not happen by mistake. I thank my ministerial team, which has helped out substantially through the course of the year. I thank Rebecca Meyer, Sophie Hull, Amanda Choularton, Emma Dunn, Rachel Metcalf and the old Shinboner Michael Haynes. He has been with me since I became a Minister and we have been friends for a very long time. He is a bit of a quiet achiever, but he is there every single day when I need him and when the people of New South Wales need him. He has been an incredible leader of my office since the election and over the past challenging 12 months we have had. I thank my electorate office team: Rhonda Hanbury—who has recently celebrated 10 years of service to the New South Wales Parliament— Elizabeth Drysdale and Sue Connolly. We have had to do lot of things that have taken me away from my electorate this year. The team has held the home ground and the home fort incredibly well. They have such a strong reputation across our community for being wonderful servants of the public. I thank them so much for the work they have done and for their dedication to serving the community. There have been some additional tasks this year, including securing personal protective equipment [PPE] and establishing a hotel quarantine system. A number of people have been involved in that and, unfortunately, I want to use the phrase, "You know who you are." But to the team in the NSW Police Force, the team at NSW Health and the very small team at NSW Treasury who, by the end of this week, will have allowed 94,000 people to safely quarantine in hotels in New South Wales—and that will no doubt be the frontline defence against COVID—I say thank you very much for the work you have done. The teams that we have worked with in securing PPE, when it was probably the hardest thing to find anywhere in the world, have helped set up New South Wales in its COVID response. I also thank my colleagues the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister for Customer Service and the Minister for Health and Medical Research. Working closely with them on the COVID response has been nothing short of inspiring. My last comment is to say thank you to all the workers in Parliament and the Legislature. Helen's team do an amazing job. It can sometimes be brutal here, but her protection of democracy is greatly appreciated. STATE BUDGET AND LAKEMBA ELECTORATE Mr JIHAD DIB (Lakemba) (00:08:05): Yesterday the Government produced a short-term budget filled with idealistic predictions that fall well short of setting up New South Wales for success on the other side of the pandemic and recession, a budget based on precarious and heroic assumptions. The Treasurer sold this as a budget for everyone and said that this Government was relentlessly ambitious for the people of this State. In his speech, he said that the response was to dare to do something differently. I ask the Treasurer: What about the people of my electorate of Lakemba? What has he specifically done differently for the people of Lakemba? Even after six years I still get hopeful for budget day, with the anticipation that something will be spent on my community. Like the previous five years that I have been in the New South Wales Parliament, this year I am left deflated when I hear about how it is a budget for all and yet somehow it always seems to miss us. I had to double- and triple-check, but again the 2020-21 allocation for the electorate of Lakemba was zero dollars. How is that a budget for everyone? On hospitals, the Treasurer said that this is "a hospital-building blitz that has never been seen before". The budget allocates funding to 40 new, upgraded or redeveloped hospitals and yet Canterbury Hospital is not one of them. It is a decision that I cannot fathom other than to say that the Government has once again told my community that it does not care about them. More than 100,000 people depend on Canterbury Hospital. It is expected to serve the needs of a population projected to increase by 39 per cent by 2031, thanks to this Government's laissez-faire attitude to overdevelopment. My colleagues the member for Canterbury and the member for Summer Hill and I have pleaded for the delivery of much-needed upgrades. We have done this through community forums, through direct requests of the Treasurer, through petitions and through our local media outlets. There is no renal dialysis, angiogram or MRI scanning technologies at the hospital. Our community is over-represented in the rates of diabetes and health issues, and shamefully under-represented in investment in health services. There are 14 government schools in my electorate and this budget only includes upgrades to one of them. The Government promised funding to upgrade Banksia Road Primary School and Punchbowl Public School but has only delivered on the upgrade to Banksia Road Public School, and sadly only as a result of a tragic accident that caused the deaths of two students. Communities have been kept waiting for promises that do not arrive. Again, the old "n/a" seems to be the Government's response to my community. The Treasurer said that Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4968
infrastructure spending announced in this budget was a compound effect of vision, passion and determination. He said that the WestConnex M5 would breathe life into our State. He failed to outline his Government's plans within this vision to sell off the remaining share of WestConnex and its determination to whack the people of New South Wales with a 4 per cent per year toll increase. This will place a burden on families, especially in the west and south-west—my part of the electorate—where they have to use the M5. The electorate is in need of lots of things. I had hoped that the budget might attend to some of the problems on our roads and invest in our town centres and precincts. I had hoped it would offer upgrades to community centres and hubs that improve social outcomes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, at-risk youth, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. I had hoped for an adequate injection of funds to support local jobs, given that 3,000 people in my electorate will be hit hard once JobKeeper ends in March. But I suppose the budget has not been all that bad. If we are lucky, part of an injection of funds into social housing is a step in the right direction. Today, a family of three or four living in my electorate has to wait more than 10 years to be housed. It is imperative that the Government increases supply to communities that need it most, to reduce the pressure that families face finding appropriate accommodation and to reduce overcrowding. This budget is not a budget for everyone. It is a budget based on increasing tolls, more privatisation, selling off school land, merging schools and public sector wage cuts. So what is the wash-up? It is a looming State debt of $100 billion. It is easy to say that the pandemic is to blame, but the reality is that prior to COVID-19 we were already facing a deficit of $40 billion. The question we must ask is how it got to be like this. How did this Government manage a budget that relies on sugar hits and the sale of assets? I dare say that the million-dollar question is how we repay this debt. But the reality is that it is much more than that. It is a $100 billion question—something we have never had to ask in the history of this State. The people deserve better than this. FEDERAL MEMBER FOR MCMAHON Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) (00:13:11): This evening I deliver my final private member's statement for 2020. Whilst I had planned to use this last opportunity to focus on the wonderful members of my community and their achievements this year, I must instead respond to the appalling comments and misrepresentation levelled at me by the Federal Labor member for McMahon. The member for McMahon has demonstrated that his is gutless by criticising me in a Federal parliamentary Chamber to which I, as a State member, have no access to defend myself against his accusations. It was a cowardly attack on me personally in the work that I am doing to represent my community of Horsley Park, Cecil Park and Mount Vernon in relation to the State environmental planning policy and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis planning package. His actions paint a dismal and desperate picture of a man grasping at straws to prop up his shrinking political support base. This is a political game and a tactic, and it is disturbing that he is using my community to support and suit his political strategic objectives. I am surprised to see that the member for McMahon has now suddenly raised his voice in an attempt to appear hardworking to his community. For the last number of months he has been acting and speaking more as the shadow member for Hughes, attacking the elected Coalition member for Hughes instead of doing his job as the member for McMahon and Federal shadow Minister for Health. But now, suddenly, he has turned his attention to his electorate. He is purporting to be standing up for the residents of Horsley Park, Cecil Park and Mount Vernon. But where was he in standing up for the residents when Fairfield City Council proposed increasing density in Horsley Park and Cecil Park? Why is he speaking up now and not then on planning issues? What has changed? Or is it the member for McMahon simply helping his political ally, the Mayor of Fairfield, who, I should remind our community, does not live in his local government area but instead lives in Penrith LGA. In his speech the member for McMahon quoted from a letter I distributed to my community a few months ago. The contents of that letter are accurate and truthful. Let me once again put the facts on the table in relation to the State environmental planning policies [SEPPs] and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Planning Package. First, Fairfield City Council communicated that restrictions may be imposed on noise sensitive development within the Australian Noise Exposure Concept [ANEC] 20 and above contour in its exhibition material for the Fairfield Rural Lands Urban Investigation Area, which was on exhibition from 9 November 2018 to 8 February 2019. Recently I looked up these documents on the internet and this notification is written there in black and white in the council's documentation. Second, the draft Western Sydney Aerotropolis Planning Package was publicly exhibited from 6 December 2019 to 13 March 2020 and was promoted through numerous mediums to reach as many people as possible. This included advertisements in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph and on Facebook. The accusations that the member for McMahon levelled at me—that there has been no consultation—are false. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4969
Third, in existing residential areas or on land already approved for residential development, the ability to construct dwellings will not be removed. This is reflected in clause 19 (4) of the SEPP. Fourth, in preparing planning controls for the Western Sydney Aerotropolis and surrounding areas, a precautionary approach to aircraft noise controls, particularly noise sensitive uses within the ANEC/Australian Noise Exposure Forecast 20 and above controls, was taken at the specific request of the Commonwealth Government. Fifth, the protection of the 24 hours seven days a week airport operation is an important objective of planning for the aerotropolis. To achieve this, the New South Wales Government will continue to collaborate with local councils on the practical implementation of the relevant planning controls in the affected areas. This is a time of rapid change for western Sydney and my community has many questions. I have had numerous conversations with my community about this matter and will continue to do so. I have met with community representatives to hear their concerns and will also continue to do so. I have written to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to request engagement with the Horsley Park and Cecil Park community to discuss and address their issues, concerns and questions. As I have advocated for my community in the past, I will continue to. In closing, perhaps the most telling picture of who the community trusts to represent them is revealed in election results. At the most recent Federal election Chris Bowen suffered a 5.5 per cent swing against him. I achieved a 1.7 per cent swing towards me. In the community of Horsley Park the Liberal vote was more than double that of the Labor vote. It is clear that the people of Horsley Park rejected the member for McMahon and further still, the people of Australia rejected him as shadow Treasurer when his policies were outlined—to attack self-funded retirees. His failure as shadow Treasurer caused his massive demotion to shadow Minister for Health. I reject the false allegations of the member for McMahon. I will continue to stand up for my communities of Horsley Park, Cecil Park and Mount Vernon. EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (00:18:16): If there is one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us it is the need for our communities to be resilient in the face of change. Further, it has reinforced the importance of continual learning—knowledge, research, science and analysis—in helping us to deal with challenges both known and unexpected. As 2020 draws to a close, it is an ideal time to reflect on the year that was—and it was a year like no other in my living memory. While we practised physical distancing, we learned the true value of social connectedness. Facing uncertainty and despair, we learned to embrace hope and the kindness of strangers. We also developed a new-found appreciation for our frontline workers—everyone from our supermarket workers to our nurses and our teachers. Adapting to online learning from home during the lockdown period was a particularly challenging time. Many parents and carers had to juggle domestic duties and working from home with the added stress of their children learning entirely online from home. Our teachers were given the arduous task of creating online content and delivering lessons in a virtual classroom—almost overnight. Schools were agile in their transition to remote online learning. While the transition was relatively smooth, it also reinforced the joys of face-to-face learning and teaching. Of concern though is that the move to online learning highlighted the stark digital divide that exists in many of our communities. Some children and families were simply unable to engage in online learning due to limited or no access to a suitable device in the home, or either no internet connection or very poor internet connection. This only reinforced their educational disadvantage with future flow-on effects impinging on their quality of life. Making education equitable has far-reaching benefits for our whole society. As the late former Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam, AC, QC, famously said: We are diminished when any of us are denied proper education. The nation is the poorer—a poorer economy, a poorer civilization, because of this human and national waste. I raise my hat to the class of 2020. Our cohort of year 12 students have faced great uncertainty and stress due to the pandemic—and yet they have risen to the challenge. We are all so proud of them. I also commend the students, parents and teachers who have endured so much in 2020. You could say this year has itself been an education. The overwhelming number of people who signed up for free TAFE courses during the pandemic also highlighted the huge demand for education and training that is both accessible and affordable. People seized the opportunity to upskill for free at their own convenience online. Financial barriers to education are simply unfair, particularly during a recession. People from all walks of life should be given all the support they need to upskill in the current economic climate. After all, we are always learning and growing. Let us not forget that some of the best learning experiences occur outside the classroom as we go about our everyday lives. Education is lifelong. Learning is a constant journey for us all. New chapters in our learning are being written all the time. I am proud to say that my own learning journey began at Robert Townson Public Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4970
School and the Robert Townson High School before I undertook further study firstly at the University of Sydney and at the London School of Economics. And now, many years later, I look forward to embarking on further part-time study at the University of Sydney as I undertake a higher research degree—another chapter to be written in my lifelong learning journey to help my local community to live a better life. Solid investment in education and training is vital if we are to be a competitive, knowledgeable and innovative society. The pandemic has been an opportunity to learn and grow, both individually and collectively. We all benefit from each other's knowledge to make our country and our community a better place. It was Bob Hawke who declared in 1990 his vision for Australia to be the clever country. As our nation moves forward from the pandemic, now is the time to examine the idea of a clever country and what it means for our future— a future in which we can proudly look forward to a resurgence in our manufacturing sector; a future in which we can invest heavily in research, science and innovation; a future in which we can secure our place and voice in the world and be a leader in climate change, health care and, above all, quality and accessible education for all. That future starts right here and in our classrooms. New challenges require new learnings and new ideas, but only if the Liberal Government steps up its game. Instead of more spin, the Government should build our schools in fast growing areas such as Edmondson Park. Instead of doing cheap land deals the Government should save the Hurlstone Agricultural High School and its farm. The pandemic has certainly given us all an opportunity to reflect on a year of unprecedented challenges. At the same time, it has reminded us to never stop learning because life never stops teaching. TRIBUTE TO ARTHUR INGLIS Dr GEOFF LEE (Parramatta—Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education) (00:23:29): I bring to the attention of the House a family man, a friend and a great community member, Arthur Inglis. I pay my respects on the passing of Arthur Inglis, who was a well-known and helpful contributor to Parramatta. Arthur passed away earlier this month and I offer my sincere condolences to his wife, family and many friends. Arthur Ernest Inglis was born on Friday 2 October 1936 to Emily and Sidney Inglis of Castle Hill. Arthur attended Castle Hill Primary School followed by Parramatta High School. With a highly mathematical mind, Arthur pursued an engineering degree at the University of New South Wales and then a management diploma at the Sydney Technical College and the University of New South Wales. Arthur started his career at International Products, which was based in Enfield, where his older brother, Syd, was the works manager. Arthur's career really took off when he started work at IBM in the mid-1960s. Arthur held various roles at IBM and was eventually appointed head of education for South-East Asia, which meant regular travel for many years to Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand. Arthur also received awards for his approach to training and for the results he achieved. In the mid-1980s Arthur left IBM and started Comprador Business Systems. In the early nineties he established Manufacturing and Management Systems, which became LSA Australia in 2004 and which his son, Jeffrey, now runs. Arthur met Ruth in the late 1950s. They married on 10 May 1963 and bought their first home in 1964 on Kariwara Street in Dundas. The couple welcomed Jeffrey Arthur into that home on 31 Dec 1970, and Tracey Adele soon after on 4 October 1971. The family needed a bigger home due to their cocker spaniel, Honey, so in 1973 they purchased their Leamington Road, Dundas, house, which was the family home for 40 years. They later moved to Meadowbank in 2013. Arthur and wife, Ruth, were overjoyed by the arrival of their grandchildren. Jacob was born in 2007, Lilly was born in 2009 and Kai was born in 2011. Arthur was a proud grandfather and he enjoyed a special relationship with each grandchild. He was always their patient and loving Poppy. Arthur was a passionate supporter of the Liberal Party. He joined in the mid-1950s and was the founder of the Parramatta branch of the Liberal Party in the early 1970s. Arthur held branch meetings in their Leamington Road living room. He was also Philip Ruddock's campaign manager on three occasions. In the late 1980s Arthur was appointed to the position of Parramatta Federal conference president, a role he loved and was proud to execute. Even in the last six months of his life, Arthur was actively involved in the Liberal Party. He and his friend Dennis Furini were big supporters. Arthur was also a member of the Parramatta Businessman's Club since the late fifties. He served as a committee member and in the mid-1970s became its youngest ever president. Arthur was also president of the body corporates for both of the club's Meadowbank and Parramatta properties. Arthur's health declined rapidly in the last few months of his life. He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which was, sadly, fatal. Arthur loved to party, listen to jazz music, read books, spend time with his family and friends, drink good wine and live a life of authenticity, fairness and honour. He was an absolute gentleman and he will be missed by all who knew him. I thank Arthur for his friendship, guidance and support over the past 10 years. Arthur has been an integral part of my political life. I thank him. Vale, Arthur Inglis. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4971
TUGGERAH ACTIVATION PRECINCT Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) (00:27:49): Last Friday I was pleased to join the member for Terrigal to speak to the Central Coast chapter of the Urban Development Institute of Australia about our vision for the future of the Central Coast. In particular, I drew attention to the potential of the suburb of Tuggerah, which is in my electorate. I put the proposition that the Government should consider creating either a special activation precinct for the Central Coast or, if not, a Tuggerah precinct. Two major developments have the potential to drive economic growth and jobs not only for my electorate but also for the whole of the Central Coast. Those two developments are significant. In February 2019 Scentre Group, which is the parent company of Westfield, signed a memorandum of understanding with then planning Minister Anthony Roberts and the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council for a development worth in the vicinity of $2.8 billion. The New South Wales Government made a commitment to spend about $800 million on infrastructure. It was great to see in the budget, which was announced on Tuesday, that the first part of that funding will be provided, although it is only a small sum in comparison to the promised amount. However, it gives some hope that the project will move forward. The budget provided $4.5 million to plan additional commuter car parking spaces at Tuggerah Station by creating a multi-deck car park. The member for The Entrance and I were extremely happy to see that planning money. We have fought a community campaign for about 10 years to get those improvements. The last improvements at the station were made when Labor was in government in 2009, when the car park was expanded and a transport interchange was put in. It is good to see that after another decade the Government has finally started to look at planning those commuter car parking spaces. The budget has also provided funding for lifts at Tuggerah Station. As part of the Westfield Tuggerah package—the $2.8 billion Scentre Group proposal—$1.5 million has been allocated for two new lifts and a new footbridge that will join the shopping centre with the railway station. Only $1.5 million has been provided of the necessary $34 million, but we will not complain. That is a start. Interestingly, the holes for those lifts were dug in 2010 and then the project suddenly finished and the workers disappeared. Hopefully, we are now back on track. It is good to see that there is some funding for that. Along with the Scentre Group proposal, a new Fiducia Property Group proposal would run parallel to the railway station. That is another significant development. I hope that we can push through the planning proposals and fix some drainage issues in the area. Those two proposals from Fiducia Property Group and Scentre Group would create a mix of housing and retail spaces close to transport and right near the freeway. Those sensational projects would make Tuggerah a major destination centre, a major economic driver of jobs and a major mixed housing development. That housing development would accommodate retirees and there would be provision for affordable housing as well as some high-level housing. The development would integrate into Pioneer Dairy, a beautiful reserve trust parkland and wetland area. Those projects have so much potential. I will write to Minister John Barilaro and ask whether he can come on board to create a special activation precinct and ensure that the precinct can be a showpiece, not just for the Central Coast but also for New South Wales. That is a much-needed development. Private investors are waiting to put their money into the project. All that is needed now is Government support for that economic driver. Community Recognition Statements E A SOUTHEE PUBLIC SCHOOL Ms STEPH COOKE (Cootamundra) (00:33:15): Congratulations to E A Southee Public School in Cootamundra on being featured by the Department of Education's Arts Unit. Students at E A Southee have been getting creative with activities in science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics, or STEAM. Their work has been put on display to inspire other schools and students. Students explored the world of percussion and developed critical and creative thinking skills by designing and building junk percussion out of waste products. We do not often see a small, rural school showcased in that way. A huge congratulations to E A Southee Public School students, staff and, in particular, the STEAM leadership team. NAIDOC WEEK Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) (00:34:05): During NAIDOC Week 2020 I attended the E-Bisglobal flag raising and smoking ceremony performed by Darkinjung Elder Uncle Kevin Duncan at Tuggerah Business Park on the 9 November. E-Bisglobal celebrated NAIDOC Week and its commitment to Indigenous employment along with service awards presented to April Felton for 10 years of service and Graeme Wade for 20 years of service. The ceremony was held to respectfully acknowledge the unique and ongoing connection to the land of First Nation people and it will mark a new beginning for E-Bisglobal as the company transitions to an Aboriginal-owned business on the Central Coast. The Aboriginal flag was raised and will be proudly flown at E-Bisglobal. After the ceremony a barbecue was held for staff members and guests, with proceeds going towards the Barang Regional Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4972
Alliance. E-Bisglobal is a multi-award winning privately owned and operated Australian company offering print management, marketing services, procurement solutions, and warehousing fulfilment and logistics, including significant government contracts for e-tags for Transport for NSW. GOSFORD MEN'S SHED Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (00:35:14): During the COVID-19 pandemic the fantastic Gosford Men's Shed has been making a number of wildlife boxes with an aim to provide safe, secure housing for Australia's wildlife. Jenny Pearson, Gosford Men's Shed, WIRES and Bunnings delivered a number of nesting boxes to Aussie Ark during early October this year. I had the pleasure of seeing them constructing the boxes not long ago. Massive loads of these nesting boxes are being delivered to house native animals that lost their homes during last summer's bushfires. With many native animals having to rely on natural tree hollows for nesting, breeding and shelter, these nesting boxes will provide a safe haven from the weather and predators. It was wonderful to catch up with Ray Crawley and the guys from Gosford Men's Shed in my office for an update on their wonderful work in our community. Gosford Men's Shed has joined with the 29 additional men's sheds across the north end of our fabulous State for the nesting box initiative with the aim of installing 2,000 within a month. TRIBUTE TO MARY BULMAN Mr PAUL SCULLY (Wollongong) (00:36:24): I recognise the life, contribution and personal support of Mary Bulman, who passed away on 22 October. Mary was a life member of the Australian Labor Party and a great contributor to it. Mary joined the Labor Party in 1974, becoming a member of the Macquarie Fields-Ingleburn branch and later president of Campbelltown SEC. Mary was elected to Campbelltown council in 1977 and served as a Labor representative for 10 years as deputy mayor and briefly as mayor. In her time on council, Mary was the president of South West Metro Arts, and was appointed to the Cultural Grants Advisory Council by Premier Neville Wran from 1983 to 1985. As former Campbelltown Mayor Aaron Rule said, she was a champion for Labor and a trailblazer for Campbelltown. In 1992, Mary joined Thirroul branch of the Labor Party on moving to the coast with her late husband, Ken. During her career, Mary worked for a number of State and Federal members. She was a great source of support and advice to my colleagues and predecessors. She most recently was a member of the Port Kembla branch, where she will be sadly missed by members. NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIAN OF THE YEAR SHANE FITZSIMMONS Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (00:37:31): I congratulate former NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner and current Resilience NSW Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons on being awarded the New South Wales Australian of the Year. My electorate of Hawkesbury faced the full force of the destructive 2019-2020 bushfires. The community will always be grateful for and will never forget the stellar leadership from Mr Fitzsimmons during such unprecedented times. Mr Fitzsimmons stewardship in his position as Rural Fire Service Commissioner gave great comfort and confidence to our community. His exceptional knowledge and experience has earned the respect of volunteers, emergency service workers and police personnel who found strength through his leadership during such a perilous time. Commissioner Fitzsimmons also provided comfort to the loved ones of the brave firefighters who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their brave service. I once again congratulate Mr Fitzsimmons on being awarded the New South Wales Australian of the Year. I know he will be a competitive nominee for Australian of the Year in January 2021. MACKILLOP CATHOLIC COLLEGE Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) (00:38:30): Students from Warnervale's MacKillop Catholic College have won a group award for outstanding dancing at the 2020 OzTheatrics Junior Theatre Festival Australia, which was held at the Newcastle Civic Theatre at the end of October. This was the fifth instalment of the annual event, which celebrates student-driven musical theatre. MacKillop's 22 students presented selections from High School Musical JR as part of their entry, whilst also including many leading Australian musical personalities. The group's singing, dancing and acting came together to create a really entertaining and energetic performance of High School Musical JR. Mrs. Baird, the leader of learning and teacher of performing arts, praised the students' efforts. I congratulate the MacKillop Catholic College theatre team on winning this year's OzTheatrics Junior Theatre Festival. MIRANDA MAGPIES CRICKET CLUB Ms ELENI PETINOS (Miranda) (00:39:18): I acknowledge a wonderful community sports club in the Miranda electorate, the Miranda Magpies Cricket Club. Established as a foundation member of the Sutherland Shire Junior Cricket Association in the 1950s, the Miranda Magpies prides itself on being an inclusive club, ensuring that all players have the opportunity to improve their skills whilst enjoying the great game of cricket, cultivating good sportsmanship and being with friends. Having been involved in senior cricket competition since 1921, the Magpies have won 86 junior and 25 senior premierships over its long and impressive history. No Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4973
community club's success is possible without the hard work of its volunteers. In particular, I commend the ongoing efforts of the 2020-2021 committee, including President Scott Taylor, Vice-President Mark Easton, Treasurer Paul Easton, Secretary Peter Briscoe, Gerard Burgess, Shane Murray and Janelle Briscoe. I extend my best wishes for the rest of the season to all at Miranda Magpies Cricket Club. INTERNATIONAL PATHOLOGY DAY Mr PAUL SCULLY (Wollongong) (00:40:16): We recently marked International Pathology Day. During the COVID pandemic, it has never has been more important to make sure we had a really good, secure and sound professional system of testing for pathology work. Recently, along with my colleague the member for Keira, I visited the Wollongong Hospital pathologists to thank them for their efforts. If not for their professionalism to take and turnaround high-quality samples and make sure diagnoses are done in a safe, speedy and accurate manner, no member of this place would have been able to encourage the public testing regime that has enabled us to get on with our lives with a relative degree of normality. I thank those pathologists for their professionalism, their dedication to the task, and the long hours they have worked over the past months. I wish them all the very best for the future. WEDDIN SHIRE COUNCIL Ms STEPH COOKE (Cootamundra) (00:41:17): I acknowledge Weddin Shire Council for holding a tidy yard competition, judging each front yard in the villages and towns of the shire. I congratulate the winners from each of Weddin Shire's towns and villages: Maria Gruber from Caragabal, John and Sue Priestley from Quandialla, John and Faye Kemp from Bimbi, and Jack and Maureen Bryant from Greenethorpe. It is wonderful that each of the winners has been recognised for their hard work and dedication in maintaining their front yards. I know that it can take time and effort, and I thank them for their contribution to the overall appearance and impression of our towns and villages. As I drive around the towns and villages of the Cootamundra electorate, I enjoy having the opportunity to admire the many beautiful and well-maintained yards. THE VILLAGE PROJECT Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (00:42:08): The Village Project is set to transform the heart of Summer Hill by converting a long-vacant, three-storey warehouse into a green and vibrant community use space for inner-west businesses and residents. Each floor of the three-storey warehouse will have its own unique use, including a large community market on the ground floor, shared creative arts space and an entrepreneurial hub where local businesses and entrepreneurs can collaborate and share information and resources. The Village Project will be hosting a range of local art shows, community cinema nights, language classes and inner-west markets. Co-established by founder of Four Brave Women, Bindi Lea, The Village Project aims to place the inner-west community at the heart of all it does. I thank Bindi and the whole The Village Project team for providing another wonderful, multipurpose space in the inner west. I wish them all the best as they gear up to open to the public. EMPIRE BAY PUBLIC SCHOOL Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (00:43:07): Everyone knows how important it is to take time to reflect—after all, this is how we can improve for the better. I acknowledge the senior students at Empire Bay Public School who took the time to reflect. Off the back of a survey, they presented a number of ideas for school improvements, one being a tiered seating platform around one of the trees in the playground. The P&C contacted my office to see if we could help. I was delighted to be able to supply the school with $20,000 funding through the New South Wales Government's 2019 Community Building Partnership grants. I acknowledge the great work from the senior students who, with collaboration, came up with this fantastic project. It is great to see the seating platform come to fruition. I thank the number of Central Coast businesses that lent them a hand, including W Residential from Wamberal. Now all the students from Empire Bay Public School will have the opportunity to sit down in a quiet, safe and shaded place to enjoy their recess and lunch break. WADALBA COMMUNITY SCHOOL Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) (00:44:10): The Wadalba Community School's primary debating team have made history with their highest placing finish in the Premier's Debating Challenge. A team consisting of Isabella Koen, Sienna Oliver, Matilda Sozinyu and Ruby Sutter made the top 64 teams out of 666 government primary schools. This group of students have worked hard every step of the way and have risen to every challenge thrown at them. Their perseverance in giving up their own time and preparing for debates has shown an exceptional work ethic that has gotten them further than any other team in Wadalba's history. With just an hour's notice of their debating topic, these kids have to be confident enough to prepare and argue a point whilst carefully articulating their views and disagreements. The team was unfortunately eliminated in round three of the State finals. Whilst disappointed with the loss, the teachers and students around them could Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4974
not be prouder of what they have achieved. These students have inspired a large group of younger students to join the debating team and explore the exceptional benefit of public speaking. I congratulate the Wadalba Community School primary debating team on their excellent achievement. RAYMOND ASPELT Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (00:45:08): I commend and thank Hawkesbury local and war veteran Raymond Aspelt for his service in World War II and for sharing his story with us in a new Remembrance Day podcast entitled My Life at War, which delves into the experiences of veterans living at Uniting NSW.ACT villages. Mr Aspelt lived in Sydney and worked as an apprentice mechanic and panelbeater prior to joining the army at the age of 18 with his brother. His skills as a mechanic were of great value during World War II as he served as a craftsman in the Australian Army's 110 Brigade Workshop. Mr Aspelt served a tour of duty in Papua New Guinea as well. He is now 97 years old and is hopefully going on to the big 100. I thank Mr Aspelt for his service to our country and for sharing his story with us. We owe our freedom, democracy and quality of life to the service and sacrifice of veterans such as Mr Aspelt. I wish him all the very best. SIXTEEN DAYS OF ACTIVISM AGAINST GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (00:46:11): Sixteen Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence commences on 25 November on International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and runs until Human Rights Day on 10 December. The campaign is aimed at raising awareness and triggering action to end the epidemic of violence against women. As part of 16 days of Activism, the Inner West Council is partnering with the Women and Girls Emergency Centre to host a free, online workshop aimed at empowering inner westies to be active bystanders and help prevent violence against women. In Australia one woman a week is murdered by a current or former partner. The event will teach participants how to have safe and supportive conversations with people impacted by domestic and family violence about domestic violence. I thank the centre and the council for their ongoing support to women and children fleeing domestic violence, and for empowering the inner west community to tackle this issue. I stand with all those in my community and across the globe in our fight to end violence against women. WILL HODGES Ms STEPH COOKE (Cootamundra) (00:47:16): I congratulate cyclist Will Hodges from Greenethorpe on winning the elite men's NSW Road Race Championships at Gunning. As a solo competitor against other cyclists working in teams, Mr Hodges overcame these odds to win the race. Mr Hodges' win this year builds on his previous victory in the under-23s road race last year. Cowra's Jeremy Ryan also competed on the weekend in the division 1 race, coming in fourth. I congratulate both men on their fabulous efforts and commitment to the sport of cycling. I can appreciate the hard work behind the scenes to reach this level of competition. It is a wonderful achievement. ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (00:48:08): The Aboriginal Legal Service is celebrating 50 years fighting for criminal justice reform, racial justice and resistance. The service was founded in 1970 by Indigenous activists in Redfern in response to ongoing instances of police brutality and the over-policing of Indigenous communities. The Aboriginal Legal Service has served as the model for Indigenous self-determination for the past 50 years, advocating for community control and autonomy over the delivery of dedicated services in the Aboriginal community. Through early intervention programs for at-risk youth, free legal services and advocacy for important approaches such as justice reinvestment, the Aboriginal Legal Service has fought to reform laws that disproportionately affect its community. In 2020 the Black Lives Matter movement has highlighted just how important this work is. I offer my deepest thanks to the Aboriginal Legal Service Board of Directors and the 200 staff members across New South Wales, and congratulate them on this important milestone. DAVID KING Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (00:49:08): I congratulate NSW SES Hawkesbury Unit Deputy Commander David King for winning the 2020 Rotary Emergency Services Community Award for the NSW State Emergency Service. This award was granted to Mr King by the Rotary organisation in recognition of Mr King going above and beyond the call of normal duty in his 43 years of service to the SES. Mr King specialises in large animal rescue and over the years has saved many animals from certain death in tight situations. He also teaches rescue units across New South Wales how to rescue animals. Mr King was previously recognised for his service by receiving an Emergency Services Medal in the Queen's Birthday Honours. I congratulate Mr King and thank him for his commitment to our community. I wish him all the best in the future. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4975
WEST GOSFORD SOCIAL HOUSING Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (00:49:56): I recently had the opportunity to attend the topping out ceremony in West Gosford for one of the Central Coast's latest affordable housing projects. This 56-unit development in West Gosford will provide safe housing for so many people on the Central Coast. It is part of the Government's Social and Affordable Housing Fund, delivering 243 properties across the Central Coast. This six-storey development has also been a big win for the Central Coast economy, creating jobs for local tradies and construction workers, and helping to revitalise the Gosford CBD and its surrounds. Compass Housing is delivering the project as well as many others around Gosford, Long Jetty and Toukley. Compass will manage the tenancies and provide access to tailored, wraparound support services to ensure that people can enjoy their new homes and achieve their goals. To walk into the south-facing apartments looking straight down Brisbane Water is truly breathtaking. I look forward to seeing the first tenants handed their keys in 2021. ST MARY'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown)—On Monday 9 November I had the pleasure of attending St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Georges Hall's celebration of NAIDOC Week 2020. I had the privilege of attending a storytelling from elder Aunty Vicki, and viewing an art installation created by St Mary's students to celebrate NAIDOC Week and the incalculable contributions made to Australian society by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The official theme of NAIDOC Week 2020 is Always Was, Always Will Be, which recognises that First Nations people have occupied and cared for the Australian continent for over 65,000 years. I commend St Mary's Catholic Primary School for their educational and respectful celebration of the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I thank St Mary's Catholic Primary School Principal Mrs Monica Palmer for the kind invitation and her leadership in the planning and execution of the School's NAIDOC Week celebrations, Aunty Vicki for sharing her stories and experiences with the next generation, and Parish Priest Father Joseph Kolodziej for his continued support and guidance to the School. PROPHETIC RELICS PHOTO EXHIBITION Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown)—I was delighted to attend the launch of the Prophetic Relics Photo Exhibition on Saturday, 14th November 2020, hosted by the Organising Committee of the Annual Multicultural Mawlid Concert under the patronage of Darulfatwa, The Islamic High Council of Australia. This year, due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, the Prophetic Relics Photo Exhibition was held in lieu of The Annual Multicultural Mawlid Concert at Olympic Park Stadium. The exhibition was attended by many local families, who had the opportunity to view photographs of relics of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered immensely holy and highly significant by the Islamic community. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend Darulfatwa Australia Chairman Dr Sheikh Salim Alwan Al Husainy and Islamic Charity Projects Association President Mr Mohammad Mehio, for organising this event, and thank them for their kind invitation and warm hospitality. I also acknowledge the attendance of the many special guests, including all the Sheiks, Imams and community leaders, and other members of the local community, who supported this wonderful exhibition in place of their traditional annual concert and festivities. LISMORE'S FRIENDSHIP FESTIVAL 'PIAZZA IN THE PARK' CELEBRATES LINKS TO ITALY Ms JANELLE SAFFIN (Lismore)—Lismore's Friendship Festival "Piazza in the Park" since 2016 has celebrated the city's links with our friendship cities, Conegliano and Vittorio Veneto, in northern Italy, relationships dating back to the mid-1980s. The Friendship Festival grew from academic Dr Ros Derrett, OAM's 2015 idea to form a new Friendship Committee and has grown in popularity each year until COVID-19 forced its cancellation this year. Held the day after Lismore's Lantern Festival, Piazza in the Park is a marketplace festival in Spinks Park which importantly recognises the significant contribution made by Italian settlers to the Lismore district since the 1880s. Lismore residents Joan and Peter Bortolin, who was born near both Italian towns, tell me it was then Councillor and later Mayor of Lismore, the late John Crowther, OAM, who in 1985 proposed a sister city relationship with a city in Northern Italy. The Bortolins, and later John Devoy and the late Nella Devoy, acted as emissaries to local Italian mayors during family trips to Italy and this is how these special relationships were established then cemented with more contact. Hopefully as restrictions lift, the Friendship Festival will return next year. COMMENDING TENTERFIELD FIRE & RESCUE'S NEW RECRUITS Ms JANELLE SAFFIN (Lismore)—I WAS in Tenterfield for the Peter Allen Festival last October when the Mount Mackenzie Road fire threatened the town, destroyed several homes, left a Rural Fire Service firefighter critically injured and burnt thousands of hectares of grazing land. Thankfully, the senior firefighter survived, but it was all hands on deck that weekend with Tenterfield Fire & Rescue Captain John Gray and his brigade joining Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4976
the effort to bring the fire under control. While out firefighting, Captain Gray left a blackboard up outside the fire station, calling for new recruits, and the intensity and close-run nature of the fire, reinforced his message. The Tenterfield Star's Senior Journalist Donna Ward wrote a lovely article on what motivated four young locals – Lee Crowe, Danielle, Sam Gibbins and Todd Kelsall – to join up. Each new recruit undergoes two four-day training sessions at the Service's dedicated training centre in Armidale. They are loving the challenge with their employers and/or their lifestyles accommodating their new commitment to frontline service. NSW Shadow Minister for Local Government and Veterans Greg Warren and I plan to meet up with Captain Gray and his new charges when we visit Tenterfield next week. ORANGE PALLIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange)—I recognise the members of the Orange Palliative Working Group, who joined with me in working collaboratively to deliver the community of Orange a dedicated palliative care facility. The group's combined efforts resulted in a trial of inpatient palliative care at Uniting Care's Parkwood facility, the success of which prompted plans for the reinstatement of a palliative care ward at the Orange Health Service. I thank the following members, community stakeholders and representatives for their contributions in delivering Orange dedicated palliative care services. Jenny Hazelton and Tracy Wilkinson; Orange Push for Palliative; Ricky Puata and Fiona Markwick; Cancer Council; Jason Hamling and Scott Maunder; Orange City Council; Grant Frecklington, Prudence Buist and Paul McKenna; Dudley Private Hospital; Richard Jane; Orange Health Council; Michael Halls, Ash Naden, Amanda Kelly, Michael Newman and Allison Abbo; Orange Aboriginal Medical Service; Catherine Nowlan, Lacey Healey, Danielle Leahey and Leanne Casey; Orange Health Service; Dr Louis Christie, Scott McLachlan, Mark Spittal, Susan Harrison, Richard Cheney, Joanne Garlick, Ruth Jones, Christine Symington; Western NSW LHD; Andrew Harvey and Alison Stoker; Western NSW Primary Health Network; Scott Kable, Steve Stanton and Helen Miller; LiveBetter; John Carpenter; Western Care Lodge; Helen Mobbs; Uniting Parkwood. TOONGABBIE LEGAL CENTRE Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool)—I recognise the Toongabbie Legal Centre who conducted their thirteenth annual Community Fundraising Dinner on 14 November. The function was held at Bowman Hall at Blacktown. The Centre, run voluntarily, in an important community based institution delivering free legal services, advice and referrals to community members. It also contributes to law reform, provides legal information and conducts community legal education services. They operate a drop-in service whose volunteers include solicitors, migration agents, law students and social workers among others. The Patron of TLC was present at the Fundraising Dinner, the Governor of NSW Margaret Beazley, although she's probably better known to those involved in TLC through her judicial and legal roles. A number of Parliamentarians were present as were local Councillors including the Mayor of Blacktown City Council Tony Bleasedale, OAM. Special acknowledgement should be made of Susai Benjamin who has been the driving force for many years behind TLC. TLC does good and valuable work and regularly attracts significant support for its efforts. THANK YOU Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend)—On Monday, a powerful storm lashed parts of the Wallsend electorate and the Hunter. 20,000 homes and businesses were left without power and 200 sets of power lines and poles were damaged and had to be repaired or replaced. More than 500 calls for assistance were made from residents who had their homes, garages or cars damaged by the destructive winds knocking down hundreds of trees. Thank you to the workers and volunteers from Ausgrid, SES Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, Police from Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens Hunter Districts, Fire and Rescue Wallsend, Minmi, Tarro, Lambton and Cardiff, NSW Ambulance, and workers from the City of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Council. We know these workers and volunteers are not motivated by recognition. They are motivated by their ability to provide assistance. They go out into our community during severe weather events because they put others first and themselves last. That is the characteristic that makes our emergency service workers and volunteers the guardian angels of our society. They put their lives on the line for the benefit of others. On behalf of the Wallsend electorate, I want to say a massive thank you to you all. MATTY RICHARDS Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend)—Suicide is a hard topic to talk about and an even harder issue to fundraise for. So when New Lambton local Matty Richards decided he would raffle off one of his photography prints of a lone person walking on the beach towards Bar Beach, he hoped to raise $1000. Matty announced the sale of tickets on 25 October and had sold out within 12 hours. He then released more tickets and added a second prize, a 30 minute family or business photoshoot with 10 edited photos. Within two weeks, Matty had raised $10,000 for Lifeline. After experiencing his own mental health battles after losing his mother and other role models over the last few years, and losing one of his best friends to suicide, Matty, a School Learning Support Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4977
Officer at Cardiff High, wanted to do something that would inspire his students as well as his own children. As Lifeline relies on fundraising and campaigns to support their services, this donation from Matty will assist Lifeline with supports such as their call service and new text service. Thank you Matty, for your fundraising efforts and raising awareness of this important issue. REMEMBRANCE DAY 2020 Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills)—I recognise the Seven Hills-Toongabbie RSL Club and the Seven Hills- Toongabbie-Wentworthville RSL Sub-Branch for its 2020 Remembrance Day commemoration. I acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have paid the ultimate price and the 60,000 Australian lives lost due to the conflict of the First World War. The Club's staff and the Sub-Branch's team held another moving ceremony in remembrance of the one hundred and second anniversary of the end of World War I. I note the Sub-Branch executive: Graeme Quinn; Peter Harrington; Ross Coughran; Chris Gammage; Peter Dwyer; Peter Sparrow; Bill North; Bob Waller; Les Wilkinson; Barry Lowe; Denise Lowe and Warren Stickens. I thank them for continued advocacy of Australian war history in the Seven Hills Electorate. I also thank the amazing ladies of the Women's Auxiliary who assist with commemorations and are busy fundraising for many local and veterans causes. Thank you to Patricia Banks, Julie Evans, Beverley Black and their team. I note the efforts of Club manager Joe Bayssari and his team at the RSL Club. WINSTON HILLS COMMUNITY LEADERS CATCH UP Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills)—I acknowledge and thank just a small few of the many community leaders in Winston Hills which make it such a brilliant place to live, work, raise children and to enjoy retirement. Last week I was joined by the Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, at Café Els in Winston Hills to meet and to discuss local issues. We met with: Ryan Cosgrove, President of the Kings Langley Public School P&C Committee from Kings Langley; Belinda Schuster, President of Model Farms High School P&C Committee from Winston Hills; Georgina Valjak, Local Business Owner from Winston Hills; Matthew Carroll, a professional business services provider from Wisnton Hills; and Charlotte Cooke, a Licenced Real Estate Agent from Kings Langley. It would be remiss of me not to mention the great team at Café Els for their hospitality. I would also like to thank the Premier for joining us and for engaging so directly with the needs of our community in Winston Hills. FORSTER MURAL Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes)—Mr Speaker, I rise to recognise and congratulate Stockland's Forster and local artists Donna Rankin, Lara Went, Forster, Nicole Bramble and Sydney-based Shannon Crees for creating a brilliant new 83 metre long mural. The colourful artwork is a great addition to Forster and was inspired by the local area, the design winning out over 12 other submissions. The artists describe their work as a textural tapestry, a playful journey and a delight for the eyes. While Stockland's management hoped it would provide locals with a sense of pride and remind them of their fortune living in such a beautiful area, and visitors a taste of what Forster is all about. The artists were able to complete the work in just three weeks and I have no doubt it will be admired by locals and tourists alike for years to come. KIRSTY WILLIAMS Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes)—Mr Speaker, I rise to recognise Taree Local Kristy Williams who recently received a NSW Government Community Service Award. Following the devastating bushfires which tore through our region at the end of last year Kristy created a calendar as a fundraiser for our local Rural Fire Service Brigades. She was able to raise $20 000 through her calendar sales, which has now been used to equip our local RFS volunteers at Old Bar, Diamond Beach, Mitchells Island, Tuncurry and other units with SR100 Respirator PRO Kits and replacements filters. These respirators will provide protection to the RFS volunteers in the area for years to come. I again thank Kristy for leading efforts in our community to support our local RFS volunteers and commend her for taking the initiative to create this fundraiser following the devastating bushfires. PARENTS AND CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown)—They say it takes a village to raise a family – well it also takes an incredible amount of people to maintain and well-functioning school. While staff, and rightly so, get the majority of the credit for helping shape students, there is another group who often are unheralded. This group is known as the Parents and Citizens or Parents and Friends associations. P&Cs are made up of parents or carers of students as well as people passionate about the school and the local area. It's P&Cs that are often responsible for organising fund raisers like fetes and toy drives. It's P&Cs that are often responsible for lobbying for grants and advocating for the needs of the school. In my electorate of Campbelltown I have had the pleasure of dealing with various P&Cs for almost six years. One common characteristic I have noticed members of these groups have is that they are not only passionate about the school in the short-term, they have a large focus on creating a great Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4978
environment for students well into the future. Thank you to every P&C member for all of you hard work and dedication. BALLINA SHIRE MEALS ON WHEELS Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina)—Today, I recognise Ballina Shire Meals on Wheels for developing a Technology Help programme to boost older people's knowledge and confidence with digital technology. Meals on Wheels are running the weekly help sessions for over-65s to help them increase their knowledge of digital technology and to develop technical skills so they might improve their access to communication services and participate in the online world. As part of the programme, volunteers are working one-on-one with seniors to help them understand and make better use of devices such as mobile phones, tablets and laptops. The sessions are free of charge and follow COVID-safe guidelines. At a time when people the world over are having to conduct many sorts of relationships on-line, and when an electronic device means the difference between isolation and connectedness, I applaud the timeliness of the initiative and the amazing work done by all of the staff and volunteers at Ballina Meals on Wheels. KATHRYN DOLBY Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina)—Today, I recognise emerging visual artist Kathryn Dolby's success in winning the 2020 Byron Arts Magazine Art Prize with her painting Fire Retardant Over Landscape. Kathryn's painting is a response to the last bushfire season in Australia, during which the flames came uncomfortably close to her family home. The experience filtered into subsequent paintings through shifts in palette and form. Her most recent show, Light Through a Curtain, focused on the colours in the shifting landscape during the months of extreme weather change as experienced in rural NSW during and after the 2019-20 bushfire season – fire, smoke, rain, flood, ash, mud, and the movement between these various weather states. The curtain stands as a metaphor for the concealing and obscuring effect of smoke over the landscape and a dividing space between inside and outside. Kathryn's aim was to use paint to create a subtlety and spaciousness within her work to provide some lightness for the eye in a time of great uncertainty. Congratulations must go also to the other artists who were awarded Honourable Mentions and Highly Commended prizes, and to Byron Arts Magazine for being such an important resource and support for local artists. CITY OF PENRITH RSL SUB-BRANCH Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith—Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney)— My congratulations to the newly elected Executive of the City of Penrith RSL sub-Branch. The new executive team comprises of: Brian Cartwright – President, Peter Ward and John King, OAM – Vice Presidents, Keith Harrington – Hon. Secretary and Gary Scott – Hon. Treasurer. Additional committee members include: Peter Ward – Media Officer, John Fenton – Wellbeing Officer, John King, OAM – Social Officer, Delegate to District Council & Delegate to State Congress, Phil Friend – Memorabilia Officer & Alt Delegate to District Council, Bob Oscar – Assistant Memorabilia Officer and Neville Barnier, OAM –Alt Delegate to State Congress. These members are normally elected for a 3 year term, however due to the impact of Covid-19, this term will be shortened to just over 2.5 years; the next AGM is to be held in March 2023. I thank the new team for stepping up to take on these roles and I also take this opportunity to thank the outgoing team members for their commitment and service. TOURISM AND TRANSPORT FORUM Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland)—The year 2020 has struck our NSW Tourism industry and its many dedicated operators and workers the cruellest of blows, through no fault of their own. Between drought, fire, flood and a global pandemic, travellers of all types have been deterred from visiting or travelling through our beautiful state. It was wonderful to gather with industry stakeholders and representatives of our state's wonderful Tourism and Transport businesses with a spirit of optimism and renewal during the recent Parliamentary Friends of Tourism cocktail reception. I was heartened to see so many familiar faces during this bipartisan event and speak with people who remain committed to this exciting industry and the fulfilling careers it can offer. During the event I was pleased to reconnect – speak, listen, share ideas and experiences - as together we embark on the path ahead which will shape the future of the industry here in NSW. I thank Margy Osmond, Chief Executive Officer of the Tourism and Transport Forum Australia, for bringing us together. As Shadow Minister for Investment and Tourism I reiterate my pledge to do all I can to support the industry, and those who work within it, through this extraordinary time. LIGHT THE NIGHT LEUKAEMIA FUNDRAISER Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland)—I thank the West Maitland Centennial Lions Club and in particular the dynamic husband and wife team of Graham and Lyn Dark for their recent Light the Night fundraiser in support of the Leukaemia Foundation. Public health orders governing all manner of events, including traditional fundraising activities, have put a spanner in the works this past year. This has placed added pressure on charitable Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4979
organisations that rely on donations to continue their important work. Graham and Lyn found a way to raise funds without breaching COVID restrictions. On October 10 they set up two tables at Telarah Bowling Club. Between 11am and 7pm they sold raffle tickets and collected donations, some of which had been raised by community members holding their own COVIDSafe fundraisers. Throughout the day the club used its Public Address system to notify patrons about the Light the Night fundraiser. As a result, West Maitland Centennial Lions Club raised $1,500 to help fund the Leukaemia Foundation's vital research. I am a proud member of the West Maitland Centennial Lions and I congratulate my fellow Lions, especially Lyn and Graham, on this achievement. DENNIS PERRY Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby—Minister for Energy and Environment)—Today I would like to acknowledge the great Dennis Perry, who has been giving up his time for humanitarian work for the past 25 years as the founder of Operation Food for Life. Operation Food for Life, seeks to provide physical, emotional and spiritual support, bringing dignity and hope to the poor, the forgotten and the disadvantaged. Over the past 2 decades Dennis and his team have fed over 1 million people living below the poverty line. They have clothed thousands and built a sanctuary in Papua New Guinea to give a home to 30 children and youth fleeing life threatening situations. Operation Food for Life have also built a school for 300 children to attend free of charge in Kivori Poe in Port Moresby. They have 6 teachers and provide classes for early learning through to primary school. Dennis loves his work and I want to thank him for helping give those less fortunate, hope, support and a better future. Thank you Dennis, it has been a pleasure to get to know you and the work you do with Operation Food for Life. SOPHIE CLANCY Mr MICHAEL JOHNSEN (Upper Hunter)—I would like to congratulate 17 year old Sophie Clancy from Singleton who helped inspire the NSW Country Women's Rugby Union side by winning the Chikarovski Cup. Sophie a talented sportsperson was the starting fullback for all her games and she is one of 12 Hunter players selected in the squad which captured a tournament clean-sweep with wins against Sydney Blue, ACT and Sydney Gold. Again I would like to congratulate Sophie and wish her all the best for her future sporting endeavours. PATRICK THOMAS AWARDED AGWA NSW APPRENTICE OF THE YEAR AWARD Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote)—A TAFE NSW student and local Loftus resident, Mr Patrick Thomas has been recognised as the Australian Glass and Window Association's (AGWA) NSW Apprentice of the Year Award. Patrick is employed at Greater Glass in Kirrawee and received this prestigious award after completing a Certificate III in Glass and Glazing at TAFE NSW. I congratulate Patrick on this outstanding achievement and commend him for his dedication and commitment to his study. It's clear this young man has a bright future and I would like to wish him all the best as he continues to flourish in his chosen career path. DIWALI CELEBRATIONS Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect)—The 14th November is a special day for the Australian Indian Community marking Diwali, also known as the festival of lights. On 11th November I attended Diwali Celebrations at the NSW Parliament House organised by the Hindu Council of Australia. Diwali lasts for five days during the Hindu Lunisolar month Karika, and is one of the most popular festivals in Hinduism, celebrated by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Diwali carries a powerful message, symbolising the spiritual victory of light over darkness and good over evil. This celebration is what Australia is all about, a multicultural diverse and tolerant society. This year's Diwali celebrations have been very different due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, its meaning is especially significant as we come together and assist one another to get through one of the darkest years we have faced. I wish all those celebrating the festival of Diwali joy and prosperity. May the warmth and splendour of festivities bless you with good health, happiness and all success in your lives. I join His Excellency Manush Gupta, Consul General India and the Hindu Council of Australia in wishing the Indian Australian community a happy and safe Diwali. FAIRFIELD RELAY FOR LIFE Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect)—Every year approximately 80 000 people participate in the NSW Cancer Council Relay For Life community fundraiser, which honours the lives lost to cancer and raises funds to support people with cancer. This year, our community has been unable to come together to recreate the spirit of Relay, due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, throughout October and November, the Fairfield Relay For Life Committee has implemented two fantastic initiatives to raise much needed funds, whilst adhering to COVID-19 restrictions. The individual challenge urged participants to walk a total of 24 hours in their relay shirt, whilst the team challenge, encouraged participants to walk 240,000 steps as a team, bringing together family, friends, schools, colleagues and our community. Over 100 individuals and 19 teams participated in this initiative and have raised $31,696. I encourage all Australians to participate in future Relay For Life events to ensure we Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4980
continue to raise funds for vital research to end cancer and support those fighting to beat it. I would like to thank, Kelvin and Rowena Tran, Co-Chairs, Fairfield Relay For Life as well as all participants and volunteers for making this year Fairfield Relay For Life such a success. ORDER OF LIVERPOOL AWARDS 2020 – DAVID MILLOTT Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Holsworthy)—Mr Speaker, today I acknowledge Mr David Millott, one of this year's recipients of the Order of Liverpool Awards. Mr Millott was awarded an Officer of the Order of Liverpool Award. Mr Millott was recognised for being a long standing member of the Prestons Cricket Club and for the service and volunteering he has provided the Club for a notable 43 years. He was particularly recognised for his role as a coach, and I note that he has coached 11 junior cricket teams to Premierships, what an outstanding achievement! Mr Millott has dedicated a lot of his time helping out around the Club and I hear that he has provided a great deal of support to the players over the years. Mr Speaker once again, I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr David Millott for receiving this prestigious award and thank him for his continued commitment to supporting our local sporting community. Thank you. ORDER OF LIVERPOOL AWARDS 2020 – SILVIO MARUCCI Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Holsworthy)—Mr Speaker, today I acknowledge Mr Silvio Marucci, one of this year's recipients of the Order of Liverpool Awards. Mr Marucci was awarded one of the Companion of the Order of Liverpool Award's, the highest level of achievement. Mr Marucci was recognised for being a long standing member of the Liverpool Catholic Club Board and for his continued effort in volunteering his time for the local community. He was recognised for his work with the migrant members of the local community, and the support he gives to newly arrived migrants. Mr Marucci has also dedicated a lot of his time volunteering at numerous community events and raising funds for community festivals, charities and local hospitals. Mr Speaker once again, I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr Silvio Marucci for receiving this prestigious award and thank him for his continued commitment to supporting our local community. Thank you. REMEMBRANCE DAY Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Castle Hill)—Last Wednesday morning I was able to attend the Remembrance Day Service within the Castle Hill RSL's Main Auditorium. Remembrance Day is a key date within the Australian Military Calendar, giving all Australians an opportunity to pause at 11am and be grateful for all the soldiers who gave their lives or livelihoods for the freedoms from which we benefit today. In a year such as this, with Coronavirus halting community events and services, most notably not allowing us to gather on ANZAC Day, the RSL sub-committee is to be congratulated on their adaptive skills in enabling last week's service to go ahead. From changing venues to adhere to social distancing requirements, to having no singing and no veteran's march, it was certainly a noticeably different service. I was joined on the day by Mayor Dr Michelle Byrne, Minister Elliott and Hills Shire Councillors. Ultimately, I would like to thank all those brave soldiers who answered their country's call, from the Boer War, through the World Wars, Korean War, Malayan Emergency, Borneo Confrontation, Vietnam War as well as recent and current servicemen and women stationed in the Middle East, especially those who never made it home. BARKER STREET RESERVE Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Castle Hill)—I would like to take this opportunity to note the funding supplied by the NSW Government for the replacement of the Barker St Reserve Playground. Teaming up with council we recognised the need to replace the ageing infrastructure of the reserve, and have now secured the means and funding to do so. Local playgrounds are an important part of any community, ensuring young children stay active and develop social skills, especially in the wake of the Coronavirus lockdown, where neither of these skills were easily maintained. This funding accord is also testament to what can be achieved when government and local councils maintain a good relationship and work together for the benefit of the community. The $15,000 worth of funding for the replacement and upgrade of the playground was a part of the $300,000 provided to my electorate of Castle Hill in the 2020 round of the Community Building Partnership Grants. I would particularly like to thank Robert Szoszkiewicz from the Hills Shire Council for his work in procuring this funding. MICK BECKWITH Mrs HELEN DALTON (Murray)—Speaker, I am privileged to recognise Mick Beckwith for his dedication to the community of Hay. Mick is down to earth and a fighter for the betterment of Hay for over 80 years. He served on the Hay Shire Council for three decades and held many position on a total of 55 committees, including Hay Auxiliary Royal Blind Society, Hay Community Band and the swimming pool fundraiser committee to name a few. If there was a means to improve Hay Mick was at the forefront. Mick's commitment and service to his community has been recognised and appreciated in several awards over the years, namely 1972 Apex Citizen of the Year, 1990 Order of Australia Medal and 1991 Australian Citizen of the Year Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4981
Award. The Hay community have again acknowledged the enormous contribution Mick has made to the establishing, growing and maintaining the Hay Gaol Museum through naming a new exhibition area in his honour. The community has fond memories of the wonderful contributions Mick has made and I acknowledge and thank Mick for being an outstanding community contributor. CHENNAI SILKS Ms JODI McKAY (Strathfield)—Congratulations to Chennai Silks Sydney on the opening of their new flagship store in Westmead. I was pleased to open the new store on Saturday 7th November 2020 along with my colleague, the Member for Granville, Julia Finn MP. Chennai Silks Sydney is a small business owned and operated by Mrs Kay Raveendrarajan. Acknowledging the needs of a growing sub-continent community across the state, Kay opened the first Chennai Silks store in Wentworthville over two years ago. The store is a direct importer and distributor of sarees and Indian fashion from India's largest fashion house, Chennai Silks. The opening of the store coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is truly wonderful to see a small business owner like Kay Raveendrarajan take the brave step in expanding during a global pandemic. Small businesses like Chennai Silks Sydney are the backbone of our local communities and support our local economies. I congratulate Kay Raveendrarajan and the entire Chennai Silks team on this tremendous milestone. TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF GOACTIVE Ms JODI McKAY (Strathfield)—I bring to the attention of the House the tenth anniversary of the Lebanese Muslim Association's GoActive Project. The GoActive project promotes physical and social wellbeing, and empowers young Muslim women across New South Wales. The program is the first of its kind in Australia for Muslim women and recognises the importance of providing women with inclusive opportunities. The project is entirely run by women with experience in sport and community development. These women are passionate about the power of sport to break down barriers and promote social harmony. Programs run by GoActive include Interschool Trisport Tournaments, GoActive Girls Camps, Social and Emotional Learning for Youth (SELFY) and weekly fitness classes. I congratulate Yashar Kammoun, Sahar Dandan, Amna Karra Hassan, Assmaah Helal and Lael Kassem on this innovative program. I also recognise president, Samier Dandan, for his leadership of the Lebanese Muslim Association. On behalf of this Parliament, I thank the Lebanese Muslim Association and those involved in the GoActive Project on what they've achieved in the last ten years. ASHLEY HILL Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie)—I take this opportunity to commend the pivotal role Navy Maritime Aviation Warfare Officer Sub Lieutenant Ashley Hill has undertaken since graduating from St Columba Anglican School to serve on board the HMAS Ballarat. Upon leaving school, the former Port Macquarie local embarked on an amazing career opportunity, sailing the high seas as an officer who maintains Australia's maritime defence security of our shores. Ashley is responsible for flying the MH-60R Helicopter and operating its cutting edge sensor and weapons system as part of the 816 Squadron Flight Unit. Ashley is a role model for young, aspiring women contemplating a career in the military in a male dominated environment. This statistic however has not deterred Ashley in the slightest in pursuing her dream job in the aviation defence industry, inspiring and leading the next generation of female officers. As an essential member and mission commander, Ashley's core responsibilities are to coordinate tactical decision-making, operating advanced weapon and sensor systems, directing and supporting mission operations and attending to search and rescues on the waterways. I thank Ashley for her commitment and service to our nation, an inspiration to women serving in the Australian military. NIGEL SWEETNAM Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie)—I take this opportunity today to recognise Port Macquarie resident Nigel Sweetnam on his bravery in helping save the life of a swimmer caught in a strong rip off Miners Beach, Port Macquarie. On November 11, 2020 Nigel was on his regular run along Port Macquarie's Coastal Walk when he saw a group of women on the shoreline clearly distressed. On investigation he discovered that their friend was caught in a strong rip and struggling to get back to shore. Mr Sweetnam didn't hesitate risking his own life by diving in to save the stricken swimmer. Providing immediate help, Nigel fought the strong current for more than twenty minutes until he could drag the swimmer onto nearby rocks, where he held her until emergency responders arrived. Lifeguard James Turnham and NSW Police arrived and assisted the swimmer onto a spinal board and got her safely back to the beach. I commend Nigel on his quick thinking actions and bravery, saving the life of another in his local community. CAMDEN COMMUNITY BAND Mr PETER SIDGREAVES (Camden)—I note and recognise the generosity of the Camden Community Band who recently donated a drum kit for the students of Mawarra Public School. The Camden Community Band is a not for profit community concert band that caters for both beginner and experienced players through their Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4982
Community of Schools Ensemble, Social, Marching and Concert Bands. The Camden Community Band provides experienced conductors and tutors who help all bands in their journey of musical growth and their latest act of generosity will bring the joy of playing the drums to the students of Mawarra Public School in Elderslie. I note that the Camden Community Band Director of Music Murray Bishop commented on the pleasure that it gave this community group to support a local school's music program as well as the up and coming young musicians within the Camden community. I commend the Camden Community Band again for their generosity and wish the Mawarra Public School students all the best in the many drumming classes to come. TESSA THE K9 THERAPY DOG Mr PETER SIDGREAVES (Camden)—Elderslie Public School has had the delight of welcoming a new "teacher" in the form of Tessa the dog. Tessa is a certified K9 Therapy dog who only this year joined the school's staff three days a week has since improved student morale, engagement and wellbeing whilst as Elderslie Public School as she continues to offer students with love and friendship. Tessa is owned by Elderslie Public School teacher Aimee Phillips, who took the initiative to bring Tessa to school after seeing the love and care that Tessa has for children. Tessa is immensely popular within the school community and, according to Principal Melissa Clarke, has had a major positive impact on students. I would like to recognise the impact that such an innovative approach to student engagement has had on the Elderslie Public School student body. NATIONAL GELATO APPRECIATION DAY Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield)—Recently, The Australian Man Cave Support Group hosted the second annual National Gelato Appreciation Day event. This event is designed to 'Break the Ice' on the subject of suicide; to raise awareness and to support men going through a difficult time. Two events were hosted simultaneously, the first at the Bringelly Community Centre with the second event held at Calabria Family Wines. Thanks to Bill Calabria and team for hosting the Riverina event. Both events were well attended with the special guests at the Bringelly event the volunteer firefighters from the NSW RFS Bringelly Brigade. I would like to thank the brigade for stopping by and joining in the conversation, the Australian Man Cave is honoured to have such a valued partner working alongside it. The Griffith event was graced by the presence of Indigenous entertainer Dookie who kept the crowd going and is now a proud fellow Man Caver. The success of TAMC would not be possible without the dedication of the founding fathers Pastor Lou Greco and Pastor Agostino Gattelari, Board Members and volunteers. I congratulate The Australian Mancave Support Group on two successful events. FAIRFIELD CITY POLICE – MOVEMBER Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield)—I wish to commend the Fairfield City Police Area Command for taking part in Movember 2020. A group of ten officers from the command will be growing moustaches to help raise money and awareness of men's cancers, including prostate cancer and testicular cancer; as well as mental health and suicide prevention. Their target is $1,000 but the positive response from the community to their efforts will see them raise well beyond this, I am certain. In these challenging times of COVID-19, the importance of mental health has come to the forefront and it is great to see the boys in blue are doing their bit to start the conversation in this area. Cancer is also an issue which touches the lives of so many people in our community and an initiative like Movember is a great way to raise awareness and encourage men to see a doctor for regular check-ups. I would like to thank the members of the Fairfield City Police Area Command who are taking part in Movember 2020 and wish them the very best of luck in their fundraising efforts. WALK SYDNEY Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney)—On behalf of the Sydney electorate, I wish to congratulate the Walk Sydney team for their efforts to help make Sydney more 'walkable' and as a peak body for walking in Greater Sydney. The group is linked with peak body Cycling and Walking Australia and a member of The International Federation of Pedestrians. Walk Sydney advocates for improved safety and access for people walking, with submissions and feedback to decision makers. They draw on members' local knowledge and leading research, consistent with the government's Movement and Place policy and Sydney Green Grid plan. Walk Sydney promotes best practice, works for better infrastructure, policies, processes and institutions, and encourages education of practitioners to benefit pedestrians. The group tackles practical improvements like automatic detection of pedestrians at traffic signals, safer traffic speed limits and road design that allows and encourages walking. Walk Sydney promotes walking as a safe, efficient and pleasant method of transport: vital for everywhere but particularly the Sydney electorate where so much is close enough to walk. I value the contribution of Walk Sydney, helping to make sure that there are strong voices for pedestrians and active transport. AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney)—On behalf of the Sydney Electorate I would like to commend the Australian Museum for their focus on accessibility and inclusion through their extensive NSW Government Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4983
supported renovation, Project Discover. The Australian Museum has long been a place of learning and inspiration to diverse communities and people of all identities. Their new Accessibility and Inclusion Action Plan has further elevated the facility by shifting the focus from disability to social and physical inclusion, for visitors, staff and volunteers. An integral part of the renovation has been the Australian Museum's Access and Inclusion Advisory Panel, which includes people with lived experience of disability. Consultation with this group has ensured a focus on all community members having access to an experience not defined by diverse ability. I recently had the pleasure of touring the Australian Museum and saw how its transformation removes barriers and promotes social equity. In addition to structural enhancements, Australian Museum will be offering visitor services such as sensory sensitive visiting times, tactile and sensory tours, audio description tours and hearing loops. I congratulate the Australian Museum for their commitment to inclusion, consultation and accessibility, and look forward to the reopening on Saturday 28 November 2020. SOFT LANDING NEWCASTLE Ms JODIE HARRISON (Charlestown)—I would like to recognise the fantastic work of the local arm of the national mattress recycling enterprise Soft Landing. Based in Redhead, Soft Landing Newcastle has employed ten locals facing barriers to employment as the business and its employees were profiled in the Newcastle Herald as Hunter Heroes. Nationwide, Soft Landing has diverted 7300 tonnes of waste from landfill, recycled 5000 tonnes of steel, 1000 tonnes of timber and 1300 tonnes of foam. Soft Landing kept up its operations during the pandemic, and the Newcastle team has been processing higher-than-usual volumes over the course of this year. As more people replace mattresses during the pandemic, the Soft Landing team has dealt with a 30% increase in volume. My congratulations to Josh Glanville, who became the site manager at Soft Landing Newcastle in June. Josh has been working at the site for eight years, and state manager Joe Rasnussen has praised Josh for "[proving] himself as a great leader in challenging times." I would like to thank all of the staff at Soft Landing for their work, helping to keep materials from landfill and ensure that they are properly recycled. GREAT SOUTHERN NIGHTS Ms JODIE HARRISON (Charlestown)—This year has been very difficult for the music industry, as COVID-19 restrictions have severely limited opportunities to perform and tour. Great Southern Nights is an effort to rebuild the live music scene after this tumultuous year. Live music, and the arts more generally, are so important for our community. The arts are how we mediate our relationship with the world and with each other, and this year has illustrated that importance all the more—while we were in lockdown, we all turned to the arts, whether it be music, film, television or literature, to get us through long, monotonous days. Now that lockdown is over, I hope we can carry forward a newfound appreciation of the importance of the arts in our lives. Delivered by VisitNSW in partnership with ARIA to support the recovery of the live music, entertainment and hospitality industries in our State, I was glad to see a Great Southern Nights event held in the Charlestown Electorate. I applaud Kahibah Sports for hosting Midday On the Green on Saturday 14 November, one of the Great Southern Nights events. Local recording artists Lachlan Edwards, Jemima and Kazzie Band performed. COOLAMON TOUCH ASSOCIATION Ms STEPH COOKE (Cootamundra)—Mr Speaker, it is fantastic to hear the fast-paced action of touch football is doing so well in Coolamon, with the 10 week local competition back in full swing. Although 2020 has had its challenges for community sport, it has been a particularly exciting one for the Coolamon Touch Association, with the Cougars under 14 boys representative side one of just four teams nominated for the Touch Football NSW Junior Team of the Year award. This nomination follows an impressive display of sportsmanship and improvement at what was only their second time competing at the Junior State Cup. And while the boys didn't take out the final award, for them to have been nominated is an absolute credit to all players and Coach Robert Clark. Congratulations on this amazing achievement. More recently, the Association has held a school holiday clinic for primary school aged children, ensuring the next generation of touch footy talent has every opportunity to further develop their skills, as well as have a great deal of fun! Thank you to the Coolamon Touch Association for your efforts and for providing such opportunities for our young people. MICHELLE NEWMAN Mr MARK COURE (Oatley)—Speaker, what makes the community groups in the St George area so valuable is the commitment and dedication of their devoted volunteers. I rise today to acknowledge Michelle Newman who has done an outstanding job as CEO of the Riverwood Community Centre for the past two years. The Riverwood Community Centre does a tremendous job at providing assistance to those in need whether it is through their youth services, family support programs or their activities for the elderly. I am sad to see Michelle leave this wonderful organisation but I am inspired by the legacy that she has left for staff, members and the wider community. In the past two years, Michelle has increased the number of services for the community with the inclusion of new programs like the employability skills program for women with children. She has also been Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4984
fundamental to the continuation of the organisation through the recent pandemic which has ensured the safety and wellbeing of individuals throughout the Riverwood area. Congratulations Michelle on all of your fine achievements and our community wishes you all the best in the future. ADLA COURE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY Mr MARK COURE (Oatley)—Speaker, I rise to acknowledge a local hero who means much more to me than any other constituent. Recently, my beautiful wife Adla was recognised by the Hurstville Rotary Club for her contribution to the community. As this House knows, COVID-19 hit small businesses hard. The Georges River area is home to 16,289 proud and hardworking local businesses, all of which were affected in some way by the pandemic. In particular, customers were ripped away from our local cafes and food businesses, which our local area is renowned for. In response, Adla created the Georges River Eats Facebook page, encouraging local residents to buy takeaway from local businesses and keep them afloat. Within days, hundreds of locals started sharing photos of their breakfasts, lunches, dinners and snacks- encouraging others to order from the same cafes and restaurants. Now, Georges River Eats has over 2.6 thousand members, and Adla is still working to maintain the page. The community spirit in our local area is as strong as anywhere in the state. Although we already knew that. Thank you Adla. CRONULLA SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB Ms ELENI PETINOS (Miranda)—I acknowledge the wonderful Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club whose volunteers have been keeping swimmers safe at Cronulla Beach for over 100 years. The volunteers at Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club conduct patrols between September and April, providing over 13,000 volunteer hours, over 100 rescues, over 200 first aid cases and over 1,000 preventative actions for our community. With lifesaving being the Club's core responsibility, it is with immense pride that its members say that there have been "no lives lost" whilst they have been on patrol. Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club continues to uphold its commitment to our community, completing all surf lifesaving, surf sports and nipper training despite the challenges presented by COVID-19. I take this opportunity to commend the efforts of all Club volunteers, particularly the 2020-2021 Executive Committee, namely President Chris Giles, Vice President Daniel Wood, Honorary Secretary Emma Larssen, Honorary Treasurer Suzanne Storrie and Club Captain Chris Barber. On behalf of our community, I thank Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club for continuing to keep our community safe and extend my best wishes for the surf patrol season. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 50 YEARS' SERVICE Ms ELENI PETINOS (Miranda)—I acknowledge the outstanding effort of Justices of the Peace from the Miranda electorate being honoured for 50 years' service to the New South Wales community. Over the last half a century, Kenneth Arthur, Kenneth Lewis and Robert Ellicott have played an important part in the legal system by helping hundreds of people at key moments in their lives. They provide their services on a voluntary basis, witnessing affidavits and statutory declarations, and certifying original documents so that members of the community may buy a property, access superannuation or apply for a passport. Whilst ceremonies typically held in NSW Parliament to celebrate these Justices of the Peace have been postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19, it would be remiss of me not to recognise their efforts and celebrate their Golden Jubilee of service in this Place. All of these individuals' commitment to provide this invaluable service embodies the spirit of volunteering which has always been at the heart of our Shire. I congratulate and thank all recipients for their dedication to our community and extend my best wishes for the future. COMMUNITY FIRST RESPONDERS - DANGAR ISLAND Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby—Minister for Energy and Environment)—Today I would like to acknowledge the amazing volunteers who make up the Community First Responder team on Dangar Island. Dangar Island, located in my electorate of Hornsby, is accessed only by water and has many difficult to reach areas. This can cause a delay when trying to locate the 300 residents or holiday makers in the event of an emergency. Since 2014 the Dangar Island unit, known as CFR33 have been operating on an on-call roster 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Volunteers commit to a rigorous induction training in advanced first aid, with ongoing training every month, supported by the team at NSW Ambulance. CFR33 have their own small ambulance and all the necessary medical equipment to treat patients if an emergency arises. Earlier this year the team was down to just 4 volunteers, however, they have recently recruited and trained 8 new volunteers who were inducted into the team on November 7th. I would like to thank the Dangar Island Community First Responder team for your service and for helping keep our community safe. MARILYN CAMERON 25 YEARS OF SERVICE Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore)—Speaker, I acknowledge Marilyn Cameron, a Neutral Bay resident who recently received an award for 25 years of service at the Parliamentary Service Awards. Marilyn Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4985
worked in the North Shore electorate office under the former Member for North Shore, the Hon Jillian Skinner for an incredible 25 years. In that time Marilyn worked to assist constituents with any enquiries they may have had, and particularly assisted Jillian once she became a Minister. Marilyn has played such a significant part in the North Shore electorate over the last 25 years, and I know she can take great pride on having reached so many years of service for the constituents of North Shore. I would like to extend my congratulations and personal appreciation to Marilyn on this incredible milestone and thank her for her service to the constituents of North Shore. NORTH SYDNEY DEMONSTRATION SCHOOL UPGRADES Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore)—Speaker, today I acknowledge that North Sydney Demonstration School has been given the green light for a major upgrade with funding now approved and construction to start next year. I am excited to announce an overhaul of the school's facilities, including replacing old demountables with 16 new refurbished classrooms, a new school hall, an upgrade to administrative facilities, and improved outdoor learning areas. I would like to thank the Minister for Education Sarah Mitchell MLC who joined me for the announcement and also thank the Department of Education who will commence procurement of a construction contractor as soon as possible. I am grateful to the school community for working alongside me to secure this commitment and I know they are as excited as I am about this milestone, and I would like to thank North Sydney Dem Principal Fiona Davis and the P&C, particularly President David Bond, and past presidents Laurens Libeton, and Luke McElnea for all their work in advocating for this upgrade. Our kids deserve the best start in life, and this record investment in our public education ensures that our local schools continue to do just that. MIKE BOADLE AND BRIAN EARSMAN Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast—Minister for Local Government)—Marine Rescue Shoalhaven volunteers Mike Boadle and Brian Earsman have been awarded Marine Rescue New South Wales Commissioner's Citations following their courageous rescue of two boaters that were suffering carbon monoxide poisoning on board their 28 foot cruiser on the Crookhaven River earlier this year. On May 17, a man called police to report his wife was unconscious on the deck, and was unable to provide details of their exact location. Mike and Brian quickly commenced a search to locate the boat between Greenwell Point and Nowra. They searched in the dark and managed to locate a cruiser on the rocks on near the Comerong Island ferry. Mike proceeded to board the boat and provide immediate first aid for the couple. The skipper was also found in shock and was treated for serious burns. Brian pulled the boat clear of the rocks and took it under tow back to Greenwell Point, where it was met by NSW Ambulance. Thank you Mike Boadle and Brian Earsman, for your lifesaving service to our local community. PRIVATE ROBERT KEARNS AND PRIVATE WILLIAM JOHN MURPHY Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast—Minister for Local Government)—Respects were paid by family and friends to Private Robert Kearns and Private William John Murphy at a rededication funeral held at Nowra Cemetery on Remembrance Day. Anthony Longbottom laid a wreath on Private Kearns' grave on behalf of his family. Private Robert Kearns served in Ypres in Belgium, and then in the Somme Valley in France and was awarded the 1914-1918 British War Medal and the 1914-1919 Victory Medal. He passed away at David Berry Hospital on 19th July 1941, aged 59. Private William John Murphy served in France and Belgium, including in the 20th Battalion Field Ambulance, before being wounded in action and returning to Australia. He was awarded the 1914-1915 Star 1914-1918 War Medal 1914-1919 Victory Medal, and died in Nowra on March 1, 1983 aged 85. I acknowledge Private Robert Kearns and Private William John Murphy and their service to our nation, as well as Rick Meehan who organised the service. NEW FIRE RECRUITS Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed)—I wish to congratulate the eight new fire fighters that will be joining the ranks of Fire and Rescue at Tweed Heads, Kingscliff and Banora Point. I was delighted to meet some of the new recruits recently and welcome them into their new roles. Sophia, Cody and Zach will join Banora Point. Jackson, Luke, Scott and Leanne will join Kingscliff and Clayton will be joining Tweed Heads. These recruits are beginning their careers at a time when frontline workers have never been more necessary and they will have the full support of the NSW Government throughout their careers. WORLD AIDS DAY Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill)—1 December is World AIDS Day with this year's theme 'Now more than Ever'. The focus of World AIDS Day is to increase awareness, promote prevention strategies to reduce transmission and to support the full participation of people living with HIV AIDS in our community. I acknowledge the important work of organisations including ACON, The NSW Users and AIDS Association, the Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4986
Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation and The Institute of Many, as well as all the health workers across the Inner West who work to support people living with HIV-AIDS. I also acknowledge the many parents, families, and partners who have lost a loved one to HIV/AIDS. This year, people will be able to support ACON's Red Ribbon Appeal by making a donation and pinning a virtual red ribbon to their online platforms, or by hosting an online or COVID-safe in-person fundraising event. Thank you to all organisations who will be marking World AIDS Day this year. SETTLEMENT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill)—Settlement Services International (SSI) in Ashfield is celebrating 20 years of supporting and advocating for refugees, migrant and asylum seeker communities across the inner west. Since 2000, SSI has helped countless migrants and families connect and build their lives in Australia, providing programs, resources and support including housing assistance, employment and legal support. To celebrate, SSI launched #20for2020, a collection of refugee and asylum seeker success stories. Adi Tefera, an Ethiopian refugee shares her story, including being a participant in the SSI Ignite Small Business Start-up initiative, which helps support the establishment of small businesses run by refugees. Adi ran a morning coffee business as part of Summer Hill's the Trading Circle and Four Brave Women Cafe - a refugee run social enterprise and cafe. At the Four Brave Women, Adi launched her own traditional Ethiopian breakfasts; a beloved breakfast spot for inner westies. Hers is just one of many stories celebrated in #20for2020 and one of the many lives transformed by SSI. I thank and congratulate CEO Violet Roumeliotis and all the caseworkers, immigration lawyers, and staff who have changed countless lives and provided unparalleled support to marginalised people in our community over 20 years. WORLD DIABETES DAY Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee)—Saturday 14 November was World Diabetes Day, and is the world's largest diabetes awareness campaign, reaching a global audience of over a billion people across the world. The campaign aims to give light to the escalating health threat posed by diabetes, a health issue that affects 1 in 10 people across the world, and further aims to keep diabetes firmly in the public and political spotlight. Each year, World Diabetes Day has a theme, and this year the theme is 'The Nurse and Diabetes.' This campaign aims to increase public awareness for the invaluable role that nurses play in supporting people living with diabetes, and I could not think of a more fitting group of people to recognise this year. As the number of diabetes cases around the world increases each year, it is increasingly important that health workers across the world are equipped with the skills and the tools to manage the impact of diabetes. This World Diabetes Day, I would like to acknowledge everyone who is living with diabetes, the further acknowledge the efforts of all of those who support them, from family and friends, to hard-working health care workers. COOGEE CHRISTMAS CARD COMPETITION Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee)—Mr Speaker, last year I began what I hope is a long tradition of hosting a Coogee Christmas Card competition for primary school aged children in my electorate. This competition gives kids aged 6-12 the opportunity to show off their creative side, with the winner design, and some of the runners up, displayed on my annual Christmas card. It is also an opportunity for me to showcase some of the amazing artistic talent developing in our community. This year, we have had some absolutely terrific entries for kids of all ages, from right across the electorate, and some of the designs have absolutely blown me away. If these designs are anything to go by, the Coogee has some wonderful budding artists, who I am sure will take our state by storm in the years to come. I would like to congratulate the winner, Keeli, and the runners up, Scarlett, Ollie, Grace, Nina, Georgia, and Eve for their fantastic submissions! I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who submitted a design, and regardless of how you celebrate over the New Year, I would like to wish everyone a joyful festive season. WINGECARRIBEE SES Mr NATHANIEL SMITH (Wollondilly)—I congratulate the Wingecarribee State Emergency Service (SES) in Mittagong for securing a $542,000 grant from the Australian Government's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program to repair and refurbish their headquarters. Works will include replacing the existing roof, construction of an external retaining wall and replacement of internal carpets. Our first responders undertake selfless acts of bravery and heroism to support our communities during their darkest hours. They do this in a voluntary capacity and sometimes at the expense of lost earnings as they take leave from their day jobs. Whilst the SES are experienced in operating in the harshest of conditions, I am hopeful these headquarter improvements will make their job a little bit more pleasant. I thank the Federal Government and the Wingecarribee Council for their support of the local SES. Moreover, I pay tribute to the efforts of Local Commander Warren Turner, Unit Commander Heather Rowe and the entire Mittagong crew for their service to the community of my electorate of Wollondilly. Wednesday, 18 November 2020 Legislative Assembly Page 4987
BOWRAL SHOW 21 Mr NATHANIEL SMITH (Wollondilly)—I am pleased to learn that the Bowral Show has been set for the weekend of January 9 and 10 next year. This is a much loved event and there is enormous relief that the Society's Committee has been able to deliver a COVID compliant plan when many other agricultural shows have had to be cancelled. I would like to thank Bowral Show Society President, Peter Howard, Secretary Edwina Grant, and the entire team for their dedication and planning. I know they go to a lot of effort to deliver this quality show for the community. The show is an opportunity for locals to exhibit their agricultural produce and skills and is a great family day outing. I recommend all to come visit Bowral and join me at the show in January. DAVID JORDAN - INDIA AUSTRALIA AWARDS Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson)—Sydney businessman David Jordan is a finalist for the 2020 India Australia Business and Community Awards. Recognised for individual contribution to bilateral relations between Indian and Australia. David has encouraged collaboration between innovation communities of both countries. David was part of Global NSW FinTech delegation to India and continues to do business in India. David and his company enteruptors have a focus on improving financial inclusion around the world providing software to credit unions and small banks who support this sector. David is customising their solution to support 2,000 co-operative banks in India who play an essential role in financial inclusion. In his spare time David is involved in KYDS, a youth mental health charity. David is an example of the entrepreneurs in NSW that we need to support, that investors need to invest in, to grow jobs and grow the NSW and Indians economies post COVID-19. LES RILEY Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange)—I wish to recognise local musician, Les Riley. Les was a member of the Blayney Brass Band from 1966 until it dissolved in 1969. Les then joined the Orange Industrial Band, as it was then known, and now known as the City of Orange Brass Band, where he has remained as a member ever since, playing the Eb Tuba. Les performed with the Band at many community events, including ANZAC commemorations, National Servicemen's Ceremonies, the Orange Cherry Blossom procession, the Brass Celebration Festival, and innumerable community fairs and shows. Les competed with the Band at a number of competitions, including the National Band Championships in Canberra. Les also travelled to Sydney, Dubbo, Parkes, Forbes, Wellington and Young for performances. Les selflessly volunteered many hours to the Band as a player, coordinator, and mentor to young members. He served on the Band's Committee in various roles, and also held the role of Band Sergeant. I join with The City of Orange Brass Band and the Band Association of NSW in congratulating Les for his many years of dedication and commitment to brass banding and to our community, which was recently recognised when Les was presented with a Long Service Award. FLAG Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain)—Today I acknowledge the Forest Lodge and Glebe coordination group, fondly known as FLAG, for their ongoing efforts to make our local community a better place to live. One of the keys to a successful and thriving community is communication and FLAG provides a regular forum for local residents, community organisations, and government agencies to discuss local issues, promote participation in events, and identify goals. FLAG has had representation from local community organisations such as the St John's Anglican Church, Common Ground, Glebe Society, Glebe Youth Service, University of Technology, University of Sydney, and the City of Sydney. I would like to acknowledge attendees from the community, local organisations and community groups including: Kyle Wiebe, Laurie Murphy, Jean-Pierre Alexandre, Gaylene Harkin, Annette Celar, Mark Stapleton, and Kerin O'Halloran. I would particularly like to acknowledge Megan Fletcher for her leadership of this group and all the time that goes into her enthusiastic advocacy for our community. This has been especially important in keeping FLAG and the community connected during the pandemic. Over the years FLAG has been a wonderful example of coordinated grassroots advocacy and it is my great pleasure to thank everyone involved here in NSW Parliament today. The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 00:52 until Thursday 19 November 2020 at 09:30.