New South Wales

Legislative Council

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Fifty-Seventh Parliament First Session

Tuesday, 13 October 2020

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Announcements ...... 3689 Hansard Services ...... 3689 Bills ...... 3689 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Adoption Legislation Amendment (Integrated Birth Certificates) Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Police Amendment (Promotions) Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Courts and Civil) Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Better Regulation Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Crimes) Bill 2020 ...... 3689 Assent ...... 3689 Announcements ...... 3689 Speaker of Bougainville House of Representatives ...... 3689 Documents ...... 3689 Register of Disclosures ...... 3689 Parliamentary Ethics Adviser ...... 3689 Reports ...... 3689 Motions ...... 3690 Dogs in Politics Day ...... 3690 Documents ...... 3690 Tabled Papers not Ordered to be Printed ...... 3690 Tabling of Papers ...... 3690 Committees ...... 3690 Legislation Review Committee ...... 3690 Reports ...... 3690 Selection of Bills Committee ...... 3690 Reports ...... 3690 Privileges Committee ...... 3691 Report: Execution of Search Warrants by the Australian Federal Police ...... 3691 Public Accountability Committee ...... 3692 Government Response: Budget Process for Independent Oversight Bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales: First Report ...... 3692 Standing Committee on Social Issues ...... 3692 Government Response: Modern Slavery Act 2018 and Associated Matters ...... 3692 Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and Customer Service ...... 3692 Government Response: Sydenham-Bankstown Line Conversion ...... 3692 Documents ...... 3693 Government Sector Strategic Asset Management Plans...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 Energy Infrastructure ...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Renewable Energy Zones ...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 Claim of Privilege ...... 3693 Liddell Taskforce Report ...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 Claim of Privilege ...... 3693 Community Funds and Grants ...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 Claim of Privilege ...... 3693 NSW Police Force ...... 3693 Return to Order ...... 3693 SafeWork NSW ...... 3694 Return to Order ...... 3694 Claim of Privilege ...... 3694 Commercial Fishing Industry ...... 3694 Return to Order ...... 3694 Claim of Privilege ...... 3694 Icare ...... 3694 Return to Order ...... 3694 Claim of Privilege ...... 3694 Long Service Corporation ...... 3694 Return to Order ...... 3694 Claim of Privilege ...... 3694 Asp Fci Analysis Reports ...... 3694 Return to Order ...... 3694 Claim of Privilege ...... 3695 Infrastructure and Job Acceleration Fund ...... 3695 Return to Order ...... 3695 Claim of Privilege ...... 3695 Wages Policy Taskforce ...... 3695 Correspondence ...... 3695 Stronger Communities Fund ...... 3695 Correspondence ...... 3695 Floodplain Harvesting ...... 3695 Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged ...... 3695 Payroll Tax ...... 3695 Correspondence ...... 3695 Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged ...... 3695 Tallawarra Power Station ...... 3695 Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged ...... 3695 Correspondence ...... 3696 Icare and the State Insurance Regulatory Authority ...... 3696 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged ...... 3696 The Hon. Don Harwin ...... 3696 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 3696 Notices ...... 3696 Presentation ...... 3696 Business of the House ...... 3696 Postponement of Business ...... 3696 Committees ...... 3696 Select Committee on the Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission ...... 3696 Membership ...... 3696 Chair and Deputy Chair ...... 3697 Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment ...... 3697 Reference ...... 3697 Condolences ...... 3697 The Hon. John Joseph Fahey, AC, Former Premier of New South Wales ...... 3697 Questions Without Notice ...... 3701 Ministerial Responsibility ...... 3701 Powerhouse Parramatta ...... 3702 Ministerial Responsibility ...... 3703 State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 ...... 3703 School Orientation ...... 3703 Water Management ...... 3704 Ministerial Responsibility ...... 3704 Mental Health Services ...... 3705 Parliamentary Assets ...... 3706 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3706 Small Business Month ...... 3707 Mental Health Drug Treatments ...... 3707 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3708 Regional Cultural Fund ...... 3708 Bushfire Risk Mitigation ...... 3709 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3710 School Infrastructure Projects ...... 3710 Animal Crush Videos ...... 3711 Parliamentary Assets ...... 3712 Questions Without Notice: Take Note ...... 3712 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 3712 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3712 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3713 Powerhouse Parramatta ...... 3713 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3713 Ministerial Responsibility ...... 3714 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Mental Health Services ...... 3715 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 3715 Bushfire Risk Mitigation ...... 3716 Small Business Month ...... 3716 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 3717 Personal Explanation ...... 3721 Question Time ...... 3721 Business of the House ...... 3722 Postponement of Business ...... 3722 Committees ...... 3722 Select Committee on the Use of Battery Cages for Hens in the Egg Production Industry ...... 3722 Reports ...... 3722 Bills ...... 3724 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020...... 3724 First Reading ...... 3724 Business of the House ...... 3724 Postponement of Business ...... 3724 Committees ...... 3725 Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 3725 Report: Review of the 2017-2018 Annual Reports of the ICAC and the Inspector of the ICAC .. 3725 Business of the House ...... 3726 Postponement of Business ...... 3726 Committees ...... 3726 Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health ...... 3726 Report: Operation and Management of the Northern Beaches Hospital...... 3726 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 3727 Report: 2019 Review of the Dust Diseases Scheme—Silicosis in the Manufactured Stone Industry ...... 3727 Bills ...... 3729 Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020 ...... 3729 First Reading ...... 3729 Condolences ...... 3729 The Hon. John Joseph Fahey, AC, Former Premier of New South Wales ...... 3729 Bills ...... 3740 Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020 ...... 3740 Second Reading Speech ...... 3740 Second Reading Debate ...... 3741 Third Reading ...... 3746 Adjournment Debate ...... 3746 Adjournment ...... 3746 Central Coast Council ...... 3746 Tribute to Susan Ryan, AO ...... 3747 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 ...... 3748 Bali Bombings Anniversary ...... 3749 Small Business ...... 3749 Workers Compensation ...... 3749 NSW Police Force Suspect Target Management Program ...... 3750

Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3689

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 13 October 2020

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. John George Ajaka) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land.

Announcements HANSARD SERVICES The PRESIDENT (14:32:22): I inform members that there is an intermittent problem with the Parliament's information technology system, which will impact on today's publication of Hansard and the availability of the transcript. The information services team is working to rectify the problem as soon as possible. I indicate that a similar announcement was made in the Legislative Assembly. Bills SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 ADOPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTEGRATED BIRTH CERTIFICATES) BILL 2020 POLICE AMENDMENT (PROMOTIONS) BILL 2020 STRONGER COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COURTS AND CIVIL) BILL 2020 BETTER REGULATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 STRONGER COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CRIMES) BILL 2020 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bills. Announcements SPEAKER OF BOUGAINVILLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The PRESIDENT (14:33:40): I inform the House that on behalf of members of the New South Wales Parliament, Mr Speaker and I have sent a message of congratulations to the re-elected Speaker of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville House of Representatives, Mr Simon Pentanu. As members are aware, we have a strong relationship with our twin parliament in Bougainville and we look forward to our continued collaboration with the Speaker. Documents REGISTER OF DISCLOSURES The PRESIDENT: According to clause 21 of the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983, I table the Register of Disclosures by Members of the Legislative Council for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That the document be printed. Motion agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the terms of the agreement made with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, I table the annual report of the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser for the year ended 30 June 2020. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3690

Motions DOGS IN POLITICS DAY The Hon. EMMA HURST: I move: That this House notes that: (a) on 23 September 2020, the Parliamentary Friends of Animals group held its first event for Dogs in Politics Day; (b) at the Dogs in Politics Day event members had the opportunity to meet several dogs available for adoption from the Animal Welfare League NSW and talk to their staff about the importance of animal adoption; (c) the event was attended by the Hon. Emma Hurst, MLC; Mr David Shoebridge, MLC; Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC; the Hon. Shayne Mallard, MLC; the Hon. Lou Amato, MLC; Mr Justin Field, MLC; Ms Jenny Aitchison, MP; Ms Liesl Tesch, MP; Ms Jenny Leong, MP; Mr Jamie Parker, MP; Mr Stephen Kamper, MP; Mr Tim Crakanthorp, MP; Mr Greg Piper, MP; and Ms Lynda Voltz, MP; and (d) the Dogs in Politics Day event was a great success. Motion agreed to. Documents TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: According to Standing Order 59, I table a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I table the following papers: (1) Marine Pollution Act 2012—Report on review of the Act, dated December 2019. (2) Road Transport Act 2013—Report on review of the Act, dated September 2020. I move: That the reports be printed. Motion agreed to. Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I table the report entitled Legislation Review Digest No. 21/57. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I table report No. 38 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 13 October 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: According to paragraph (4) (1) of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee, I move: (1) That: (a) the provisions of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Repeal Bill 2020 be referred to Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment for inquiry and report; (b) the bill be referred to the committee upon receipt of the message on the bill from the Legislative Assembly; (c) the committee report by 16 November 2020; and (d) on the report being tabled, a motion may be moved immediately for the first reading and printing of the bill. (2) That the following bills not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report this day: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3691

(a) Community Land Development Bill 2020; (b) Community Land Management Bill 2020; (c) Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020; (d) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020; (e) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment (Coercive Control—Preethi's Law) Bill 2020; (f) Government Sector Employment Amendment (Teleworking) Bill 2020; (g) Liquor Amendment (Right to Play Music) Bill 2020; (h) Local Land Services Amendment (Land Management and Forestry) Bill 2020; (i) Restart NSW Fund Amendment (Rural and Regional Infrastructure Funding) Bill 2020; and (j) State Insurance and Care Governance Amendment (Employees) Bill 2020. PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Report: Execution of Search Warrants by the Australian Federal Police The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I table the report entitled Execution of Search Warrants by the Australian Federal Police, dated October 2020, together with submissions and correspondence relating to the inquiry. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (14:39:20): I move: That the House take note of the report. The report tabled today covers a unique situation for the Legislative Council. In June of this year an investigation team of the Australian Federal Police [AFP] executed search warrants on the home and parliamentary office of the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane as well as other locations. While unprecedented for the House, an AFP investigation of a member was not completely unanticipated. In 2010 the Privileges Committee engaged with the AFP as part of an earlier inquiry and came to an informal agreement that, should the matter ever arise, the AFP would use the guidelines that were the subject of a memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth Parliament. The AFP national guideline for the execution of search warrants where parliamentary privilege may be involved is an informal arrangement that was put to the test under very extreme circumstances when the search warrants were executed in the middle of this year without prior warning and with nationwide media coverage. The report shows that the guideline worked the first time it was used—at least so far. That is thanks to the willingness of the member and his legal representative to cooperate with the investigation and with this committee and because of the professionalism of both the AFP investigation team and the Clerks of this Parliament. The AFP investigation officers respected the role of the Clerks as the neutral third party and the Clerks worked to ensure that the investigation was not unnecessarily impeded. This contrasts with instances in the Senate in 2016 and 2017 when the AFP executed warrants on Senator Conroy and a staffer, and with the difficulties our committee experienced in 2003 and 2004 with the Independent Commission Against Corruption during the Breen matter. In both instances the Privileges Committee had to consider breaches of privilege and possible contempt. In this case no such considerations were required. The respectful approach taken in determining privileged issues over the documents seized has carried over into the operation of this committee. I thank all members of the committee for taking a constructive and non-partisan approach, as is the tradition when dealing with matters that go to the heart of the rights and responsibilities of members of Parliament. That non-partisan approach assisted the committee in dealing with the issues quickly and efficiently. The committee has come to a clear agreement on which of the items seized by the AFP are privileged and need to be returned to Mr Moselmane. I will today be giving a notice requesting the House to adopt the recommendations of the report to uphold the claim of privilege on 12 items seized and for the Clerk to return the remaining 107 items to the AFP investigations unit. At all times during the inquiry those items remained in the custody of the Clerk. The House authorised the committee to examine the evidence, if required, but neither I nor any other committee member needed to examine the evidence held. The determination has been made on the basis of submissions from the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and the AFP and descriptions of the evidence in indexes prepared by the AFP. In the course of conducting this inquiry, a number of issues were raised that are outside the terms of reference given by the House. For instance, the committee is very aware that currently the memorandum of understanding with the ICAC provides less protection for privilege than the AFP guideline. The current ICAC Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3692

memorandum only covers searches at Parliament House, not the homes of members or other offices. There are also unresolved issues about the rights given to a member to claim privilege over material held by a member's staff. This issue is certainly relevant to the current instance where privilege issues regarding the material seized from Mr Zhang have yet to be resolved. Chapter 5 of the report details a number of outstanding issues that the House may wish to refer to the committee for further deliberation. They are serious questions and it is worth spending time in this Parliament to resolve them. I again thank the committee members for their work on this inquiry. Debate adjourned. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE Government Response: Budget Process for Independent Oversight Bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales: First Report The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government response to report No. 5 of the Public Accountability Committee entitled Budget Process for independent oversight bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales: First Report, tabled on 24 March 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 24 September 2020. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (14:45:22): I move: That the House take note of the Government response. This is the Government's response to the report. Two of the key recommendations from that report were: Recommendation 3 – That the oversight bodies— which include ICAC— be directly allocated their annual funding through the Appropriation legislation, rather than the funding being allocated to the relevant Minister, so they are not subject to reductions in funding during the financial year. Recommendation 4 – That the NSW Government remove the oversight bodies from the Premier and Cabinet cluster. There could not be a more urgent time for this Parliament and the Government to consider those recommendations. We have seen in the last 24 hours the essential work that ICAC does. It is deeply troubling to The Greens and others that the funding of ICAC is in the hands of Ministers, including the Premier. We say again: This body is too important to have its funding be a plaything of the Government. We know that it is chronically underfunded and understaffed. We know it has a budget call for the upcoming budget and we need those structural reforms. As the chair of that committee it is with some concern that I note that the Government's response to those very direct calls to properly fund ICAC and other oversight bodies is simply to note the recommendations. I accept that another report from the Auditor-General is coming, but there was not even an acceptance in principle of the need to ensure that we have independent funding for those oversight bodies and independent funding for the ICAC. If ever there was an object lesson in the need for ICAC to not only have guaranteed funding but to be financially independent of the Premier or any other Minister, we have had that lesson in the last 24 hours. Debate adjourned. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Government Response: Modern Slavery Act 2018 and Associated Matters The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government response to report No. 56 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled Modern Slavery Act 2018 and associated matters, tabled on 25 March 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 24 September 2020. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (14:48:20): I move: That the House take note of the Government response. Debate adjourned. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE Government Response: Sydenham-Bankstown Line Conversion The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government response to report No. 11 of the Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and Customer Service entitled Sydenham-Bankstown line conversion, tabled on 9 April 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 8 October 2020. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3693

Documents GOVERNMENT SECTOR STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 September 2020, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding government asset management plans, received on Monday 28 September 2020 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, advising that the Legislative Council should liaise directly with the independent separate agencies and Essential Energy. ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 September 2020, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding electricity leases and energy operations, received on Monday 28 September 2020 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, advising that the department will not be coordinating any response to the order for papers from Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy, TransGrid and Essential Energy. The department further advised that it is doubtful that the Legislative Council has power to compel the production of documents from private individuals and entities. RENEWABLE ENERGY ZONES Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Tuesday 22 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding renewable energy zones briefings, received on Tuesday 29 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Tuesday 29 September 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. LIDDELL TASKFORCE REPORT Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding Liddell Taskforce, received on Wednesday 30 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 30 September 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. COMMUNITY FUNDS AND GRANTS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 August 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding community funds and grants, received on Thursday 1 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 1 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. NSW POLICE FORCE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 August 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding civil claims against the police, received on Tuesday 6 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3694

SAFEWORK NSW Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Tuesday 15 September 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding the Ombudsman's investigation into SafeWork NSW, received on Thursday 1 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 1 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding NSW Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program Barclay report, received on Thursday 8 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 8 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. ICARE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding claims for asbestos related diseases, received on Thursday 8 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 8 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. LONG SERVICE CORPORATION Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding conduct of the Long Service Corporation, received on Thursday 8 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 8 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. ASP FCI ANALYSIS REPORTS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding facilities condition index AsP FCI analysis reports, received on Thursday 8 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3695

Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 8 October 2020 that are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. INFRASTRUCTURE AND JOB ACCELERATION FUND Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 September 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding Infrastructure and Job Acceleration Fund, received on Thursday 8 October 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Thursday 8 October 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. WAGES POLICY TASKFORCE Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 September 2020, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Wages Policy Taskforce, received on Wednesday 30 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, advising that a further response to the order will be provided by 13 October 2020. STRONGER COMMUNITIES FUND Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of 24 September 2020, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding the Stronger Communities Fund – further order, received this day from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, advising that all documents referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of the resolution of the House of 16 September have been provided. FLOODPLAIN HARVESTING Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 17 September 2020, I table redacted versions of documents Nos DPI.001.008.8694 and DPI.001.008.8708, identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 11 June 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to floodplain harvesting. PAYROLL TAX Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 22 September 2020, I table correspondence received on Wednesday 30 September 2020 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier attaching a letter from the Acting Deputy Secretary of Revenue NSW advising that the redacted documents will be supplied by 9 October 2020. Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Tuesday 22 September 2020, I table redacted versions of documents received on Friday 9 October 2020, identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 9 September 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to Payroll tax compliance—further order. TALLAWARRA POWER STATION Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 24 September 2020, I table redacted versions of documents received on Thursday 1 October 2020, identified as not privileged in the report of the Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3696

Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 22 September 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to contamination at power station associated sites. Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 24 September 2020, I table emails from the Department of Premier and Cabinet, received on Friday 2 October 2020, advising that certain documents ordered to be redacted have not been provided as the Independent Legal Arbiter upheld the claim of privilege. ICARE AND THE STATE INSURANCE REGULATORY AUTHORITY Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 24 September 2020, I table the following documents considered not privileged in the interim report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 22 September 2020, relating to Insurance and Care NSW and the State Insurance Regulatory Authority: (1) Documents numbered 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 in Annexure E to the Arbiter's report which have been redacted according to resolution of the House. (2) Documents upon which icare has waived privileged. THE HON. DON HARWIN Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Bret Walker, SC, dated Friday 25 September 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on documents relating to the alleged breach of public health order by the Hon. Don Harwin, MLC. I advise that the report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. [During the giving of notices of motions] Notices PRESENTATION The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr JUSTIN FIELD: I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until Tuesday 20 October 2020. Motion agreed to. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 3 be postponed until Thursday 15 October 2020. Motion agreed to. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I move: That the matter of public importance relating to New South Wales schools be postponed until Thursday 22 October 2020. Motion agreed to. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 2 be postponed until Tuesday 10 November 2020. Motion agreed to. Committees SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE GREYHOUND WELFARE AND INTEGRITY COMMISSION Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations for membership of the Select Committee on the Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission: Government: Mr Amato Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3697

Mr Fang Mr Farraway

Opposition: Mr Secord Mr Veitch Crossbench: Mr Pearson Chair and Deputy Chair The PRESIDENT: As stated in the resolution of the House establishing the committee, Mr Borsak is Chair of the committee and Ms Boyd is Deputy Chair. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Reference Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: According to paragraph 2 (6) of the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of portfolio committees, Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment resolved on Wednesday 7 October 2020 to amend the terms of reference for the inquiry into the rationale for, and impacts of, new dams and other water infrastructure in New South Wales by inserting "the Menindee Lakes Water Savings Project" after "the Macquarie River re-regulating storage project" in paragraph 1. Condolences THE HON. JOHN JOSEPH FAHEY, AC, FORMER PREMIER OF NEW SOUTH WALES The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (15:26:55): I move: That this House express and place on record its deep regret in the loss sustained to the State by the death on 12 September 2020 of the Hon. John Joseph Fahey, AC, a former Premier of the State of New South Wales. John Fahey was a man of extraordinary character. He was a man who served his abiding passions—his family, his faith and, indeed, the people of Australia—with a legendary selflessness and humility. Born in 1945 in Wellington, New Zealand, into a large Irish Catholic family, his family did what many successful New Zealanders do: They came to Australia, settling in Picton in south-west Sydney in the mid-1950s. Here, the young 11-year-old John Fahey made the jump from rugby union to rugby league after the mother superior at his primary school informed the schoolchildren that she had to select a football team to play against a rival local school. In his later reflections Fahey fondly recalled the memory, saying, "It was bizarre. Here was an Irish nun in full religious habit trying to teach a group of boys the fundamentals of league such as playing the ball and six-man scrums on the concrete playground between the church and the school." After years of playing with the Camden Rams in the New South Wales Country Rugby League, he entered the seminary at Springwood for a year before deciding that his future did not lie with the priesthood. Fahey then approached law firms, seeking a position, but found that the sectarian prejudice of the law precluded him from finding a position. He was eventually accepted into a role with a firm in Yagoona and studied law through the Solicitors Admission Board. During this time Fahey met and fell in love with a young woman from Oakdale, named Colleen McGurren. They married and were together for 52 years, her love sustaining him throughout an entire career of public service. Whilst being from a solidly working-class family, Fahey turned to the Liberal Party in 1974 in reaction to the economic mismanagement by the Whitlam Government. As a young solicitor, he outlined his beliefs that people should be able to keep some of the rewards from their hard work. Elected as the member for Camden in 1984, John's early ambition—given his career at the Camden Rams in the Country Rugby League which led to him playing for Canterbury Bankstown—was to become the Minister for Sport. But in politics one does not always get what one wants in reshuffles and within a year he was appointed the shadow Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. In 1988, when the Greiner Government was elected to office, he became the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment. In this position he sought to undertake some of the biggest reforms in the history of industrial relations in this State. In that portfolio John sat in the Legislative Council under Standing Order 219A. At that time a Minister of the other place could, on motion agreed to by the Legislative Council, sit in the Chamber to explain provisions of any bill relating to the department administered by that Minister. The Minister could take part in debate and discussion but could not vote. On the motion of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby of the Australian Democrats, Minister Fahey stood here over 10 sitting days, from 23 August 1990 to 9 October 1990, to explain the provisions contained in his signature industrial relations legislation. Some 484 amendments were moved to the bill. Following his time here, John sought to make some remarks on the indulgence and of his experience. He said while he appreciated the courtesies extended to him during his time here, he suspected that the length of debate in this Chamber was probably a disincentive to Ministers from the Legislative Assembly ever attending this House again. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3698

The Hon. Adam Searle: Hear, hear! The Hon. DON HARWIN: He was a man of character with a deep respect for the parliamentary process and a man with a courageous spirit. He has been described by those who knew him as having a slow and steady approach to policy rather than one of crash through or crash. Fahey always sought to undertake extensive consultation with stakeholders, including unions. His first big attempt at reform did not succeed but in a time of high unemployment and recession Fahey was a Minister passionate about industrial relations reform. He was committed to creating an environment where employees and employers had the best opportunity to prosper. Under reforms which passed later during his time as the industrial relations Minister, Fahey gave people a chance to have a greater say in their own conditions, including flexible hours and enterprise agreements. His success helped countless people better balance work and family life. These reforms perhaps came from his strong identity as a family man. Having pushed industrial relations reform for almost three years, Fahey managed to get his reforms passed after having them broken up into smaller, bite-sized chunks. In 1991 he introduced changes which outlawed closed shops for unions, empowered employees to be able to bargain more flexibly for their conditions and established the Industrial Relations Commission. Addressing achievements in industrial relations in 1994, Fahey noted that life is about tomorrow, the hopes and ambitions of our children and the security we have a right to expect for ourselves and that includes security of employment. On 24 June 1992 John Fahey succeeded Nick Greiner as Premier of New South Wales, telling the Legislative Assembly that the honour occurred on "the saddest day of his life". John Fahey was one of those whom Nick Greiner, knowing that he intended to serve only one-and-a-half terms as Premier, encouraged as a possible successor. Originally the pool of possible successors was about five but John Hannaford, the first of them, never made it out of this place, losing his preselection by one vote to Kerry Chikarovski. The other four—Virginia Chadwick, Peter Collins, Bruce Baird and John Fahey—were all polled at about the same time to identify who would be the best successor in terms of name recognition and approval. Virginia Chadwick topped the poll with John Fahey coming fourth. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack has previously told us at length, Virginia was a nonstarter. Even though John Fahey had a lower profile than Peter Collins, who had been the health Minister, and Bruce Baird, who had been the transport Minister, he had some important advantages. Most importantly, Nick Greiner made no secret of the fact that John Fahey was his preferred successor. Secondly, Ted Pickering, a towering figure, supported him and that counted for a great deal. Finally, a person who had been his business partner—John Marsden—was also strongly in his corner and lobbying hard. With one day to go it looked quite close between John Fahey and Bruce Baird but during a long and memorable night John pulled ahead, following considerable lobbying, and prevailed on the first ballot with a small majority over the other two candidates. He described his rise to Premier as: … an opportunity to take stock and say maybe liberalism is not just about the North Shore, not just about the Eastern Suburbs as some would put it. It is about ordinary people because that's my background. He tackled the challenge of leading a minority government as he did everything in his life: with hard work and a jovial spirit. Never one to take a backwards step, his quick thinking in the assassination attempt on Prince Charles on Australia Day 1994 earnt him the admiration of the country and of Commonwealth countries elsewhere, including Britain. The Daily Express praised him as one of the "two brave sons of Australia". When asked about the incident, Fahey—always a humble man—replied: You respond as you respond. I'm delighted that there is still a bit of life in the old legs. What a tackle that was. His achievements as Premier are legacies from which New South Wales still benefits. These include the establishment of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which still sets many of the most important pricing principles for utilities and transport in this State. There is no doubt that Premier Fahey oversaw the introduction of landmark local government reforms as well as other important reforms, including the State's first Public Interest Disclosures Act. One would have thought it would have been a difficult time to attempt brave reform. Nevertheless the privatisation of the State Bank of New South Wales was advanced and was achieved. It was a very important reform accomplished during this minority Government. It was particularly important given the scandals that plagued the State banks in South Australia and Victoria. The reforming spirit in which John engaged with his ministerial portfolios was evident during his time as Premier, although it should be mentioned that the fraught position of his minority Government hamstrung many of his desired reforms. He did some symbolically important things such as establishing the first Cabinet position of Minister for the Status of Women and appointing the first Indigenous director-general of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. John never lost his love of sport and is perhaps best known for his efforts in bringing the Olympics to Sydney in 2000. He was famously caught by the camera jumping for joy when Sydney's winning bid was Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3699

announced in September 1993. As a Ministerial adviser at the time, I stayed up all night waiting, desperate to see what the result was. I did my own little leap and landed on the chair, which promptly broke underneath me, so I certainly have not forgotten that night. I worked every day during the Fiftieth Parliament as a Ministerial adviser. John had extraordinary resilience to cope with the quite remarkable bad luck that the Fahey Government had in that term. He did frustrate his colleagues on the issue of the Olympics, though; this morning one of his Cabinet colleagues—I will not name him—said to me that John absolutely refused to allow his 1995 election campaign to trade on Sydney winning the Olympics bid. A fair-minded view of the campaign will reflect that. It frustrated a lot of people, both in Government and working for the government, but that is the way he was. He saw the Olympics as being for the people of New South Wales and he did not want it politicised. He did a great job in getting the Olympics. On a less significant note— but nevertheless important for many people—he got The Phantom of the Opera to Sydney as well. One of the things that Premiers do is go out and support the visitor economy. He did that and he got The Phantom of the Opera, and it played in the Theatre Royal. There was a certain verisimilitude there that I was reflecting on as I was reviewing the record this morning. The Hon. Adam Searle: Did you attend? The Hon. DON HARWIN: No, but I certainly plan on being back at the Theatre Royal when it reopens next year. I saw it elsewhere—in Melbourne, funnily enough. In other places I have often remarked that the Ministers and Governments of Nick Greiner and John Fahey were important role models for a generation of future Liberal MPs. Many are now in office in Sydney and Canberra, including myself. Nick Greiner showed us how to win and inspired us to be brave and to govern, not just occupy office. John was equally influential but taught us other important things. We were in awe of the way he could connect with people. His nickname was "Haveachat"; it drove his staff completely crazy because almost everyone who met him loved having a chat with him and he loved having a chat back. He was compassionate and resilient. His resilience kept us going and gave us hope. When we lost narrowly, we learned a great deal about politics from that too. As a Federal Minister, John Fahey had a surprising post-State-politics career. As a member of the Executive I remember it well. After the appalling 1993 Federal election result for the Liberal Party in New South Wales the Executive, under the presidency of Bill Heffernan, was not prepared to leave one stone unturned in ensuring that the Howard Government was elected. Macarthur was a seat that the Liberal Party had to win from a Labor member. A fellow called Charlie Lynn was preselected. I do not like to speak ill of our former colleague, but the view was that if Charlie were replaced, then our chances of winning Macarthur would be increased. So it came to pass that the Hon. Charlie Lynn became a member of this House and the Hon. John Fahey became the member for Macarthur, joining the Howard Government as the Minister for Finance. John Howard appreciated, without any doubt at all, the governing experience that John Fahey brought to the Cabinet table. As finance Minister, John Fahey worked shoulder to shoulder with Peter Costello on six Federal budgets. Costello remembered the first, which was prepared in the bitter cold of the Canberra winter, in the windowless and airless Cabinet bunker. The process, Costello said, bonded the two men very closely. Fahey described it as difficult, intense and taxing, but the results speak for themselves. The Howard Government delivered surpluses and fixed an enormous budget black hole left by its predecessors. In the years following his time in the Howard Government, Fahey reminisced about watching Prime Minister Howard on Sunday television, announcing the Government's intention to embark on a new tax system underpinned by a GST. He said: I suspect at that moment that the expletive that came out of my mouth, came out of the mouth of many colleagues around Australia. Nevertheless John Fahey rose to the occasion, along with Treasurer Peter Costello, to advocate for and legislate the GST. The GST was a truly reformative piece of taxation reform in Australia. It presented the opportunity to considerably reshape the taxation regime. The other major change that will be remembered from John Fahey's time was the privatisation of Telstra, which was another important piece of reform that he oversaw. I first met John Fahey on my very first day in the workforce, funnily enough, in this building. I had a great deal to do with him from February 1987 through to his retirement as the member for Macarthur 14 years later. On that first day the draft State electoral boundaries were out, following the 1986-87 redistribution. A fellow called Gary Sturgess got me to do something I had never done before: analyse all the margins of the draft boundaries. I have done it once or twice since. John was the member for Camden and there had been dramatic changes to the seat. He had a view about my calculation of the margin—which on reflection, based on the fact that I was doing it for the first time, was probably a little bit too optimistic. It did not suit John for it to look too optimistic and he was quite happy to move down to Southern Highlands. I suspect our colleague the Hon. Peter Primrose was happy about that as well because as a result, by 33 votes, he was elected as John Fahey's successor as member for Camden. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3700

John became the member for Southern Highlands. But, lo and behold, just three years later there was another redistribution, which abolished the seat of Goulburn and potentially pitted John against his excellent Ministerial colleague Robert Webster from the National Party. My close relationship with John stems from the time when I conducted the defence of the draft boundaries and draft name for the Southern Highlands electorate at that interminable electoral districts commission hearing in April 1991. We prevailed, and I think John realised that if we had not prevailed, he might never have been Premier. He never forgot that, and I will never forget what he did for me back in 1993, when I was in a very difficult time. But this debate is about John Fahey, so I will conclude with a few remarks about his post-political career. He was a true servant of the people. He put the needs of the community first, no matter which electorate they came from. Looking back on his career, he later reflected: I believe I understood politics as well as most, but despite the politics, I could never ignore genuine need. His belief that communities—not governments of any particular persuasion—make Australia the great nation it is showed that his passion to serve was built on his love of his community and those around him. Following his diagnosis and subsequent lung removal in February of 2001, doctors gave him a one-in-four chance of surviving the year. But John showed people what a remarkably strong man he was. With a cheerful air and a strong resolution, he tackled that challenge and many more. After politics he became a director of the Bradman Foundation and was elected to the presidency of the World Anti-Doping Agency, continuing his love of sport through the desire for sport to be kept clean from the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He was appointed Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University and was made a Knight Grand Cross in the Order of St Gregory the Great. John divided his later life between his home in the Southern Highlands and beautiful Manyana in the Shoalhaven, where I ran into him many times during his years living on the South Coast. Tragically, his daughter Tiffany was killed in a road accident in 2006, but ever the family man he and his wife, Colleen, became the legal guardians of Tiffany's children. He was a man who above all loved his family and his family loved him. I am sure that every member of the House sends their condolences to John's wife, Colleen, who is attending the condolence debate in the other place, his children Matthew and Melanie, and his grandchildren. John Fahey was a man who loved Australia, loved public service and loved his family. May his memory be a blessing to us all. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (15:51:10): I speak on behalf of the Labor Opposition in support of the condolence motion and of the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Government. Our thoughts are with the family, friends and parliamentary colleagues of the Hon. John Fahey, AC, who served the people of New South Wales with distinction as Premier from 1992 to 1995 and, as has been mentioned, as finance Minister in the Howard Government from 1996 to 2001. John Fahey will be remembered as a person who always acted with the highest personal integrity throughout nearly two decades in public life. That cannot be said of every person in public office. As the Leader of the Government mentioned, his ability to reach out across the community made him a formidable political opponent who was respected by people across the political spectrum. He was well known as a devoted family man. We express our profound condolences to John's wife, Colleen, and his children and grandchildren. Our thoughts are with them. As the Leader of the Government mentioned, John Fahey was originally from New Zealand but we will not hold that against him. Born in Wellington in 1956, he moved to Picton in New South Wales in 1968 and later became an Australian citizen. His love of rugby league was well known. He was a talented player, playing for the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs as a young man. He sustained his love of the Bulldogs through serving as a joint patron of the club from 1993 until his passing. John joined the legal profession and was senior partner in his own legal practice. He was in partnership with John Marsden and became President of the Law Society of New South Wales before entering politics. In March 1984 he entered Parliament as the member for Camden and, after a redistribution of boundaries, served as the member for Southern Highlands. I will not rehearse the events that saw the member for Goulburn, Mr Robert Webster, enter this Chamber. As Premier of New South Wales, John Fahey oversaw Sydney's winning bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games, which will go down in history as one of the greatest Olympic Games and an event that changed our city and our State. He also secured the Paralympic Games. It is sad that he passed just prior to the twentieth anniversary of those games. The iconic image of an elated John Fahey's midair leap of joy following Sydney's confirmation as the host city of the games will be remembered by us all. John's public and private conduct was deeply informed by his Roman Catholic faith and his commitment above all to community service. Former Premier Bob Carr described him recently as "a formidable opponent but a very decent one". Bob Carr recalled John Fahey's impressive bearing through the period from late 1993 to early 1994 when a bushfire crisis befell the State. He faced it with cool-headed leadership. That fire was well known to those of us who live in the Blue Mountains. Perhaps it was one of the first climate fires, which we continue to experience and which have, unfortunately, become increasingly worse. John Fahey's ability to act decisively in the moment was characterised by his valiant Australia Day 1994 defence of Prince Charles. People across Australia and the world will not forget how he put his own safety at risk in deploying his considerable prowess as a former footballer to protect the prince from what appeared to be a gunman. The gun was loaded with blanks but that was not known at the time. In public life John was one of the first senior members of the Liberal Party to support the Republican movement. He thought it was essential that Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3701

our head of state should be an Australian citizen rather than a British monarch. John Fahey will be remembered also for introducing the Disability Services Act 1993 and the NSW Seniors Card, and for appointing the first New South Wales Minister for the Status of Women. He is one of a small group of members of the New South Wales Parliament who made a successful transition from State to Federal politics when elected to represent the Federal electorate of Macarthur. In that capacity he served also as Minister for Finance. John Fahey's political beliefs were very different to those held on this side of the House, but he was renowned as an honest person and demonstrated the highest personal integrity throughout his time in both State and Federal politics. Despite political difference, he was well liked and respected by all due to his courteous and decent nature. That is often missing in public life. His industrial relations reforms were the first effort by the conservative side of politics to completely dismantle the system of arbitration, conciliation and industrial regulation that had been in place in New South Wales since the early twentieth century. His reforms were removed comprehensively by the Carr Labor Government and by my former boss the Hon. Jeff Shaw, QC, as industrial relations Minister. Nevertheless, credit must be given to John Fahey for being the first Liberal industrial relations Minister to start a wave of reform by successive Liberal governments around Australia, culminating in the Federal industrial relations changes put in place by the Howard Government. That wave started in New South Wales, as did the wave to return to proper regulation with the 1995 industrial relations legislation. The Leader of the Government referred to the Public Interest Disclosures Act, which is almost completely unchanged from the original put in place by the Fahey Government. The Act was a result of the charter of reform signed with the three Independents who held the balance of power. Although well-intentioned, it is badly in need of reform and we are hoping earnestly that the long-awaited draft of the legislation that was meant to be produced in the previous Parliament will see the light of day in this Parliament. After his time in politics John Fahey was not content to live a quiet life. He continued to serve the public as Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, a director of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the World Anti-Doping Agency and also, until fairly recently, as Chairman of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority until the authority's board was removed by the current Government. While serving as a director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the relationships he built with law enforcement agencies and the pharmaceutical industry allowed the agency to be in the best position to detect performance-enhancing substances and to make sport as clean as possible. He will be greatly missed by all of those in and around rugby league, particularly by the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. It is important for us to reflect that his legacy of more than two decades in public life is considerable. He devoted his life to public service and we will continue to remember his service to the people of New South Wales and to our nation. As I said, although his politics were not our politics, it is important to respect contributions from giants such as John Fahey. I conclude by again sending our condolences to his wife, Colleen, and their children and grandchildren. I wish them all the very best. The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Questions Without Notice MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00:20): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government and Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Given the Premier responded to a message from Daryl Maguire by texting "Woohoo" when he disclosed in 2014 that he had received a commission payment from a developer, is it now the Government's policy to encourage members of Parliament to seek and receive commission payments for advancing the interests of property developers in New South Wales? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:00:57): Let me be quite clear: The approach that the Government takes on those matters is and remains a position that is consistent with the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The Premier and every Minister is committed to making sure that its requirements are met at all times. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:01:34): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer about the importance of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and upholding the code and its standards? I ask him to indicate how encouraging the seeking and receiving of commission payments from a developer—as the Premier did—is consistent with upholding the code and those standards. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:02:08): I listened very carefully to the honourable Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3702

member's question. I noted the date and that it was based on what he says was an exchange of text messages. I had quite a full diary yesterday and have not had a chance to read the entire transcript. While I am sure the honourable member would not want to mislead the House on an important matter such as this, I want to consider the transcript and make remarks appropriately. I draw the honourable member's attention to the Premier's very clear statements both at the ICAC yesterday and her media conferences today and yesterday. I have not had the chance to review what happened in question time in the Legislative Assembly because I have been here listening to honourable members give their notices of motion and I made a contribution to the condolence motion on the Hon. John Fahey. Beyond that I am not prepared to make any further comment. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:03:41): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer on his repeated references to the Ministerial Code of Conduct? Will his Government now move to ban commissions paid to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries— The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The honourable member is clearly asking a new question and not seeking an elucidation. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The supplementary question is out of order. POWERHOUSE PARRAMATTA The Hon. LOU AMATO (16:04:12): My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Will the Minister update the House on the Powerhouse Parramatta project? The Hon. Walt Secord: Watch him come to life; watch him glow. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:04:26): It is full steam ahead for the Powerhouse Parramatta project. I would not want to disappoint the Hon. Walt Secord. [Members interjected.] The PRESIDENT: The Minister will resume his seat. The Clerk will stop the clock. The Hon. Walt Secord correctly brought to my attention when the Hon. Trevor Khan was interjecting, stating, "Call him to order. Throw him out." I remember that distinctly. The Hon. Walt Secord: To correct the record, I said, "Make an example of him." The PRESIDENT: Do not argue with me. The Hon. Walt Secord has now interjected on seven occasions and we are only five minutes into question time. I will follow his advice very carefully if he continues to interject. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DON HARWIN: Last week I was pleased to confirm that the New South Wales Government will relocate the historic Willow Grove house to a new site in North Parramatta. That will provide the community with better access to the house, which will be restored to its former glory, whilst paving the way for the flagship Powerhouse Parramatta museum. The Government also intends to retain and refurbish the neighbouring St George's Terrace—another local heritage item—including the terrace's brick facade. The Government has listened to the community, who told us during the planning process about their connection to Willow Grove. We are now taking steps to preserve it. The relocation of Willow Grove presents an incredible opportunity to return the building to the community and to continue to protect it for future generations. The Government is investigating potential sites for relocation within the Parramatta North precinct, which is outside the nationally significant heritage core. Consultation with key stakeholders and the community, along with the new location once it is selected, will determine the adaptive re-use of the building. The aim will be to restore the building to its original state. However, I expect some modifications will be made to meet modern and equitable access requirements to ensure it can be used by all members of the community. That decision provides the best outcome for western Sydney as well as for the broader arts and cultural sector across the State. The realisation of Powerhouse Parramatta, which the relocation will facilitate, will be a defining moment in the history of western Sydney. With more than 18,000 square metres of column-free exhibition and public spaces, this museum in the heart of Parramatta will stand tall with the world's great cultural institutions. With the July 2020 decision to retain the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo as well as build our flagship museum in Parramatta, the public will have more exhibition space than ever before to see the revered and renowned Powerhouse collection. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3703

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16:07:34): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government and Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Will the Minister confirm that there are no Government MPs or MLCs seeking or receiving commission payments from property developers? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:07:50): Not to my knowledge but I will take the question on notice and provide the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with a response. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION) 2019 The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:08:07): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. In a joint press release from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and the Office of the acting Deputy Premier it was outlined that changes will be made to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019, specifically the removal of the pink development application map and the refining of the blue site investigation map. Given that those two maps underpin core koala habitat and guide development application approvals and that one map is now being removed and another refined, how many development applications were rejected using those two maps and how does the Government plan on reviewing those rejected proposals at no financial cost to the applicants? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:08:56): I thank the honourable member for his question, which was directed to the Minister in the other place whom I represent in this Chamber. As the question asked for a lot of detail, I will take it on notice and provide a response to him as soon as possible. SCHOOL ORIENTATION The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (16:09:22): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister update the House on what the New South Wales Government is doing to ensure that children have a positive start to their school experience? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:09:42): A positive start to school is incredibly important and depends on family, community, early childhood services and the school team working together to make it happen. An orientation program helps children and families get to know the school: Kids will find out about school routines, staff, uniforms and bell times; parents will find out how to keep in touch with teachers and the school. Orientation often includes tours of the school where children will find out all about the office, canteen, library and classrooms. In my experience, I know how important kindergarten orientation was for my eldest daughter. But, as many people would know, due to COVID-19 kindy orientations had been placed on hold on public school sites throughout term three. That meant that schools and teachers were facing another challenge in what is an already challenging year. It was fantastic to see schools work to come up with creative alternatives to their normal orientation activities. Many schools created videos, activity packs and staff photographs for their future students. It was fantastic to see schools such as Dubbo Public School work on creating a virtual tour of their school to show kindergarten children where to find everything. However, the Government understands that nothing beats an on-site orientation program. I felt strongly about that as Minister, so I am delighted to say that New South Wales public schools may now conduct kindergarten orientation programs during term four of 2020, subject to health advice and departmental guidelines. I know that many parents around the State will welcome that news. I will particularly mention my nephew, Otis Johnston, who is going to start school next year. Otis is very excited to be going to orientation. There might be one or two parents in the Chamber who also have their kids starting next year. I know the Hon. Daniel Mookhey is one; I am not sure if there are any others. I am sure he is also happy that orientation can happen for his son. Children will be able to attend the sessions at "big school" and parents will be able to drop off and pick up at the school grounds. The guidelines provide requirements to reduce overcrowding and promote physical distancing, hygiene and cleaning protocols. Specific advice is provided for students with disability and additional learning and support needs. While parents are unable to attend group meetings at the school, information will be provided virtually. For a lot of parents, that will mean receiving information packs from the schools. Fairvale Public School is one such example. It has already created a pack that answers all parents' potential queries ranging from homework to enrolling at their local out-of-school-hours care. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3704

Schools will also draw upon the ideas and resources from the department, including the learning-from-home hub, to create innovative and creative opportunities to build relationships with children and to establish a sense of belonging, collaborate with families and connect with early childhood services. I am also delighted to inform the House that year 6 orientation programs can also be held for primary school students transitioning to high school. I hope the orientations will allow our students to experience an engaging and fun session at their future school and act as a taster for what classroom life will be like in the coming year. WATER MANAGEMENT The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (16:12:59): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, representing the Minister for Water, Property and Housing. Is the Minister aware that recently a foreign company bought a $98 million almond orchard in Hillston, which includes more than 11,000 megalitres of New South Wales water entitlements? Given that almond farms use vast amounts of water and create very few local jobs, what is the New South Wales Government doing to ensure that the purchase benefits the Riverina community? What representations has the Minister made to the Federal Government objecting to this foreign takeover, or has she buried her head in the sand as usual? The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is well aware that the last part of his question is argumentative. I will delete that part of the question. The Minister is capable of answering the question which finishes with "What representations has the Minister made to the Federal Government objecting to this foreign takeover?" I indicate to members that, if they are going to have argumentative or other such comments, I have the discretion to rule the entire question out of order. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:14:35): I thank the member for his question, which refers to the Hon. Melinda Pavey in the other place, whom I represent here. As the question contains quite a bit of detail, I will take it on notice and get a response back to the member. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:14:55): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, Minister for Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and the Arts. What is the Government's policy on Premiers, Treasurers and Ministers receiving ministerial correspondence to private email accounts relating to their ministerial responsibility? Has the Premier contravened the State Records Act? The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The honourable member is asking for a legal opinion. He asked whether the Premier contravened the State Records Act. That is asking for a legal opinion. The Hon. Mick Veitch: To the point of order— The Hon. WALT SECORD: To the point of order: Mr President, earlier in question time you made a ruling involving a question from the Hon. Robert Borsak. You deleted a part of that question. I suggest that before you make your ruling, if you desire to reject the second half of my question, you should refer to your ruling and put to the Minister the first question: What is the Government's policy on Premiers, Treasurers and Ministers receiving ministerial correspondence to private email accounts relating to their ministerial responsibility? The Hon. Trevor Khan: To the point of order: I am reluctant to take a point of order because I have tried to take a position that others now have to start doing. Firstly, the Hon. Walt Secord is now inviting the President to ignore the way he presents a provocative question and to essentially save him from his own indiscretions. Mr President, it is not your role to rewrite questions that the Opposition may put to Ministers. Secondly, the Opposition members are supposed to ask a single question at a time to a Minister; we see repeatedly that multiple questions are asked at the same time. In that way, they want Ministers to essentially answer all of them, because that is a notice that is now on the paper— The Hon. WALT SECORD: Further to the point of order: He is debating the question. The PRESIDENT: Order! When a member is speaking on a point of order, they should be allowed to complete what they are saying. The Hon. Trevor Khan: The point I make is that when Opposition members wish to ask a question and when they ask multiple questions, that should also be a basis on which questions are ruled out of order. The Hon. WALT SECORD: Further to the point of order: The honourable member is debating the question. I have been a member of this Chamber for almost 10 years. Multiple questions have been permitted by successive presidents. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3705

The PRESIDENT (16:19:07): I indicate at the very outset that past rulings on the issue of debating a question relate to a Minister debating the question in giving an answer. They do not relate to a point of order that has been taken and a debate occurring on the point of order. In fact, members have to debate a question if there is a point of order on the question or on aspects of the question. That part completely fails. I also indicate two other points. Firstly, the vast majority of the Hon. Robert Borsak's question was in order. It was only half of the very last sentence that was argumentative and I deleted that. Secondly, I made it very clear that I have discretion to disallow an entire question. The concern I have with the Hon. Walt Secord's question is that it is literally at least 50 per cent of the question. There is the typed version of the question— The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: Is the member taking a point of order on me now? The Hon. Walt Secord: I will in a second because I think you are making a very important— The PRESIDENT: It is too late. I have started giving my ruling and I will finish it. If the member wants to contest or challenge my ruling, that is a very different prospect. I have the Hon. Walt Secord's question in front of me. There is no doubt that half of it is in order. But then he added the second half, which is a separate question. I am of the view that it is out of order. Therefore, my ruling is that the question is out of order. The Hon. Walt Secord: With your indulgence may I make a small observation? The PRESIDENT: I am not aware of any standing order that allows a member to make an observation. The Hon. Walt Secord: I seek leave to canvass your ruling. The PRESIDENT: I would not go there. If members wish to challenge my ruling, they should do so in accordance with the standing orders. To do that appropriately, the Hon. Walt Secord has to move dissent. That is a matter for him. I am not inviting him to do that. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES The Hon. WES FANG (16:21:49): My question is addressed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Will the Minister update the House on the importance of resilience for good mental health? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:22:11): I thank the honourable member for his question. In October we celebrate Mental Health Month in New South Wales. The theme for this year is "Tune In". I encourage everyone to tune in to their own mental health, the mental health of their loved ones, their colleagues and their communities. In 2020, our society has faced unimaginable challenges: drought, bushfires and forced isolation and financial stress because of a worldwide pandemic. To say that it has placed a strain on the collective mental health of all of us is really an understatement. Despite those challenges to mental health and wellbeing, I have been amazed. I am so proud of everyone that I have met and the advocates I have spoken to who have been weathering the storm with grace, perspective and most importantly hope. I have spoken to people who have had their lives turned upside down and who are trying every day to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have spoken to people who are reaching out a helping hand to those around them who might be struggling: our healthcare workers, our psychologists, our pharmacists, our grocery shop owners, our small businesses, our home-schooling parents. There has never been a better time for this House to reflect on the amazing resilience of our communities. There has never been a better time for us all to consider how we can build our own resilience and the resilience of our own communities. Resilience is the ability to cope when we experience stressful or challenging experiences. It protects us from developing mental illnesses such as depression or anxiety. For people who already experience mental health issues, resilience can help them to better cope with setbacks and to more effectively manage their illness and recovery. Everyone has the potential to develop a greater level of resilience and often resilience is built through experiencing difficult life events. We also know that building a supportive community improves individual resilience as well as that of the whole community. It has been shown that resilience is something that in many cases can be learned. That is why we want to empower people to come together where possible, support each other and support themselves. The Drought Resilience Fund was established to support drought-affected communities in New South Wales that have ideas to connect their communities and improve people's wellbeing. It has been difficult with COVID-19 to bring people together because of social distancing rules and restrictions but I encourage anyone that can to promote and organise gatherings in their communities in a COVID-safe way. It is a great way to boost mental health. An innovative and peer-run support phone line that I have mentioned before in this Chamber is the BEING Supported initiative. It provides very important social connections and referrals for people with mental illness who are impacted by COVID-19. I was in Dubbo yesterday opening the new Lifeline centre and everyone there Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3706

was very excited about the BEING Supported line. They said that it fulfilled a real need in our communities. I am proud to be part of a government that invests significantly in improving the resilience of individuals and communities in New South Wales, particularly in response to the challenges of 2020. PARLIAMENTARY ASSETS Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:25:19): My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. As Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 and parliamentary entitlements, is the Minister aware of any claims made by disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl Maguire relating to alleged damage to his phone, iPad or USB as a result of a tractor or other misadventure at any time from 1 January 2017? If not, is there any record held by Government about any such incident? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:25:50): Full marks to the honourable member for having a go. Mr David Shoebridge: We just want an answer. The Hon. DON HARWIN: And I am going to give you one. As Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Remuneration Act [PR Act], I have no role beyond any suggested amendments to the PR Act. The Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal makes determinations. Members of Parliament who are not Ministers— I will have to check on Parliamentary Secretaries but my recollection at this point is that Parliamentary Secretaries do not receive any equipment from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. To the extent that Parliamentary Secretaries have any equipment, it is provided to them by the Parliament. That is therefore a question that really ought to be directed to you, Mr President, not to me. Under past Presidents' rulings, they cannot be directed to you in the House. That is the position in terms of the information the honourable member is seeking. The answer is no, I am not aware of any reports in that respect and nor would I be. Any damage to equipment that is owned by the Parliament would be a matter for the executive manager of the Department of Parliamentary Services and, if he needed to raise it with the relevant officer, the Presiding Officer. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:28:03): I ask a supplementary question. Given that Mr Maguire has allegedly damaged his parliamentary assets, is there no assets register covering Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers to which the Minister can refer to assist in providing this information? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:28:23): I will not take any points of order. I do not seek to avoid this question in any way. I will take on notice that part of the question relating to Parliamentary Secretaries. Even though I am prompted by Parliamentary Secretaries in the Chamber suggesting to me that they have no equipment provided to them for the performance of their duties by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, I will nevertheless take that part of the question on notice. In relation to asset registers of equipment provided by the Parliament, exactly the same answer applies to the supplementary question that was asked. Of course, as the honourable member is well aware—I will not speculate on why he asked me that question—every year every member of the House has to fill out a return of the equipment that is provided to them by the Parliament for inclusion on the Parliament's asset register. The member would know that the register is under the control of the executive manager of the Department of Parliamentary Services, who reports to the Presiding Officers. I cannot help but feel the honourable member is asking me a question that he already knows the answer to. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (16:30:11): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate that part of the answer that dealt with amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act, for which he is responsible, and tell the House whether he is open to an amendment that bans commissions being paid by developers to MPs? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:30:29): That is not a matter that would be dealt with by the Parliamentary Remuneration Act. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (16:30:43): I direct my question to the Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. When was the first time the Minister discussed Daryl Maguire's conduct with the Premier? Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3707

The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:31:02): What an extraordinary question. It is open-ended and it is impossible to answer. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order— The Hon. DON HARWIN: So I will treat it with the contempt it deserves. SMALL BUSINESS MONTH The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (16:31:29): I address my question to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. How is Small Business Month helping small businesses throughout New South Wales contribute to the economic recovery from COVID-19? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:31:43): I congratulate the member on the successful World Squash Day event in Parkes, which he participated in— The Hon. Mick Veitch: Point of order: The standing orders are very clear, as the Minister knows. He has to be directly relevant to the question that was asked. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Three seconds, mate. A squash centre is a small business. What are you talking about? The PRESIDENT: I am sure that the Minister will indicate how the beginning of his answer was directly relevant to the question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I thank the member for his enthusiasm for the small business squash centre in Parkes. We are still in the midst of the global health pandemic, which has caused loss of life and loss of jobs and has impacted our way of life. This is a particularly difficult time for our small businesses, coming off the back of drought, bushfires and floods. But this month is Small Business Month, which is a great opportunity to celebrate and highlight the importance of our small businesses to their local communities. Over 628 events have been planned or held so far and each and every one of them is a wonderful opportunity for small businesses to focus on ways to reboot and reconnect and to do things differently to get ahead. To better support local businesses, councils and business chambers have put on COVID-safe events. The New South Wales Government made available grants of up to $2,000, which were taken up by 93 councils and 126 business chambers. There are events being held in every corner of the State. I am pleased to have visited small businesses in Revesby, Goulburn, Penrith, Lilyfield, Fairfield and the Southern Highlands as part of NSW Small Business Month. Last week I met with the team at Kismet Mechanical, the 24-hour business that won the Automotive Services Award at the Inner West Local Business Awards. Their passion and enthusiasm to deliver great services for their customers is just one of the hallmarks that are characteristic of small businesses across New South Wales. There are many great events coming up. Tonight the Australian Tax Office, supported by Fairfield City Council, will live stream a webinar for businesses that want to learn more about the Government's stimulus package. On Thursday the Maitland Business Chamber will host a summit called "Working Through Covid" at the Hunter Gateway Motel. Next week in Orange businesses can learn about using social media to promote their brand at Hive Orange, proudly sponsored by Orange City Council. There are many more events to be found online at businessmonth.nsw.gov.au. I urge members to join in celebrating the success of small businesses in their local areas during Small Business Month. I look forward to meeting with more businesses around New South Wales in the days ahead. MENTAL HEALTH DRUG TREATMENTS Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (16:35:29): I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Will the Minister update the House on her recent meeting with Mind Medicine Australia, which spoke with the Minister about the medical use of MDMA and psilocybin as part of psychotherapy for patients with severe and treatment-resistant post-traumatic stress disorder and depression? Will the Minister explain why there still are regulatory barriers to these groundbreaking therapies in place in New South Wales, when they are already available for research and treatment? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:36:01): I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that she has an interest in this topic because she has asked me a question in this place before and also requested that I meet with Mind Medicine Australia, which I did. Psychedelic substances such as MDMA and psilocybin are not established clinical treatments in Australia. Treatments could be investigated under clinical trials or made available as unregistered medicines via prescription under the Commonwealth Special Access Scheme. These substances are currently prohibited drugs Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3708

under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and are in schedule 9 to the Poisons Standard, which limits their access as therapies. However, authority can be granted to undertake clinical trials. I understand there are numerous trials going on overseas. Where evidence on the benefits and harm support rescheduling to schedule 8 to the Poisons Standards, the national scheduling process would further facilitate clinical trials and potentially availability under the Special Access Scheme. Commonwealth approval may be required for importation, as occurs with all substances that meet the category. New South Wales has representation on the national Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling to advise the scheduling delegate on proposals for scheduling changes. Two such drugs have received "breakthrough therapy" designation in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration. That designation expedites the development and review of drugs to treat a serious condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates further investigation is warranted. It is important to acknowledge that these sorts of drugs come with risks, including the risk of addiction. Clinical trials need to be carefully controlled in order to be safe. I take guidance from the NSW Health Chief Psychiatrist, Dr Murray Wright, who is a man I greatly respect and who is very respected by his peers and by people who work in both the public and private systems. I have said that full consultation needs to be done with psychiatrists because they are the experts in the field. When they call for wider usage, that issue is up to them. I am not a doctor or a psychiatrist. As I have said, I take my guidance and advice from Dr Wright, the NSW Health Chief Psychiatrist. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (16:38:51): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate her answer in relation to the meeting with Mind Medicine Australia and the discussion on the Therapeutic Goods Administration? Did it mention to the Minister that the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act in New South Wales makes it illegal for psychiatrists to use medical-grade MDMA even following approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration under the Special Access Scheme, which the Minister mentioned? Did Mind Medicine Australia speak to the Minister about the difficulty in relation to the New South Wales Poison and Therapeutic Goods Act? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:39:33): I thank the member for her supplementary question. Many things were discussed in that meeting and I do not believe that the member was on the call. For the exact detail of that question I would have to go back to my notes. As I said, we had a meeting, they put a presentation to me, I listened and I took notes, but there are regulations in place. Those regulations are in place for a very good reason and we need to be guided by those regulations. Under the schedules of the Act we need to prove when we are doing things. As I said, I place a lot of trust in what psychiatrists choose to do and the clinical trials that are operating. I am sure that everything will be looked at when the volume of evidence is populated as a result of those trials. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (16:40:41): My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. When did the Premier receive the briefing from former Minister for Planning Anthony Roberts and the then chief executive officer of the Greater Sydney Commission to raise concerns about the lobbying and other behaviour of Mr Daryl Maguire? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:41:05): As this is a matter that I am not familiar with, I must take the question on notice. I will supply the honourable member with a response. REGIONAL CULTURAL FUND The Hon. WES FANG (16:41:25): My question is addressed to the Aboriginal affairs Minister. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's support for cultural projects in Griffith and for Aboriginal artists in the western Riverina? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:41:44): This Government believes that every community in New South Wales, including right across regional New South Wales, deserves its fair share of arts and cultural expenditure. I thank the Hon. Wes Fang for his question. I know he deeply cares about these matters in not only the western Riverina but right across the State. Particularly during the drought, the bushfire crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the 136 projects being delivered through the Regional Cultural Fund are stimulating local economies in our regions. Importantly, it is the cultural offerings in these facilities that are providing much-needed support to local audiences and artists. Last week I had the privilege to open the newly upgraded Griffith Regional Theatre, which received over $660,000 to update the building to a state-of-the-art, world-class multipurpose facility. I am very impressed with Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3709

the work that has been done. I particularly highlight that the theatre features a spectacular mural from local Wiradjuri artist Veronica Collins, which recognises the strong Aboriginal arts connection in the community. During this month, Griffith City Council and the Wiradjuri community, with partners Burrundi Theatre for Performing Arts and Western Riverina Arts, are presenting the Yarruwala Wiradjuri Cultural Festival. The festival also showcases Indigenous artists and creatives in a diverse program of performances, exhibitions, workshops and immersive cultural experiences. Create NSW supported the digital launch of the festival earlier this year with a $10,000 grant from the COVID-19 digital support round. As part of this wonderful festival, Griffith Regional Theatre presented the world premiere of Sunshine Super Girl by Andrea James, which is the story of sporting legend Evonne Goolagong Cawley, the Wiradjuri girl who conquered the world. This powerful story is presented on Evonne's traditional country and is a jewel in the crown of the Yarruwala Wiradjuri Cultural Festival, which is on right now. It is fantastic to see a project that was originally funded with a $75,000 grant from Create NSW come to life and resonate so strongly with the community. The Government is proud to support the Griffith community and the Riverina region as well as regions right across New South Wales in fostering Aboriginal arts and culture. Again, I thank the honourable member for his question. BUSHFIRE RISK MITIGATION Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:44:45): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Last week Minister Elliott stated in his press release that new laws to allow rural landholders to clear up to 25 metres on their property from the boundary were based on the expert operational advice of the NSW RFS. What was that advice given and when will it be made public? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:45:18): I thank the member for his question. I preface my response by saying that the answer I give is on advice. I am advised that the 25-metre rule is based on operational advice and reflects a number of operational reference points, including consistency with New South Wales fire trail standards, which is 22 metres, and the NSW Rural Fire Service's primary planning tool, Planning for Bush Fire Protection. The independent NSW Bushfire Inquiry report, which examined the causes, preparation and response to the devastating Black Summer bushfires, was released on 24 August 2020. The New South Wales Government has accepted all 76 recommendations and thanks former deputy police commissioner Mr Dave Owens and Professor Mary O'Kane for their work in preparing the report for the benefit of the State. Recommendation 28 stated:  review vegetation clearing policies to ensure that the processes are clear and easy to navigate for the community, and that they enable appropriate bush fire risk management by individual landowners without undue cost or complexity. The New South Wales Government makes no qualms about listening to operational experts, responding to public inquiries, and elected representatives doing their jobs in listening to the concerns of the public and acting on them. I note that the 25-metre rule policy will still be subject to a code, which will have regard to issues such as clearing habitat of endangered and threatened species as well as clearing for non-bushfire risk mitigation purposes. NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Mr Rob Rogers has welcomed the 25-metre rule. He said: These measures will empower community members to better protect their homes and property with as little bureaucracy as possible. The changes to the legislation reflect the clear recommendations from the NSW Bushfire Inquiry, and will help the NSW Rural Fire Service in its role to manage and better protect communities across the State from bushfires. We need to take all reasonable measures to prevent the loss of life and injury as well as damage to and loss of property that can be caused by bushfires. This recommendation or provision is one such measure. Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:48:10): I ask a supplementary question: Will the Minister elucidate his answer with regard to the multiple reference points he mentioned, which seem to suggest that the Rural Fire Service has provided additional advice relating to its recommendation. Will the Minister elucidate his answer as to whether the additional advice will be made public? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:48:40): I am just reflecting on the answer I gave and I am trying to ascertain when I referred to multiple reference points. Mr Justin Field has referred to operational reference points. I then articulated what those operational reference points were, including the New South Wales fire trail standards, which is 22 metres, and the NSW Rural Fire Service's primary planning tool, Planning for Bush Fire Protection. If the documents I have referenced are not public I will undertake to ascertain for the member whether they will be made public or, if not, why not. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3710

DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (16:49:39): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Why did the Premier fail to report, as legally required, Daryl Maguire's actions despite knowing of his many business dealings for 6½ years? The PRESIDENT: Will the member provide me with the question please? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:50:21): The honourable member would know that the matters he raises are part of the reference before the Independent Commission Against Corruption and as such, in my view, it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further, particularly as some aspects of my answer may be a comment on proceedings that are in front of the commission. Therefore, I will leave the matter there. Suffice it to say, this Government has a very high regard for the work of the Independent Commission Against Corruption— The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The Minister has excised my question and set it aside by saying that the matter is before the ICAC and he is about to proceed with some further comment. I invite you to draw him back to the question because it specifically is about the Premier's failure to report, which relates to parliamentary obligations as a member of this Parliament and as the Premier of this State and is unrelated, I submit, to proceedings before the ICAC. The question relates specifically to obligations to report to Parliament. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: I potentially should have taken this point of order earlier. The second part of the question raised the spectre of the Premier having known of the business dealings for 6½ years. I suggest that that is argumentative in its nature because there is no evidence to suggest that the Premier knew about them for 6½ years. The Hon. Greg Donnelly: To the point of order— The PRESIDENT: Let the Minister finish. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Mr President, if you formed the view that that part of the question was out of order I would invite you to rule that the whole of the question is out of order. The PRESIDENT (16:52:31): I will rule on the Minister's comment first. I cannot uphold the Minister's point of order because Minister Harwin commenced to answer the question. Raising a point of order on any part of the question is way too late. I think that is what the Hon. Greg Donnelly was going to raise. I will now deal with the Hon. Greg Donnelly's point of order. I have ruled on this previously from past rulings of Presidents, which I believe still applies notwithstanding the changes to the sessional orders. It is not for the Chair to direct how a Minister should answer a question. I added to that that the Minister must be directly relevant. The Chair cannot compel a Minister to answer a question other than in a way he or she wishes, again provided the Minister is being directly relevant. It is not for the Chair to direct what part of the question a Minister should answer. I make it clear that there is nothing preventing a question from having more than one part. A member is entitled to ask a question with many parts, but when the member does so it is up to a Minister which part of the question the Minister answers and how he or she answers it. The Minister may indicate he or she does not wish to answer the question and it continues. Minister Harwin was being directly relevant to the question that was asked. The Minister went on to say, "Suffice it to say", and I think that is as far as he got. I cannot rule on "Suffice it to say" until I know what the rest of the sentence is going to be. I think the Hon. Greg Donnelly was a little bit early taking a point of order because we do not know what the Minister was going to say. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DON HARWIN: What I was going to say was that suffice it to say while the Government and I have a very high regard for the work of the ICAC in fulfilling its mission, I nonetheless do not sit all day watching hearings on the internet. As I explained to the House earlier in question time, I had quite a full diary yesterday and I kept all those appointments. I note it was referred to in the point of order taken by the Hon. Damien Tudehope that a number of presumptions were made in the question about the evidence that was given yesterday. I am simply in no position to make any statements whatsoever about this. While I thank the honourable member for his question, I can take it no further. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS The Hon. LOU AMATO (16:55:28): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister provide the House with an update on the progress of its school building program as term four begins? Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3711

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:55:49): I am pleased to update the House on the record investment that the New South Wales Government is making in building and upgrading schools. Our $6.7 billion is the single largest investment in school infrastructure in this State since Federation. I previously advised the House that at the beginning of term three this year we had already matched our record of delivery in 2019 with 42 new and upgraded school projects delivered. At the time, I indicated that we were on track to exceed that number, and I stand here today very happy to advise the House that we have. Despite the challenges of 2020, this year will be recorded as the single most significant in terms of the new and upgraded school projects delivered. The start of term four this week I am sure will be met with lots of excitement for students at Killarney Heights Public School, Wollongong Public School, Westfield Sports High School, Schofields Public School and James Fallon High School. The project at Killarney Heights Public School has delivered a new two-storey building including seven permanent learning spaces, one special programs room and breakout learning areas. Wollongong Public School students will have access to a new two-storey building with 10 new flexible learning spaces and a new covered outdoor learning area [COLA]. The project also included refurbishment of staff and administration facilities, as well as improved building accessibility and landscaping around the school. The addition of 23 new flexible classrooms including specialist spaces for science and for wood and metal technology at Westfield Sports High School will benefit those students. Twenty-seven new classrooms including three special education classrooms and upgraded facilities including a new library, new staff and administration areas, amenities and a new COLA have all been delivered at Schofields Public School. James Fallon High School has also seen the delivery of a new multipurpose hall for performance, sport and presentations. As part of the upgrade, new front fencing and landscaping work was completed near the hall, as well as a shared pedestrian and vehicle zone next to the new hall. These projects take the total number delivered in 2020 to 47, an astounding achievement. The most recent achievements represent a cross-section of communities benefiting from our record investment. In these projects alone, communities in north-western Sydney, south-western Sydney, Sydney's North Shore and the Illawarra are benefiting. We all appreciate the challenges the past 12 months have presented to our State. For many, the hardship of the worst drought on record was met with the raging fires of our State's Black Summer. This has been compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. But throughout it all the New South Wales Government has continued to support our communities through our record infrastructure pipeline, providing stimulus to keep people in jobs. As I said, we have now delivered a total of 47 projects so far in 2020, but the year is not yet over and I suspect this coming term will see even more school communities benefit from our $6.7 billion pipeline of projects in school infrastructure. We will continue to deliver our record program of new and upgraded schools and I look forward to continuing to update the House. [Time expired.] ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS The Hon. EMMA HURST (16:58:57): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, representing the Attorney General. Animal crush videos are sexual fetish videos that contain footage of small animals being brutally tortured or killed, often using a woman's shoe. Last year the United States Government introduced the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, which makes it a serious felony offence to sell or distribute animal crush videos. In New South Wales no such law exists. Why has the Government not made it an offence to sell, distribute and possess animal crush videos under the New South Wales Crimes Act? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:59:31): I thank the honourable member for her question, which was asked of me representing the Attorney General. In New South Wales it is an offence to publish an indecent article, including videos, or to possess an indecent article for that purpose. Section 578C of the Crimes Act 1900 states that publishing an indecent article, or possessing an indecent article for that purpose, is an offence punishable by up to 12 months' imprisonment. For the purposes of that section, an "article" includes anything that is to be looked at, and "publishing" includes the distribution, dissemination and sale of the article. Whether or not an article is indecent is not defined in the legislation and is to be determined by the courts but will generally involve considerations of community standards and whether the article would be offensive to common propriety or to an average person. In light of section 578C of the Crimes Act 1900, it appears that the production, sale, distribution or possession for the purpose of distribution of videos containing footage of animals being tortured or killed for sexual gratification is already prohibited in New South Wales. In addition, a person who tortures or kills an animal in New South Wales for the purposes of creating an animal crush video would be committing animal cruelty offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 or the Crimes Act 1900, which are punishable by between six months' and five years' imprisonment, depending on their seriousness. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3712

Under section 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, cruelty to animals is punishable by up to six months' imprisonment. Aggravated cruelty to animals under section 6 of that Act attracts a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. Under section 4 (2) of the Act, "cruelty" is defined as including acts where an animal is beaten, killed, wounded, mutilated, maimed, tormented and tortured. An act of cruelty will be aggravated where it results in the death, deformity or serious disablement of the animal, or the animal being so severely injured that it would be cruel to keep it alive. Under section 530 of the Crimes Act 1900, a person who, with the intention of inflicting severe pain, tortures, beats or commits other serious acts of animal cruelty and kills or seriously injures the animal is guilty of the offence of serious animal cruelty. This offence has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, or three years if the person was reckless as to whether severe pain is inflicted. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice. PARLIAMENTARY ASSETS The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (17:02:48): Earlier Mr David Shoebridge asked me a question, of which I took one part on notice and undertook to get an answer. It was in relation to Parliamentary Secretaries and the equipment that is provided to them. I am advised by my staff that the assets of Parliamentary Secretaries are managed by the Parliament and therefore would appear on an assets register of the Parliament. That confirms the answer I gave the House. Questions Without Notice: Take Note TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I move: That the House take note of answers to questions. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (17:03:48): The questions and answers I address relate to the question I asked of the Leader of the Government about text messages between the disgraced former member for Wagga Wagga, Mr Maguire, and the current Premier and the subsequent questions raised by the Opposition, which go to a serious matter. It is not unlawful for members of Parliament to engage in outside work so long as they make appropriate disclosures. But a real issue is raised when a serving member of Parliament, as Mr Maguire was, seeks to obtain— and in one case did obtain—commission payments from property developers whilst being a serving member of Parliament and trading on his position as a member of Parliament. In the ICAC hearing in 2018, which saw Mr Maguire resign from Parliament, Mr Maguire was essentially pinged and disgraced. He was caught on tape soliciting a commission payment for putting Chinese investors in the way of development opportunities in Canterbury Bankstown. That conduct was deemed so heinous that we called for his resignation. The current Premier was dragged kicking and screaming over eight days before eventually even she had to recognise that it was beyond the pale and he had to go. The Premier knew at the time that he was engaged in a score of such enterprises. This raises a question because we all know that developers are prohibited donors in New South Wales. They cannot donate to political parties or to campaigns, yet there seems to be this loophole where they can enrich members of Parliament. In the case of Mr Maguire, he was clearly using his connections and his position as a member of Parliament to facilitate access to this building, to the Premier's office and to Ministers' offices. He was trading on his position in an attempt to enrich himself. It is not unusual for members of Parliament to spruik the benefits of a development or particular projects, usually in their own electorate. But Mr Maguire seems to have been a lot more ecumenical in his approach. It did not matter where these projects were, he was prepared to spruik them. What is unusual is that he wanted to charge a fee for doing so and that raises the serious prospect of whether an offence of misconduct in public office was committed. The Premier has done herself and her Government no favours by hedging and weaving, saying that if she knew then what she knows now she would have done things differently. She did know then and she concealed things. We may address that later in the day. These questions went to very serious issues and the Government failed to take them seriously. The Leader of the Government, who has absented himself from this issue, said that he would treat one of our questions with the contempt it deserved and did not even address it. That is unacceptable and the Government should be held to account on these issues. The PRESIDENT: I remind members of past rulings I have made. The take-note debate is not an opportunity to make reflections or imputations on another member from either House. It is to be done by way of Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3713

substantive motion, which I believe occurred earlier this morning. Members cannot use the opportunity of a take-note debate to make reflections or imputations on another member. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:07:19): I take note of the answers given by the Leader of the Government and I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. Around New South Wales politics, everyone was completely and utterly stunned by the news that came out of ICAC yesterday. The most stunning aspect is that for 2,000 days the Premier of New South Wales had to be mindful, for each and every one of those 2,000 days, of doing two things. Firstly, she had to be mindful of keeping her relationship with her de facto partner, Daryl Maguire, secret from anyone—from her party, from her colleagues, from the Parliament, from the police, from the public and from ICAC. Everyone had to be kept removed from that knowledge. The second thing was to know, accumulating knowledge piece by piece, of the wrongdoings of this spiv. Anyone who comes into politics to enrich themselves and take kickbacks is completely unworthy of our democracy and our Parliament and should be labelled a spiv. This guy who has come from Wagga Wagga to make land deals at Badgerys Creek is a complete and utter disgrace. I have further learnt that he and his so-called business partner were land banking in other parts of western Sydney, all for land speculation and all for no other purpose than to enrich themselves. In Maguire's case, this was being done through his contacts inside the New South Wales Government. It is phenomenal to think we have a Premier in New South Wales who for 2,000 days would wake up every morning and be mindful in her daily routine of keeping those two massive secrets. At no stage did she think to herself that Maguire was so bad, so reprehensible, so immoral and so unethical that she had an obligation to the people of New South Wales to report what she knew to the ICAC—at a bare minimum—to the police, to the Parliament, to her colleagues and to her party. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, even after Maguire was turfed out of Parliament in total disgrace, she at no stage thought to herself she needed to march down in good honour and good truth to tell ICAC everything she knew about this man. Compare and contrast that with the actions of the member for Strathfield and Leader of the Opposition in the other place, who imperilled her own role in Parliament in the seat of Newcastle, ultimately losing it because she stood up for what was right and truthful. She did so at her own personal expense—not grafting, not taking kickbacks and not covering up for a spiv, but doing something that was in the right interests of New South Wales. I pay tribute to her for that. There are not many times that I agree with her on policy issues. But in terms of ethics and morality, there is a leader—unlike the disgrace that sits opposite her in the Legislative Assembly. The sooner Gladys Berejiklian goes, the sooner we can get back to good government in New South Wales. POWERHOUSE PARRAMATTA The Hon. LOU AMATO (17:10:30): I take note of answers given by the Hon. Don Harwin. Willow Grove and St George's Terrace are locally listed heritage items located on the future site of Powerhouse Parramatta. The Powerhouse Parramatta is a major Government commitment to western Sydney and it is moving through the standard planning and design development processes. The Government has heard the feedback from the community, with over 90 per cent of submissions to the environmental impact statement raising concerns about the proposal to demolish the local heritage items. It is great to see that the New South Wales Government is taking steps to preserve the two local heritage items located on the Powerhouse Parramatta site, including through the relocation of Willow Grove. It is pleasing to hear that the Government is proud to support the upgrade and revitalisation of Griffith Regional Theatre in a manner responsive to the needs of the region. In 2018 through the Regional Cultural Fund $663,175 was made available for Griffith Regional Council to turn the building into a state-of-the-art, world-class multipurpose facility. It offers a premier performing arts venue, providing exceptional performing arts and entertainment to the people of Griffith and surrounding regions, as well as a meeting place for the community. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (17:11:58): I take note of the lack of answers given by the Leader of the Government on a very serious matter that is before the House and the people of New South Wales. Today the Opposition sought to ask the Leader of the Government a series of questions in relation to the policies and procedures operating within the Government when it comes to the declaration of interests, the way in which information is managed and the way in which information once obtained is reported on, as required under the law. Unfortunately the answers the Opposition got were nothing short of pathetic. Opposition members first asked the Minister a question about the Premier and the fact that from 2014, 6½ years ago, she knew that someone she was very close to and a member of the Government— Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3714

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: I foreshadow that tomorrow a substantive motion will be moved in relation to a vote of no confidence. To the extent that questions have already been asked which give rise to imputations relating to the character of the Premier, the appropriate way to do that is by the notice of motion— The PRESIDENT: I have heard enough from the Minister. The member had not gotten to the stage of imputations and reflections, but I remind her that I will stop members if that happens. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: I apologise. The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The Minister has taken up half my time, so I am sure he has achieved his objective. It is absolutely legitimate for this side of the House to ask the Government what the policy is in relation to members of Parliament sitting on that side taking commissions from property developers as part of their work. The answer that was given by the Leader of the Government today was that it is within the rules and therefore it is okay. Those on this side of the House say it is not okay. The public of New South Wales would be shocked to know that there are people in this place who are taking money from property developers and lobbying their colleagues in the most inappropriate ways, such as drop-in meetings that are not diarised, and getting developers drunk and dragging them into offices. That kind of behaviour is outrageous and should not be stood for. The answer that the Opposition got from the Government today was that it is perfectly acceptable, it is within the rules and therefore it is okay. The Opposition says that it is not okay. Opposition members then asked the Leader of the Government whether he knows how many MLCs and MPs on that side of the House are taking commissions as part of their work, and he was not able to tell us. We look forward to that answer because the people of New South Wales need to know. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (17:14:55): In relation to the non-answers given by the Government about commissions, I commend the work of my colleague Mr Jamie Parker, the anti-corruption spokesperson for The Greens in New South Wales, and the work he has done in trying to get simple, basic amendments to the corruption laws in this State. It is not just about taking commissions as property developers. The Greens take the view that when members are elected to this place or the other place—when they are elected as members of Parliament in New South Wales or federally—they are given a generous full-time salary to act only in the interests of the people of New South Wales and of their constituencies. It is not just about taking commissions as property developers. It is any other paid or commissioned work that distracts members from their jobs and their duty to the people of New South Wales to act only in their interests. The Greens believe that the Ministerial Code of Conduct should be amended to make it unambiguously clear that no MP should be receiving commissions from property developers. It is not just Daryl Maguire. John Sidoti was an MP by day and a property developer by night. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order— Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The distinction between John Sidoti and Mr Maguire is that Mr Maguire was a property developer by day. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister wishes to take a point of order. Mr David Shoebridge will resume his seat. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: I reiterate—and perhaps this time I am on more solid ground—that this is a definite reflection on members in another place and it should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. It is a reflection and an imputation on a member of the other House. I indicate that at no time was any question or topic in relation to Mr John Sidoti raised during question time, so it is also outside the scope of a take-note debate on questions and answers. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I want to be clear on behalf of The Greens that it is not just about commissions or side hustles with property developers. No MP should be engaged in for-profit remuneration outside their job as an MP. We are paid a generous full-time salary to act in the interests of the people of New South Wales. If members are not happy with the pay and they want to get a generous retirement package or a $2 million side hustle or scam with another organisation, they should resign their position as an MP. We should only have MPs whose sole work and sole attention is the good governance and the interests of New South Wales. If the Government cannot bring itself to amend the code of conduct to make that clear, I would commend the united efforts of every other MP in this place to fix up the code of conduct and make it unambiguous. [Time expired.] Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3715

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES The Hon. WES FANG (17:18:05): I take note of the answer given by my good friend and mental health Minister Bronnie Taylor about how October is Mental Health Month in New South Wales. The theme for this year is "Tune In". I listened intently to the Minister talking about the importance of tuning in to both our own mental health and the mental health of those around us, and the role that resilience can play. Building individual resilience can protect us from developing mental illnesses such as depression or anxiety when we go through tough times. Evidence suggests that there are many ways we can build our individual resilience, including focusing on the positive, working towards goals, being physically active, talking with loved ones and finding gratitude in the things we have. For people who already experience mental health issues, resilience can help them better cope with setbacks and more effectively manage their illness and recovery. That is why the Government wants to empower people to come together, where possible, to support each other and support themselves. The Minister spoke about initiatives, like the Drought Resilience Fund, that have been established to support drought-affected New South Wales communities who have ideas to improve community connection and wellbeing. In the mental health space, amazing people known as peer workers draw on their own recovery experiences to support others to navigate their recovery journeys. Peer workers find a balance between being a peer and being a staff member while supporting others' recovery and maintaining their own. Using their lived experience of a mental health issue, they support, guide and befriend other people who are experiencing mental health issues. We should applaud peer workers across the State and across the country who show resilience in the face of their own mental health challenges to get up every day to offer a helping hand to those who need it. The mental health services funded by the New South Wales Government aim to build the resilience of individuals and communities, which will lead to better mental health outcomes for the people of New South Wales. The Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women delivered a fine answer to my question about mental health services. I commend her for the fantastic work that she is doing for the people of New South Wales. [Time expired.] DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:21:07): In contributing to the take-note debate, I remark on the lack of answers given by the Leader of the Government to questions about the Premier and the disgraced former member for Wagga Wagga. Repeatedly the Opposition asked the Government to clarify a number of matters emanating from yesterday's ICAC hearing. It is no surprise that in her evidence to ICAC the Premier resorted to answering "I do not recall" on 22 occasions. I was unaware of the figure that the Hon. Mark Latham referred to: For 2,000 days the Premier knew that a member of her Government was carrying out activities for property developers and taking commissions on the side. Yesterday the Premier's evidence came as a surprise to the entire State. Today one would expect that the Government would be able to provide answers on what it is going to do to clean up the show. For example, Labor urged the Government to remove commissions and to insert in the Code of Conduct for Members that Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers should not be allowed to take commissions from property developers. We asked what the Premier did after she heard the evidence at the 2018 ICAC inquiry. For eight days she did nothing. She was silent for eight days and now we know why. On 14 August 2018 Mr Maguire's activity was canvassed extensively in this Chamber. On that occasion I asked why "the Berejiklian Government is continuing to shield the former member for Wagga Wagga from scrutiny by the ICAC". Now we know why the Premier failed to act for eight days. She walked past corruption— The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order— The Hon. WALT SECORD: She walked slowly past that corruption. The PRESIDENT: The member will resume his seat. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Mr President, the Hon. Walt Secord has heard your two rulings about reflections on members in the other place. I reiterate my earlier point that a motion of no confidence in the Premier will be debated in the other place tomorrow. That is the appropriate context in which to make reflections on a member in the other place. I ask that the honourable member be reminded of that. By continuing to make reflections in this manner, he is flagrantly abusing of your rulings. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The member's contribution started very well. He knows that using terms like "Berejiklian Government", "the Government", and "the member" and saying what he wants about Daryl Maguire is fine. However, the member also knows that he proceeded to cross the line and that he cannot do that. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3716

The Hon. WALT SECORD: At many times during my contribution to debate on 14 August 2018— [Time expired.] The PRESIDENT: If a member continues to speak after I indicate that their time has expired, the member will be called to order and Hansard will not record their remarks. So nothing is achieved by doing that. BUSHFIRE RISK MITIGATION Mr JUSTIN FIELD (17:24:35): I take note of the Government's answer to my question about last week's announcement that rural landholders will be allowed to clear a 25-metre boundary around their property to reduce bushfire risk. That was curious to me because it was not one of the 76 recommendations made by the NSW Bushfire Inquiry. It was leaked to the media ahead of the report but proved not to be in the report. Members can see what might have gone on here: an attempt by some who wanted to go further and try to claim in the public debate the best way to reduce bushfire risk in New South Wales. They were out there selling it to the media and they had a bit of success. But the report's 76 recommendations did not include a 25-metre boundary clearing allowance. It is curious that in last week's media release Minister Elliott said that the new laws were "based on the expert operational advice of the NSW RFS." Minister Tudehope attempted to answer the question. I recognise that he took it on advice but he did not answer that question and he did not provide that advice. He did not indicate that he would make it public. He suggested that the issue of land clearing was addressed in recommendation 28. In fact, that had nothing to do with the clearing of boundaries; it was focused on reducing bushfire risk and clarifying some of the existing rules about clearing around homes. In fact, last week's announcement related to rural land only. The Minister mentioned the bushfire protection document. I have looked at that document and it contains little information about clearing. There is no evidence on the public record about the scientific basis for the announcement. If that is supposed to protect rural New South Wales from catastrophic bushfire risk in the future, communities deserve to know the scientific basis for the policy position. If the Government cannot provide that, we are right to ask questions about whether this is simply another stitch-up and part of the ideological war waged on nature by the New South Wales National Party. I am concerned about the impact this policy will have on coastal communities in particular. For a long time many property developers have been land banking rural land. They are looking for a reason to degrade the ecological value of that land with the hope of improving the possibility of future property development. It is another example of the way in which this Government looks after the interests of property developers first and foremost. The announcement made last week was terrible. It destroys the Government's credibility in addressing catastrophic bushfire risk and building the resilience of regional communities. It is a disgrace. [Time expired.] SMALL BUSINESS MONTH The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (17:27:39): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Small Business to my question about Small Business Month. The Minister mentioned that 628 events will be scheduled for the great Small Business Month festival. He referred to Kismet Automotive winning the award for Best Automotive Service at its local inner west business awards. Local business awards are a great way for local communities to acknowledge excellence in the small businesses that contribute so much to individual communities. In the remaining 18 days of Small Business Month several local business awards events are scheduled to take place, including the Penrith Local Business Awards tonight and tomorrow night at the Panthers club, the Deniliquin Business Excellence Awards to be held online on 16 October, the Sydney Hills Local Business Awards on 19 October, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai awards on 20 October, the Hawkesbury awards on 21 October and the Camden Local Business Awards on 29 October. The summary for the Camden event states: The winners during the evening share their journeys from such diverse backgrounds, circumstances and industries, revealing the 'hearts' of the local Camden community. Their message, time and time again illustrates their commitment to excellence, care for customers and their devotion & dedication to serving their local community. In the time that remains I touch on World Squash Day. During the Minister's answer there was an interjection from the Opposition. It is relevant because The Nationals understand regional communities. Where was I on Saturday on World Squash Day? I was at the Parkes squash centre with the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women recognising not only World Squash Day but also the reboot of the centre's local round-robin competition. Plenty of regional youth were on hand and plenty of seniors were also playing. Unfortunately I did not have time to take up the racquet. At the end of the day it is a small business privately run by Jay Cross for the benefit of the broader Parkes shire. We were able to discuss how it is getting the local competition going again, the impacts of the COVID restrictions, the huge benefit that the squash club plays in the broader local Parkes Services Club and in the region Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3717

and how, as a small mum-and-dad business, it was going with that. Opposition members can mock it all they want, but only the Coalition understands small mum-and-dad businesses. We understand squash and how it all works. The Hon. Mick Veitch: My daughter is a small business owner. The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: Well, perhaps members opposite should not bag out World Squash Day and the difference squash makes to sport and small businesses. The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to standing orders debate is interrupted to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to respond. TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. NATALIE WARD (17:30:48): I make a contribution to the take-note debate. We heard from Ministers and members opposite about development. I love to talk about development because I love to talk about the record investment in development we are contributing to this State. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell spoke about the record investment in schools and the 42 new and upgraded schools that we have not only promised and announced, but that we are also delivering in Schofields, Killarney Heights, Wollongong and Westfield, among others. It is pleasing to see that schools are now benefiting from new and flexible classrooms, new covered outdoor learning areas and a range of other facilities they need to get on with the job of educating our children, which they do so brilliantly. In amongst those, we know that Peter Board High School—the Premier's former high school—was closed by Labor in 1998 and has been reopened by this Government. We also heard about the fantastic work being done in the arts sector in theatre and in our regions. We heard about development and investment to support the upgrade and revitalisation of the Griffith Regional Theatre. I could not be happier to hear about that and the investment of $663,175 available to the council to bring that building to a multipurpose, state-of-the-art, world-class facility. It offers a premier performing arts venue, providing exceptional performing arts and entertainment to the people of Griffith and the surrounding regions, as well as a meeting place for the community—in addition to the $10,000 COVID support round we heard about. I was particularly pleased to hear from the Hon. Sarah Mitchell about the school orientation program for the start of 2021. This has been a very average year for students' experience at school and we hope that 2021 will provide a new start for them, particularly those in their first year. I remember taking my children to their first day of orientation. I am pleased that children and their parents will have a magnificent experience on the first day of kindergarten at orientation. I am also pleased that schools can access the department's curriculum wellbeing and early years advisers to develop their transition approaches and to support each and every student with their specific learning needs. The Minister has ensured that we do this beautifully, helping to make the transition to a new school setting in 2021 as smooth as possible for both students and parents. We are getting on with the job of investing and developing— The PRESIDENT: The time for debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Deferred Answers THE HON. JOHN BARILARO In reply to the Hon. ADAM SEARLE (15 September 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: In review of the answer supplied during question time, a substantive response was provided and there is no additional response required. STUDENT BEHAVIOUR STRATEGY In reply to Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The consultation period has been extended for an additional two weeks. Consultation will now close on 11 October 2020. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY In reply to the Hon. MARK BANASIAK (15 September 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3718

A key recommendation from Professor Kate Barclay's Economic analysis & Social and Economic monitoring following the NSW Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program was to establish a social and economic monitoring framework for New South Wales commercial fisheries as a matter of high priority and urgency. Following advice from the Commercial Fishing NSW Advisory Committee, work is already underway to engage an independent expert to establish ongoing social and economic indicator monitoring. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (15 September 2020 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: A key recommendation from Professor Kate Barclay's Economic analysis & Social and Economic monitoring following the NSW Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program was to establish a social and economic monitoring framework for New South Wales commercial fisheries as a matter of high priority and urgency. Following advice from the Commercial Fishing NSW Advisory Committee, work is already underway to engage an independent expert to establish ongoing social and economic indicator monitoring. KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT In reply to Mr JUSTIN FIELD (15 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Forestry Corporation is a state-owned corporation with autonomy to act within its charter and statutory obligations. The Deputy Premier does not have a role in approving its day-to-day operations. I will, however, take this opportunity to provide some relevant facts. Well-managed, sustainable timber harvesting operations provide the essential renewable building products our communities need to rebuild following recent fires, from power poles, to timber bridges and house frames. While the fires were far-reaching, many areas of State forests were not impacted by fires and a small number of operations are continuing to take place in areas of unburnt forests, maintaining sustainable timber supplies in demand for rebuilding and work in communities where employment in forestry and the timber industry is important. There are robust requirements in place under the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals that were developed by expert scientific panels to protect wildlife and koala habitat in forestry operations. In line with these requirements, I am advised that large areas of the compartment in which Forestry Corporation operated in Lower Bucca State Forest are permanently set aside in exclusion zones that are left untouched as habitat and Forestry Corporation ensures koala feed trees are protected. Additionally, there are clear protocols in place to ensure koalas are protected if they are sighted during operations. KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT In reply to the Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16 September 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: Correspondence received by my office regarding the Koala SEPP from Nationals members of Parliament on behalf of members of their communities has been tabled as part of a Standing Order 52 relating to this topic. SCHOOL CURRICULUM In reply to the Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (16 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: In 2022 new curriculum for K-2 in English and Mathematics will be available to schools and will focus on developing the foundations necessary for developing early reading and writing skills and early mathematics knowledge and skills. New curriculum in years 3-10 in English and Mathematics will be available to schools in 2023. All remaining syllabuses will be available to schools in 2024. NESA has also commenced action to ensure that our future teaching graduates have the necessary knowledge and skills to teach writing to students. Strengthened requirements in the teaching of writing for New South Wales primary teaching degrees that were approved by my predecessor in July 2018, are from 2020 onwards being used in the accreditation of these degrees. Universities applying for their primary teaching degrees to be accredited by NESA from this year onwards are required to ensure there is a substantial focus on the explicit and systematic teaching of writing in K-2 and in years 3-6. This should include content specific to the teaching of writing such as sentence structure, grammar, spelling and evidence-based approaches to teach these skills. These newly accredited teaching degrees commence in 2021 and will start to produce graduates from the end of 2022. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3719

GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (16 September 2020). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: There is strong scientific expertise and ongoing research delivered by the New South Wales Government's Environment, Energy and Science [EES] Group. Policies and codes of practice are in place to ensure the New South Wales Government's scientists are able to provide rigorous and peer-reviewed scientific advice and evidence to inform decision making. EES Science, Economics and Insights Division has a strong track record of producing and publishing peer-reviewed science, as a result of clear policies, procedures and a healthy culture of critical thinking. Last year the division published over 140 peer-reviewed journal articles. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY In reply to the Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16 September 2020). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: I refer you to my answer to Question on Notice 2060. THE HON. JOHN BARILARO In reply to Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: Ministerial diaries are publicly available via www.dpc.nsw.gov.au. TAFE NSW In reply to the Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised that TAFE NSW is compliant with the Premier and Deputy Premier's commitments to preserving regional jobs. I am further advised that no regionally based permanent employee will be made forcibly redundant through the current organisational design process. I am also informed that TAFE NSW is also committed to making as many roles as possible location agnostic to further provide opportunities for regional employment. TRAVELLING STOCK ROUTES In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (17 September 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: The Minister supports the management of Travelling Stock Routes in accordance with the TSR Plan of Management and the decisions of Northern Tablelands Local Land Services [NTLLS] who manage the TSR network in the Northern Tablelands. The Northern Tablelands Local Land Services manages the asset through the relevant legislation to provide fair and equitable access to multiple users while maintaining environmental, cultural and production values. NTLLS was not aware or invited to inform or accompany any tour of the Minister's electorate. BULLYING In reply to the Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (17 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: Under the New South Wales Government's Bullying of Students: Prevention and Response Policy, all New South Wales public schools must have an Anti-bullying Plan. The policy details the strategies implemented to reduce student bullying behaviours. Schools are encouraged to visit the New South Wales Anti-bullying website which was developed by the department to support whole-school prevention, early intervention, and when responding to incidences of bullying behaviour. All New South Wales public schools are required to develop and implement an Anti-bullying Plan that outlines strategies and promotes practices to provide a positive school culture in three domain areas: 1. School culture and inclusion a. Communicating expectations on school behaviour b. Staff communication and professional learning c. New and casual staff induction on the school's approaches to address student bullying behaviour Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3720

2. Partnerships with families and community a. School website b. Communication with parents 3. Support for wellbeing and positive behaviours within the school and the curriculum. The Department of Education is cognisant in providing the best support to guide schools, while at the same time providing flexibility to address the specific needs of their communities. The New South Wales Anti-bullying website is recognised and promoted as a key resource in achieving this. Educators, parents and carers, and students use the New South Wales Anti-bullying website to access evidence-based resources and information. Leading academics review and evaluate the content of the Anti-bullying website and it is updated to ensure currency and relevance. The material on this website has been developed with input from the Association of Independent Schools of NSW, and Catholic Schools NSW. PRIVATE SCHOOLS HAIRSTYLE POLICY In reply to the Hon. ROSE JACKSON (17 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: A school's uniform policy must comply with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 prohibits an educational authority from discriminating against a student on the ground of race, colour, descent, national origin, ethno-religious origin or ethnic origin by, among other ways, subjecting the student to any detriment. Private educational authorities are not exempted from this prohibition. I would encourage anyone who considers they have been subjected to racism at school to make a complaint to Anti-Discrimination NSW. NAPLAN ONLINE In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (22 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: Schools have been able to opt-in to transitioning online since NAPLAN 2018. Due to COVID-19 and the cancellation of NAPLAN 2020 full transition to NAPLAN Online has been deferred until 2022. Schools are able to participate in a range of testing activities to determine the school's readiness to move online. However, once a school chooses to transition to NAPLAN Online, it is for the whole school. There are a variety of allowances made for specific students that participate in NAPLAN Online. Some examples include:  Alternative questions  Colour themes  Alternative format tests  Scribes and NAPLAN support persons  Reading to students  Extra time and rest breaks Some students in online schools with specific needs are also able to access paper tests, these are:  Braille print  Black and white print  Large format print The NAPLAN writing test remains on paper for year 3 students — even if the school has transitioned to NAPLAN online. This follows a decision made by the Education Council. GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (22 September 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that the greyhound racing industry operates with the highest possible ethical standards and animal welfare controls. The Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission began operations as the industry regulator on 1 July 2018. The Greyhound Racing Act 2017 (the Act) provides that the Commission's principal objectives are: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3721

 to promote and protect the welfare of greyhounds;  to safeguard the integrity of greyhound racing and betting; and  to maintain public confidence in the greyhound racing industry. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring the highest level of animal welfare within the industry with significant investment into improving track safety through the Government's Greyhound Racing Capital Grants Program and through the greyhound racing Code of Practice. The 2018 grant to support the Million Dollar Chase and the greyhound industry was not recurrent. GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY In reply to Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (23 September 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The terms of an operating licence are commercial in confidence. Written Answers to Supplementary Questions NSW SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION In reply to the Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (24 September 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: No fees are charged to file a matter for mediation nor is there is any cost for case management. Where a matter proceeds to formal mediation each party may be invoiced $152 per hour. However, where parties are experiencing personal hardship, such as loss of business, bankruptcy, or other circumstances that would qualify them as individuals for government benefits then fees may not be charged. Approximately $265,000 in mediation fees have been invoiced to parties during this period to date. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION In reply to the Hon. MARK LATHAM (24 September 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Secretary and the Minister regularly discuss matters relating to the functions and activities of the department. The Secretary briefed the Minister on the undertaking of an executive realignment of the Department of Education and the rationale for this realignment. The department's rationale is to ensure it has the right organisational structure in place to deliver on the Government's priorities for school improvement and skills reform. Personal Explanation QUESTION TIME The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:33:55): By leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. In question time the President is given copies of questions without notice in the spirit of good faith so that he is able to make informed and considered rulings. We therefore provide those written questions in good faith; however, if we decide to edit or change a question in the Chamber— Leave withdrawn. The Hon. WALT SECORD: I seek leave to make a personal statement. The PRESIDENT: I don't think so. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT (17:34:40): The Hon. Walt Secord has raised a good point that I will respond to for the benefit of all members. As I indicated earlier, a member is entitled to have a number of parts to a question. The point of order taken by the Hon. Trevor Khan indicated that there were too many parts to the question. I disagreed with that and made it clear that that is not the case. I also indicated that, because I have a copy of the question, there were two parts to the Hon. Walt Secord's question—a part A and a part B, which were essentially two halves of the question. I was trying to bring to the Hon. Walt Secord's attention those two parts of the question, which members are entitled to. The Hon. Walt Secord: May I take that matter up with you? Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3722

The PRESIDENT: I am more than happy for the member to do so. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: On behalf of Mr David Shoebridge: I move: That committee reports and Government responses orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 be postponed until next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF BATTERY CAGES FOR HENS IN THE EGG PRODUCTION INDUSTRY Reports Debate resumed from 22 September 2020. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:37:31): As the deputy chair of the committee I make a brief contribution to the debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Use of Battery Cages for Hens in the Egg Production Industry. At the outset I note that we reported over a year ago and we undertook this inquiry quite some time ago. I acknowledge that it is a highly emotive issue and we received a large number of submissions from the community. There was genuine concern about the welfare of hens used in the egg production industry. Clearly there were two vocal sides to the debate. The question we had to delve into was whether we should, as a parliamentary inquiry, recommend that the Government legislate in this area or whether the market would move anyway. It is worthwhile noting that from 2007 to today we have seen a dramatic decrease in the market share of caged eggs. In 2007 it was almost 80 per cent and by 2018—the most recent figures that were presented to the inquiry—it was down to just 49 per cent. Indications are that they will continue to decline as a proportion of the market. Perhaps the market will move faster than the Government can regulate in this particular area. I confess that I buy free-range eggs, but at the moment we have free-range chickens in our backyard— The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Do you? In the city? The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: We do. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: An urban farmer. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: Yes, urban farming. We use our purchasing power in that way. The inquiry was dealing with the question of how appropriate it is to regulate that area. We received evidence that the major supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, indicated in 2018 that they would be moving away from caged eggs and towards free range. That was the central issue. One of the ironies or unique parts of this discussion is that the animal welfare groups talked about the fact that barn-laid or non-caged eggs actually had better outcomes when it came to hens but that there was no real market for those eggs. It was a complex interaction between the market and government regulation and obviously the way the national Government regulates this area. Ultimately we recommended that a national approach was required and it needed to be informed by a working group and with representation from the very different parts of the industry. We advocated for representation from the egg industry, animal welfare, veterinarians and consumer groups. We will get a better outcome that way. It is worthwhile to briefly reflect on the challenges of furnished cages. I will admit that at the outset I thought it would be a good option to regulate for furnished cages as they seem to provide better outcomes in terms of disease prevention and in terms of animal welfare as it allows the chickens to have more natural behaviours. But we have seen—and this is certainly the case in international examples—that this requires a huge amount of financial investment from the farmers. Farmers will require probably a 20-year or possibly even a 30-year period to get a return on their investment. My concern, which I advocated within the committee, was whether this significant financial investment would be realised or whether the market may move in a different direction before realising a return. The committee reported some time ago. I wanted to make a few brief remarks about it because we received a large number of submissions, particularly from those advocating on behalf of animal welfare. It was clearly a very emotive issue in the community. Finally, I commend the Hon. Emma Hurst, our chair, who drove this inquiry. She is very passionate on this issue and a strong advocate for animal rights. I thank my Labor colleague the Hon. Rose Jackson and the other members of the committee, whom I worked very closely with: the Hon. Ben Franklin, the Hon. Lou Amato, the Hon. Taylor Martin, the Hon. Rod Roberts, Ms Abigail Boyd and the Hon. Mark Pearson, who was a participating member. I thank the secretariat for their very professional work. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3723

Unfortunately I was not able to partake in the committee's visit to a farm. Some who are aware of my phobia of birds think that was potentially the best outcome but I confess I had other committee duties on that day. This is a difficult and complex issue. It requires a national approach but it is important that the New South Wales Government is at the forefront advocating and finding that very difficult nexus between animal welfare and ensuring a better egg production industry in the State. I thank those who made a submission and my fellow committee members. I commend the report to the House. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (17:43:28): The New South Wales Government recognises the importance of safeguarding animal welfare and providing a strong and effective regulatory framework to support good animal welfare outcomes. In order to achieve those outcomes, the Government is committed to working with egg producers to support a productive and sustainable egg industry. With a gross value of egg production of $263.1 million in 2017-18, the viability of the industry is imperative to the State and our regional economies. New South Wales is the main producer of eggs in Australia, accounting for 33 per cent of Australia's total egg production value, followed by Queensland and Victoria. Animal welfare is an important consideration in any animal production industry, including egg production. Regardless of the type of hen-housing system, all Australian egg farms must satisfy animal welfare and food safety regulations. The Government supports a national approach to ensure consistency in policy and legislative frameworks to protect animal welfare, as changes to the regulatory environment affect all Australian States and Territories. In line with that approach, in October 2019 at an Agriculture Ministers' Forum, or AgMin, Ministers agreed to the formation of an independent panel to supervise the drafting of new, nationally consistent Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry. The panel was appointed by AgMin in April this year and is currently working with jurisdictions and stakeholders to understand the needs of industry and the best way forward that achieves good animal welfare outcomes while supporting the sector. A national approach is the only way to ensure nationally consistent welfare outcomes for the poultry industry and that interstate trade of animal products meets the same standard. As New South Wales made clear in its submission to the committee, there is no one superior system that achieves a better biosecurity outcome for hens. As we have seen in Victoria, free-range hens are susceptible to biosecurity threats. Biosecurity is a key factor in overall welfare. Animal welfare and the regulation of egg production systems is an issue for all Australian States and Territories. Without a coordinated approach to the regulation of egg production systems, there are significant risks. Not only could this lead to differential welfare standards between jurisdictions, an ad-hoc, State-by-State approach could lead to production shifts across State borders. That could be detrimental to animal welfare and lead to increased movement of eggs from States or the importation of eggs from countries with lower animal welfare or food safety standards than those in New South Wales. New South Wales will not consider any approach that decreases overall welfare outcomes for hens, jeopardises industry and removes choice from consumers. Farmers provide affordable eggs to Australians. They are best placed to look after the welfare of their animals and must meet necessary standards. Single, one-bird-per-cage battery cages are illegal and no longer in use. The industry has made it clear that moving entirely to free range would not be possible without significant investment over a number of years. Already market pressure and preferences are driving diversification in the egg industry. Consumers still desire choice in the market to allow them to make decisions based on their preferences, including dietary and budget preferences. It is also important to note that as a result of consumer preference change, the proportion of eggs produced in free-range production systems has been increasing in recent years. A reduction in egg pricing is occurring in all categories, severely reducing returns to producers. Forcing farmers to adopt a particular method when they are already meeting standards is costly and unfair. I conclude by thanking all of our wonderful egg farmers who do the right thing and look after their animals as farmers tend to do. Eggs are a very important food for many people. They are a high source of protein and need to be affordable and reputable. I very much thank all of the egg producers in New South Wales. They do a wonderful job. The Hon. EMMA HURST (17:47:53): In reply: I thank Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Taylor Martin, the Hon. Lou Amato, the Hon. Ben Franklin, the Hon. Courtney Houssos and the Hon. Bronnie Taylor on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales for their contributions. I will briefly address a few things that came up in the take-note debate. The first is the point that was made by the Hon. Taylor Martin and the Hon. Ben Franklin in regard to cheap protein. As outlined during the hearings, there are far cheaper and higher protein sources that are very popular, like chickpeas, hummus, peanut butter and lentils. To suggest that these foods are not popular is not only a very odd comment but also clearly incorrect. I am sure anybody could check with Woolworths as to how popular those products really are. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3724

Other comments were made about a certain organisation using stock photos, which I find particularly controversial given that the members making those statements are from a government that last year introduced ag-gag laws to stop people from taking or publishing photos in New South Wales. Under the Government's own legislation, which is designed to hide the currently used animal cruelty practices such as cages in the egg industry, any charity that wants to expose those cruel systems needs to use stock photos. I thank members for highlighting important aspects of the animal agribusiness industry. The Hon. Lou Amato highlighted the issue of antimicrobials. Experts that I have spoken to about antimicrobials say that their intensive use in these systems could lead to the next human pandemic. It is a major human health threat and I totally agree with the comments that the member made in this regard. I also agree with the comments made by the Hon. Ben Franklin pointing out the issues of animal cruelty within the free-range systems. That is an area where we are in total agreeance. There is certainly cruelty within those farming systems and I am glad to see that being openly discussed, particularly by the National Party. I am surprised though by the honourable member's comments in regard to recognising that the sale of caged eggs is dropping dramatically and that the market should decide the fate of these farmers. I would have thought that the National Party and Labor Party position would be to assist and provide support to farmers when consumers are changing their purchases rather than letting families and livelihoods collapse. We do not need market options for toys containing lead. In the same way, we do not need a market option for animal cruelty. We simply need legislation. It should not be up to consumers to understand and know what these systems actually entail. Finally, I address the Hon. Ben Franklin's remarks congratulating members for not "bowing to the Left". Anyone paying attention to other matters discussed in this House would realise that animal protection is not a Left or Right issue. People in Australia from all sides of politics hate animal cruelty and want to see animals protected. We see this in the advocacy on animal issues from The Greens Ms Abigail Boyd but also from members like Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who is well recognised as a conservative politician but has shown support for animal protection and has been a strong advocate against animal cruelty. In fact, I think that such comments are insulting to conservative or right-leaning politicians. The comments suggest that they do not care about animals and that animal protection and ending acts of cruelty are issues that only the Left care about. As has been highlighted, there were various areas where we agreed and I think that is a positive that we can all take away from this committee. I want to thank the committee staff. I know that this was a very difficult inquiry for them, given the huge number of submissions because of the community interest in animal protection issues. I thank them for handling the huge workload in an efficient and fair manner. I also thank all of the members who sat on this inquiry. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. Bills STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2020 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: On behalf of Mr David Shoebridge: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 4 be postponed until next sitting day. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3725

Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: On behalf of Mr David Shoebridge: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 5 be postponed until next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Report: Review of the 2017-2018 Annual Reports of the ICAC and the Inspector of the ICAC Debate resumed from 19 November 2019. The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (17:54:33): The requirement for the committee to examine these annual reports is set out in the ICAC Act. The Committee's report made three recommendations for consideration by the Government, the ICAC and the committee itself. The sole recommendation for the Government relates to the funding model for the ICAC. We have since received the Government's response, which outlines a request for the Auditor-General to undertake an audit of the effectiveness of the financial arrangements and management practices of the ICAC and other integrity agencies. Amongst other things, the audit will assess how the integrity agencies assess the funding requirements for meeting their legislative mandate, whether the existing funding mechanisms effectively support integrity agencies to achieve their legislative mandate and whether integrity agencies monitor the efficiency of their operations. It is clear that the ICAC has its own ideas regarding a funding model, which was evidenced by the unprecedented special report that was tabled in Parliament in May. The special report was the subject of discussion at the committee's most recent public hearings on the 2018-19 annual reports of the ICAC and the Inspector of the ICAC. The proposal requires further scrutiny and I look forward in particular to the Auditor-General's report. This inquiry also considered in some detail the reputational impact of being named in investigations of the ICAC where little or no evidence of wrongdoing follows. The committee found that this can be serious and that it is not fully addressed by the available remedies. The committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into this very issue and I look forward to working with members on such an important issue. Submissions are now closed, and we held our first hearing in September. On behalf of the chair, the Hon. Tanya Davies, MP, I thank the Inspector, the ICAC commissioners and senior staff from the ICAC for their contributions at the public hearings. I also thank my fellow committee members for their participation in this annual review. Finally, as always, I thank the committee secretariat especially for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (17:57:14): I also make a brief contribution to debate on this committee report. Like the Hon. Taylor Martin, I also serve on that oversight committee and participated in the review. It is the case that we are currently conducting an inquiry into the exoneration protocol. We did have hearing days set and, strangely, they have been abandoned for reasons that have not yet been disclosed to the committee. Despite inquiries being made with the secretariat, no sensible advice has been forthcoming. Having set hearing dates, I would not have thought it was purely within the remit of the chair, rather than the committee, to abandon them. This is a matter that requires further examination. I would not have thought the brief appearance in the witness box at the ICAC by one of the committee members would have necessitated this, given the uncontroversial nature of that evidence. These are important matters because the suggestion is often prosecuted through the media that the ICAC makes findings against people with little or no evidence. Where that is the case, there is an administrative law procedure available to seek review in the Supreme Court. If there is literally nothing to support a finding, it can be set aside. It seems to me that the bigger complaint is that there is an argument—and I accept it is a legitimate policy debate—that if the evidence in an ICAC inquiry does not satisfy the criminal standard of proof and establish the commission of a crime that the ICAC should not be able to make any negative findings against somebody of corruption or otherwise. It should be borne in mind that even when the ICAC does not make a finding of corruption against a person, nevertheless, it can and often does make a finding that the person has engaged in conduct that is unworthy of a public official. That is conduct that is not a crime, but the opinion of sensible people or the ordinary person on the street is that that person should not hold that publicly elected office, a public service position or the like. This is a legitimate public policy debate and it is a matter that the committee will investigate. We have had one hearing and it is an important matter that all members of the committee take seriously. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3726

Motion agreed to. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: On behalf of the Hon. Mark Latham: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 7 be postponed to next sitting. Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: On behalf of the Hon. Mark Banasiak: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 8 be postponed to next sitting. Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 2 - HEALTH Report: Operation and Management of the Northern Beaches Hospital. Debate resumed from 27 February 2020. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (18:00:56): I had essentially completed my comments on the report in my previous contribution. I simply make the point that in the interim the committee received the Government's response to each of the recommendations that were made. To refresh the memory of members of the House, a total of 23 recommendations were made. As required, the Government responded to each one of them. I had not quite completed the count, as I was called to contribute to debate on the report, but it is worth noting that a number of the recommendations were supported by the Government, which is pleasing for the committee. Equally, as is often the case, some recommendations were just noted. A note is effectively a signal that the Government does not wish to comment further on a recommendation. It is the committee's view that the recommendations the Government noted were important. Finally, the Government did not support some recommendations. I encourage interested members to look at the Government's response to each of the recommendations. For the benefit of the House, I will read recommendation 22. After a thorough examination of the matters associated with the planning, development, commissioning and operation of the Northern Beaches Hospital, the committee recommended: That the NSW Government not enter into any public private partnerships for future public hospitals. That is a single sentence. In fact, it occupies just over one line in the committee's report. But it is a very definitive statement that the committee wished to make quite explicitly at the conclusion of the evidence that was collected over the comprehensive examination of this new, dare I say, creature. That creature was a public-private partnership whereby a public company was contracted for the delivery of public health services inside a hospital. The committee came to the conclusion that the Government should not enter into any public-private partnerships for future public hospitals. I draw the attention of the House to the response from Minister Hazzard, who has left the door open. In response to recommendation 22, Minister Hazzard said: No public private partnerships are currently being pursued in relation to NSW Hospitals. That is not the answer or response that the committee sought. Those carefully crafted words keep the door neither ajar nor a little bit open, but significantly open to the prospect that in the future we may face the building of additional hospitals in the State using the same model as the Northern Beaches Hospital or, alternatively—and this should not be ignored—the possibility of taking an existing public hospital in New South Wales, subjecting it to a significant refurbishment and rebuild through a contractual arrangement involving the private sector and then providing the private sector with a contract to operate that public hospital into the future. The committee was very keen to close both of those doors. Committee members made it very clear that we saw no future in any of those public-private partnerships for any public hospitals, be they new hospitals or existing hospitals that may either be subject to a rebuild and refurbishment or an extension. I am sure other members will contribute to debate on the committee's report and make other points on the recommendations. But it is particularly troubling given that this was bowled up to the Minister, the member for Wakehurst, which is an electorate that falls within the vicinity of this hospital. In his capacity as a member of Parliament, the Minister had firsthand and detailed knowledge of all of the issues associated with the hospital and he said nothing about the insights that he gathered on the shortcomings of the operation of the hospital. In responding to the report and its recommendations, it is particularly disappointing that the health Minister did not take the opportunity to make it very clear that he supported the proposition that future public hospitals in this Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3727

State would be run by this Government as public hospitals and that we would not entertain the substandard—and I use that word deliberately—arrangements that, as the committee submits, apply in this hospital arising from the public-private partnership arrangement that the Government entered into some years ago. Debate adjourned. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Report: 2019 Review of the Dust Diseases Scheme—Silicosis in the Manufactured Stone Industry Debate resumed from 24 March 2020. The Hon. WES FANG (18:09:07): Over the past few years the Standing Committee on Law and Justice has become increasingly concerned about silicosis in the manufactured, or engineered, stone industry. The issue arose during the past two reviews of the dust diseases scheme with concerns from doctors, unions, lawyers and other stakeholders about silicosis re-emerging as a significant health issue in the manufactured stone industry. By way of background, silica dust can be found in a number of products, including sand and sandstone, brick, marble, limestone, concrete, mortar, granite, and fibre cement sheets. It can also be found in manufactured stone, a product used regularly for kitchen and bathroom benchtops. The problem with manufactured stone is that it contains significantly higher levels of crystalline silica when compared with other products. During the previous two reviews, stakeholders raised concerns about silicosis in the manufactured stone industry. In the 2017 review of the scheme, the committee noted reports of an emerging occurrence of silicosis with doctors reporting an increase in the number of cases diagnosed across the industry. In the next review of the scheme in 2018, concerns were raised again about the prevalence of silicosis in the manufactured stone industry. Since the previous reviews of the dust diseases scheme, a number of developments have taken place in relation to silicosis in the industry. They include the establishment of the Manufactured Stone Industry Taskforce and the National Dust Disease Taskforce, the establishment of the National Dust Disease Registry, the implementation of the occupational lung disease work plan and the review of the workplace exposure standard. Legal action has also commenced against manufacturers in the industry. In New South Wales, the growing number of accelerated silicosis cases with short-term exposure to large amounts of crystalline silica dust has increasingly claimed the health and livelihoods—and in some cases, the lives—of young workers. So troubling is that trend that the committee this year chose to focus its regular oversight review of the dust diseases scheme specifically on silicosis in the manufactured stone industry. In the State alone, the number of new cases of silicosis or a silica-related health condition has jumped from 40 at the end of the last financial year to 110 by the end of January 2020, with most cases linked to silica exposure from working with manufactured stone. That spike not only confirms the fears expressed by medical professionals over the past two reviews of the scheme but also reflects evidence of a growing problem in the industry and an indication of poor safety practices and an unsatisfactory compliance regime. In the committee's review, the targeted inquiry revealed not only evidence of a mounting problem in the industry but also an indication of poor safety standards and an unsatisfactory compliance regime. The committee acknowledged the work of the New South Wales Government so far, but affirms its position that more needed to be done. The committee has made a suite of recommendations that will not only ensure that workers are protected from exposure to crystalline silica but also that they are supported after they are diagnosed. In particular, the committee seeks to ensure that medical screening is available readily to all workers in the manufactured stone industry and that appropriate control measures are in place to lower the risk. That includes an explicit ban on dry cutting and measures to ensure that industry standards are lifted. The committee also recommends that regulatory enforcement is strengthened. The committee is committed to monitoring and evaluating the implementation of those recommendations in its next review. We can and must put an end to the preventable disease. I thank my fellow committee members for their participation and considered engagement throughout the review. I thank all the inquiry participants who provided valuable evidence and assistance to the committee. Finally, I thank the secretariat for their hard work and professional support without which the committee could not have done its work. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (18:14:08): I contribute to debate on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice's report entitled 2019 Review of the Dust Diseases Scheme—Silicosis in the manufactured stone industry. I commence by acknowledging the work done by the Hon. Wes Fang as Chair to conduct what I thought was a thorough examination of the matter. As we were drawn into the detail of the impact of the silicosis condition and its ultimate potentially fatal impact, committee members became more dedicated and devoted to seeing a set of recommendations developed that would help progress dealing with that terrible industrial disease. Of course, in the background, we all have memories—some are perhaps sharper than others depending on one's age—of the Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3728

impact of asbestosis on workers and the terrible effect that the condition had. In some respects, asbestosis was even more fatal across the broader cohort of workers who were directly involved in the production of asbestos. The situation in New South Wales is that the State sits within the Commonwealth. There are the other States and the two Territories. The committee noted that Queensland and Victoria had moved forward—that is probably the best way to describe it—to take up and tackle the issue through parliamentary legislative reform. The committee noted that at the Commonwealth level Safe Work Australia was also alive to the matter and working on progressing it. I will not reflect on the professionalism of the people who support the work of Safe Work Australia—the people we would call the secretariat, and no doubt there are representatives from the States and Territories on that body—because each State and Territory provides a representative along with a representative from the Commonwealth. On the matter of Safe Work Australia and the work that it was doing, I drew the conclusion that quite gradual and relatively slow progress was being made to attend to and to deal with the issue of silicosis. I hope the work of Safe Work Australia can be accelerated to give the issue the attention it deserves because the contracting of this disease and its ultimate health and safety impact on workers is significant. There are a range of issues about the exposure to silicosis. The inquiry concentrated primarily on examining the incidences inside an industrial setting whereby large slabs of manufactured stone were cut to fit specifications either by contractors or directly by those who order from these large workshops. With respect to the cutting of the manufactured stone inside those particular establishments, one can easily imagine a more straightforward way for controls to be placed over exposure for people involved in cutting because those are large industrial establishments. For example, workplace practices can be put in place and enforced, and equipment can be brought in to provide controls over the capture and exhausting of the dust caused by the cutting of manufactured stone. I could go on. Those settings, in and of themselves, require particular attention to take them to the best possible level of stopping exposure to workers who happen to work in those establishments. The other types of examples of exposure were the ones that I found more troubling—the cutting that takes place in a more ad hoc way on individual sites where a person's business is the cutting of manufactured stone and installing manufactured stone benchtops into kitchens, for example, in an individual residential setting or in strata unit developments or in multistorey units, and that cutting is taking place away from the big sites where those types of protective mechanisms and procedures can be put into place. As one can imagine, currently all around New South Wales manufactured stone is being cut in one way or another offsite. Some of those businesses are very small; the owner-operator may be doing the installation work and he might have his son or a family member working in the small business. Many workers in those small businesses may not even have English as their first language and there are issues in understanding the potential threat of this manufactured stone. Significant attention should be given to raising the bar in those circumstances to protect those workers. The report produced 14 recommendations. They are there for everybody to read and I will not go through them. I note that the Government has responded to the recommendations and people can equally read the Government's responses. We are also in the midst of dealing with legislation to track this disease and to improve the monitoring of its impact because one of the problems is that there are people scattered across the State working in this industry and many of them are completely unknown to any statutory body or any licensing regime that could track their work in the cutting of manufactured stone. We need to bring together and better manage the maintenance of the information around workers who are in this industry and, through that ability to track them, to test them over time on a regular basis to see whether or not the exposure is creating health problems for these workers where, unbeknown to them, they can suffer from this disease and, in the worst case, perish because of it. I conclude my remarks there. It was a great inquiry to be involved in. I acknowledge and thank the Chair for the way in which he enabled the evidence to be brought in, through both submissions and oral evidence. It had a significant effect on the quality of the report because much detailed evidence was obtained from stakeholders right across the spectrum—from employers, to workers, to unions, to government bodies. I believe we have come up with a pretty good report and that this has placed onto the table fairly and squarely the significance of the issue of dust disease in this State and the need for New South Wales to continue to be very conscious of it and to do what we can to mitigate its effect on workers in this State. Debate adjourned. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3729

Bills ROAD TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (DIGITAL LICENSING) BILL 2020 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, on behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m. Condolences THE HON. JOHN JOSEPH FAHEY, AC, FORMER PREMIER OF NEW SOUTH WALES Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (20:02:29): As leader of The Nationals in this Chamber, I want to associate our party with this condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government about John Fahey. Unfortunately I never met John, but all of my colleagues in The Nationals held him in high regard. As leader of The Nationals in the Legislative Council, I offer our party's condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. John Fahey represented this great State with pride and integrity during his extensive career spanning both State and Federal politics. During his time in State politics, John served as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister Assisting the Premier from 1988 to 1990. He then served as Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment from 1990 to 1992 and, most notably, as Premier from 1992 to 1995. He joined State politics as the member for Camden in 1984, becoming the member for Southern Highlands in 1988. John's time as a member of the Legislative Assembly briefly overlapped that of a great figure in the National Party, the late Tim Fischer, AC. Tim was a backbencher while John had been Premier and a Minister, but they both went on to make tremendous contributions in the House of Representatives and the Federal Parliament. Some of my colleagues told me that John reminded them of this at Tim's State funeral in Albury not too long ago. John has been described by some of my colleagues as a de facto National Party MP. Representing a partly regional seat, his easygoing personality endeared him to people in the bush. As one of my former colleagues said: JF was a good bloke and respected across all parties. I think that is a fair assumption. As I said, I never met John but I asked some of my colleagues in The Nationals who did serve with him to share with me some thoughts on his contribution to the State. I will share this story from a former member in the other place, Wendy Machin. Wendy described John as having a style that was very much his own. Exacting and demanding the best of his Cabinet and the Coalition, he was mostly affable and, as has often been said, ready for a chat. His Irish background showed itself in the occasional outburst of irritation and Wendy says he also was able to bear a very good grudge. She says he never really got over losing the 1995 election and would tell anyone any time that the Coalition got a majority of the vote. After leaving politics John kept in touch with many of his team, regularly organising reunion dinners with his staff—many of whom are now senior Ministers—and also his last Cabinet team. During his time as industrial relations Minister he worked diligently to implement massive industrial relations reform in New South Wales, which stemmed from the 1990 green paper by John Niland titled Transforming Industrial Relations in New South Wales. With around 1,000 pages of legislation, his attention to detail was something that impressed those on all sides of the House, especially given his ability to speak to that bill without notes or support from his staff. As the Leader of the Government mentioned, in passing this legislation this House for the first and only time evoked the then Standing Order 214A, allowing him to enter this Chamber to steer this complex bill through the detailed Committee stages. I asked another former colleague, the Hon. Jenny Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3730

Gardiner, about her memories of John. She said that his stewardship of the passage through the Legislative Council of that bill and cognate bills in 1990 was an extraordinary achievement. It was the only time that a member of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the Legislative Council for that purpose. As usual, the Liberal and Nationals Government did not have a majority in this Chamber so John decided to run the debate himself. Jenny told me that Sir Adrian Solomons, another National Party great, was Chairman of Committees at the time and Jenny recalls Sir Adrian saying that various honourable members in this place were astonished at John's performance, as well they should have been. But they also had not recognised the significance of his access to a laptop in the Chamber. Access to such technology in the Parliament was rare in those days and John made the best of it during debates. Another memory which Jenny shared with me today is too good not to be included in this contribution. Jenny says it is her favourite legislative memory of John Fahey. She said: After I was elected I was appointed to the first of many election funding and disclosure inquiries. Johnno Johnson and I were both on a joint select committee on public funding and the two of us agreed that it was desirable to introduce public funding for political party administration. Johnno suggested that registered parties might be funded to the extent of the cost of a postage stamp per vote and I agreed. We agreed that he would put the case to his people and I'd do the same with my people. We duly did the background work in our respective parties and the topic went quiet for a while. Jenny continued: Then, one day, at a joint parties meeting I was thrilled to pick up the briefing paper on a bill to introduce the public administration fund. Fahey was, of course, Minister in charge of the Electoral Act. When he put forward the bill I stood up and congratulated him on being so pragmatic. John then went bright pink and said: "Thank you but I opposed the bill and I got rolled in Cabinet." It is a delightful story but when we talk about the legacy of a man like John Fahey, knowing that all eligible registered parties are being aided in their day-to-day operations by that statute—which John maybe technically opposed at some point in his career—what a legacy to leave behind. It could be said that the National Party in many ways is operational because of that legislation, and I think that is the same for all of the registered parties in the Chamber. Other members have spoken about the most iconic moments in John's time as Premier, particularly the successful Sydney Olympics bid, which was announced in September 1993. Everyone across the State and across the country can reflect on not only the memory of that announcement when we found out that Sydney would be hosting the Olympics but also the 2000 Olympics and what that meant to our city, our State and our nation. That is a significant legacy for John to leave behind and something his family should be immensely proud of. Another iconic moment from John Fahey was the incredible bravery that he showed during the 1994 Australia Day celebrations, when he leapt to protect Prince Charles on stage at Darling Harbour when shots were fired in the crowd. That shows the true measure of the man. My thoughts and condolences are with John's family, including his wife, Colleen, and their children and grandchildren. John Fahey has left an amazing legacy behind. We thank his family for their part in shaping him into the great public servant that he was. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (20:10:06): I am pleased to take part in the commemoration of the life and practical service of former New South Wales Premier the Hon. John Fahey, Companion of the Order of Australia and man of considerable faith. He passed away on 12 September 2020 from complications caused by leukaemia. I understand that he had already experienced a major operation with the removal of a lung. He was an inspiration to many, myself included. I was particularly impressed by his commitment to his faith and the productive role it played in his political career. During an interview in 2017 for Catholic Outlook, John stated: I believe that I had to practise the values that the Catholic Church has and teaches but they are, in the proper use of the word 'Catholic' – they're universal values. No one can argue with those universal values … In practical terms those values are founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, the Ten Commandments and the Bible, but they are also defined by the compassion and public service that is vital for any community. John Fahey was the kind of leader that seems to be getting rarer and rarer to find in our complex modern world. We thank God for all that we know about John and his contribution to our State and nation. John Fahey had a sincerity about him, a commitment to principle, and was well respected by both sides of Parliament. One can always respect another politician, even one with whom one is passionately in disagreement—although in this case I am in complete agreement with the Hon. John Fahey. It makes a big difference if that politician has a sense of personal integrity which makes him a very attractive personality. John was one such leader. He was first elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1984 and served there until 1996. John was the Premier of this State between 1992 and 1995 before moving to Canberra to become the Commonwealth Minister for Finance between 1996 and 2001. His contributions to our State have been immense, but in his personal life John was a courageous man who never shied away from danger. During the visit of Prince Charles to Australia in 1994, a radical student named David Kang rushed the podium with what looked like a pistol in his hand. It later turned out to be a starting pistol. Nobody at the time knew that it was a starting pistol; John Fahey certainly did not know that. The immediate Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3731

assumption was that it was a real gun. For all they knew, it could have been a public assassination, which we believe was the intention of David Kang. But both John and the then-Australian of the Year, Ian Kiernan, rushed the shooter, putting their own lives and safety at risk by tackling him to the ground. John had learned how to tackle through his lifelong experience with rugby league. That was the kind of man John was. He was instrumental in the Sydney bid for the Olympic Games. I still remember seeing him jump for joy at the announcement on television that Sydney had won the bid—a tremendous achievement for which he can take a great deal of credit. John continued his public service with the World Anti-Doping Agency and as the Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. He is survived by his wife, Colleen; his children, Matthew and Melanie; and his grandchildren, Campbell and Amber. He became the guardian of his grandchildren after his daughter Tiffany died in a tragic road accident in 2006. That is another example of his loving care, particularly for the members of his family. John's legacy of service to the people of New South Wales is something that his family can be tremendously proud of. I am sure that John will be missed by many, including in this Chamber. May John Fahey rest in peace. The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (20:16:00): Today we honour the memory of the Hon. John Fahey, AC, Premier of New South Wales from 1992 to 1995 and Commonwealth Minister for Finance from 1996 to 2001. He was a man who dedicated almost two decades of his life in service to New South Wales and Australia. John Fahey helped deliver major reforms for New South Wales both as Premier and as a senior member of the Greiner Government. Important achievements included the introduction of the Disability Services Act 1993 and a major overhaul of the New South Wales industrial relations system. John also played a key role in one of the biggest victories in New South Wales and Australian history: the successful bid for Sydney to host the Olympic Games in 2000. Many of us would remember the celebrations that immediately swept the nation after Sydney was announced as the winner and the image of John jumping for joy at the news. History will also remember him as a brave man for his quick thinking and selfless action to protect Prince Charles from an attack on Australia Day in 1994. It was a tackle we all remember well. Personally I remember him most as the Federal Minister for Finance in the Howard Government, where I had the pleasure of working with him on the privatisation of the Federal Airports Corporation in 1996 and 1997. At the time I was a director in the Commonwealth Office of Asset Sales responsible for, among other things, the drafting of the 99-year airport lease and other sale documentation, along with the negotiation of final deals with bidders. What impressed me about John was his approachability as a Minister of the Crown and his real concern for those people around him. On the last night before signing the final deal for the Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane airports on 30 June 1997 my team and I were ensconced on the top floor of Clayton Utz here in Sydney, finalising documentation. We finished shortly after 2.00 a.m. and, following a celebratory beer or two, we hightailed it to Canberra in a stretch limousine with all the final documents to meet John for the official signing ceremony at Parliament House. Needless to say the celebrations continued all the way to Parliament House. I remember the limousine driver missing the turnoff—it was quite a riot in the back seat. We arrived at Parliament House at about six in the morning. John was not around until after eight, so we had to do a tour of the various sights to take in the true meaning of Canberra in those days. John finally came back to his office and we poured ourselves into his presence with all the decorum we could muster. John was not amused, quite frankly, and maintained his professionalism throughout the signing ceremony. He showed us no mercy whatsoever. Only at the following celebratory lunch over a few beers and speeches did he share his mirth at our obvious state of decline before launching into his ever-reliable portfolio of rugby league stories. It was a long and colourful portfolio. Let me assure you that a very good time was had by all. That was generally the case when in the presence of John Fahey. That is how I best remember him, as an affable, humble and caring man who took an interest in people's lives. He took the time to listen to people and to understand them, which is a key reason for his great success in public life. Perhaps all members in this place can learn from his example. John was also a man of singular faith, which was recognised by John's appointment as the fourth Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University in Sydney in 2014, his receipt of alma mater Chevalier College's highest public honour, the Esprit du Chevalier Medal in 2016, and the bestowal on him of the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great by Pope Francis in 2019. The Order of Saint Gregory the Great is one of the five orders of knighthood of the Holy See. The honour is bestowed upon Roman Catholic men and women in recognition of their personal service to the Holy See and to the Roman Catholic Church. The inaugural brief states: … gentlemen of proven loyalty to the Holy See who, by reason of their nobility of birth and the renown of their deeds or the degree of their munificence, are deemed worthy to be honoured by a public expression of esteem on the part of the Holy See. The brief goes on to state that recipients must progressively maintain, by continued meritorious deed, the reputation and trust they had already inspired, and prove themselves worthy of the honour that had been conferred Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3732

on them by unswerving fidelity to God and to the sovereign pontiff. John was a most worthy recipient of all those honours. As a fellow former student of Chevalier College, John loomed larger than life in the old boy fraternity. His time and education at Chev was perhaps the most significant formative early influence in his life, as it was in mine. The Chevalier College motto "Fortes in Fide", meaning "Strong in Faith", and the college war cry left indelible marks on us all. No-one, including John, has been able to work out what the line in the Chev war cry "boomeraka shoomaraka" means, and we probably never will. Personally, I am grateful for John's leadership, support and encouragement. His contribution to our State and nation leaves a deep and lasting legacy. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with John's wife, Colleen, and his children and grandchildren at this time. God Bless you, John. The Hon. LOU AMATO (20:21:56): Sadly on 12 September 2020 New South Wales and Australia lost a great man. After a battle with leukaemia the Hon. John Joseph Fahey, AC, passed away. He served New South Wales and Australia with distinction. John was born on 10 January 1945 in Wellington, New Zealand, the son of farmer Stephen Fahey and Annie Fahey of Galway, Ireland. In 1956 the family migrated to Picton, New South Wales, where John attended Chevalier College in Bowral. Later John attended the University of Sydney and graduated as a lawyer. In 1968 John married Colleen Maree McGurren and had three children: Matthew, Tiffany and Melanie. Sadly Tiffany was killed in a road accident at the age of 27 on 26 December 2006. John and Colleen became the legal guardians of Tiffany's children, Campbell and Amber. I am privileged to have known John personally. John was a major factor in my becoming an active member of the Liberal Party. John embodied all the attributes of a committed conservative. His deep faith and impeccable morals inspired all those who knew him. John was a fighter and even when faced with a diagnosis of cancer, which resulted in the removal of a lung in February 2001, he fought the good fight and won that first battle. I remember him telling me some years ago that he was given a less than 5 per cent chance of surviving beyond five years. Sadly it would not be John's last battle with cancer. We know about John's political achievements. As Premier of New South Wales he actively campaigned for the Sydney Olympics. We all remember the jubilation we shared when John's hard work secured Sydney as the host of the 2000 Olympics. Some say the Sydney Olympics was the greatest staging of the event in living memory. John served his country at the Federal level as finance Minister. We remember the prosperous years during which John managed the finances of our great nation. In 2002 John was appointed Companion of the Order of Australia for his service to New South Wales and Australia. The award recognised not only his service to the Australian and New South Wales parliaments but also his reforms to industrial relations, his active role as finance Minister, which facilitated the adoption of cutting-edge technology and industry growth, and his work in elevating Australia's international profile as chairman of the bid for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In 2016 his alma mater Chevalier College awarded John the highest honour, the Esprit du Chevalier Medal. In 2014 John was appointed Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. In recognition of his service to the people of New South Wales and Australia, and of his commitment to the church. Pope Francis made John a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great. John was an extremely humble man. In accepting the honour he said: My moral compass was driven by the teachings of the Catholic Church from a young age and throughout my life and in my tough moments my hand always went into my right pocket to put my fingers around my soldiers' rosary beads, I know at key times in parliament I couldn't even begin to tell you the number. He said also: I kind of hope that some of the good things I did were because of that guidance and support I received from my faith. To John's wife, Colleen, his son, Matthew, and daughter Melanie, we offer our sincere condolences. We thank John for his great service to our State and nation. God bless you, John. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (20:26:01): With a heavy heart I contribute to debate on this important condolence motion for the late Hon. John Fahey, AC, former leader of the New South Wales Liberal Party and former Premier of New South Wales. John's wife, Colleen Fahey, and his family were present today to bear witness to debate on condolence motions for John moved in both Houses. It is right and proper that we take time out from the day-to-day grind and heat of politics to raise our eyes and cast our minds to our reason for political service— the greater good of public service. John Fahey exemplified faultlessly a life dedicated to public service. I thank his family for the honour of the invitation they extended to me to attend John's State funeral at St Mary's Cathedral on 25 September. It was a powerful pontifical mass conducted by the Archbishop of Sydney the Most Reverend Anthony Fisher. In these COVID pandemic times the important rituals of our lives and of our society are not always able to be observed. However, even with limited capacity owing to social distancing, John was farewelled by a full Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3733

cathedral. The two-hour service brought together a remarkable collection of current and former political leaders, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison and three of his predecessors—Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard—and New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian together with four of her predecessors— Mike Baird, Kristina Keneally, Bob Carr and Nick Greiner. Governors and governors-general past and present were in attendance, as were Opposition Leader Jodi McKay, and a range of state MPs and dignitaries. Notably many of John's former parliamentary colleagues from his time in the New South Wales and Commonwealth parliaments were there. The pews were more sparsely occupied than usual because of COVID-19 safety protocols. Undoubtedly hundreds more would have been present if not for the restrictions. However, religious solemnity and a sense of strong civic tribute prevailed in a fitting farewell. We have heard members' eloquent contributions about John Fahey. I will touch on some of the points they mentioned. John was born on 10 January 1945 in Wellington, New Zealand. He was the son of farmer Stephen Fahey and Annie Fahey of Galway, Ireland. It is important to note John's heritage. With his family John migrated from New Zealand to Picton in 1956 at age 11 and was naturalised as an Australian in 1973. He was educated at Chevalier College, Bowral, and at the University of Sydney where he studied law. In 1968 John married Colleen Maree McGurren—Collen Fahey as we know her today—and their marriage lasted 52 years. They had two daughters and a son. For almost two decades John served the people of New South Wales in State and Federal parliaments as an MP and a Minister. He served also as Premier of New South Wales. John first joined the Liberal Party in 1976—a bit before my time—and won a seat in State Parliament in 1984. He would go on to serve as the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment, before being elevated to Premier in 1992. His Government was the first to appoint a Minister for the Status of Women, introduce the NSW Seniors Card and pass the Disability Services Act 1993 to guarantee the rights of all people with a disability in New South Wales. John became Premier after Nick Greiner was forced to resign over corruption findings of the ICAC, which, as we all know, were subsequently overturned on appeal. John was a contrast to Nick Greiner. I say that in no way disparagingly about Premier Greiner, who is a friend of mine. In many ways John was quite the opposite politician. The young Nick Greiner was quite aloof and difficult to get to know. I knew this as a Young Liberals State vice-president and then as State president under John Fahey. I found Fahey quite the contrast. He was warm, jovial and gregarious—and prepared to talk in detail about your life at the drop of a hat. At the time he was the circuit-breaker the Coalition Government needed after four years of fairly relentless but essential economic reforms by the Greiner Government. The people of New South Wales took warmly to John—to his style and his family. John consistently topped the preferred Premier and popularity polls against his rival, Bob Carr. The Government itself lagged a little behind but was bolstered and pulled along by the popular "People's Premier". Of all his achievements as Premier from 1992 to 1995, the most popular was his leadership in securing the 2000 Olympic Games for Sydney. As a Young Liberals president working for President Willis of the Legislative Council I was at the Overseas Passenger Terminal in Circular Quay in the wee hours of the morning at a government function when the great TV screen beamed that the winner was Sydney. John's famous leap upon hearing the news occurred right before us. Everyone in the Overseas Passenger Terminal leapt at the same time. The leap was so famous that we incorporated it into the 1995 launch of campaign advertising. As dawn broke we wandered back up to Parliament in full spirits. The streets were full of revellers partying because of the win of the games—a sign of things to come and the excitement for the year 2000. I also comment on John's role in tackling the armed assailant of Prince Charles on Australia Day in 1994. Again, I was at that event and seated in the VIP stand opposite the lectern at the main stage when what turned out to be a mentally unwell man raced forward with a starting gun to shoot at Prince Charles. No-one had any indication that it was a starting gun. In a split second, right before my eyes, Premier Fahey jumped up and crash-tackled the young man to the stage floor, metres from an astonished Prince Charles. That act of selfless bravery further endeared him to the people of New South Wales, and we again used the footage in the campaign launch and advertising for the 1995 election. Earlier today the Hon. Don Harwin mentioned that the Hon. John Fahey resisted the strong desire of many to use the Olympic Games win as a foundation for the election campaign. That is true, but we managed to get a little bit out of him. By that time I had left my role at Parliament and was back working in the advertising industry for the agency that had the advertising for the election. I spent some weeks with John Fahey filming TV ads and doing location photo shoots. In those days we did not have digital overlays of candidates and leaders; they had to get together and be photographed together. We took John Fahey to the Betty Cuthbert stadium—there were no stadiums out there in Homebush, just the small one that is there today. After considerable legal advice and debate about what words could be used we projected onto the giant screen the number "2000". As we discovered at that point, we could not use words such as "Olympics" or Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3734

"Sydney 2000" because they were all embargoed or controlled by the Australian Olympic Committee. Nonetheless, we used the number 2000, which was enough for people to realise what it was, and capitalised on John's popularity. I recall putting him in a cherry picker with another cherry picker filming him. Those who knew John Fahey knew that he was not fond of heights. Despite that, he was up there for a day of filming talking about the Olympic win. I recall many days over that period when I felt privileged to be working with him. I remember things such as the constant make-up and hair brushing that he did not enjoy but had to go through. He dealt with those issues with self-deprecating humour and care for others. I also recall John's verbal sketches and asides to me about some of our key seat candidates for that election as they joined him for photo shoots in their electorate or in the studio. I was working with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, MLC, who was looking after them. She is now a high commissioner in New Zealand doing a great job. Those thumb sketches were spot-on. I will not reflect upon who he talked about but members can look up the key candidates and have a guess. As we know, that election was lost by one seat, which we did not realise we were going to lose until the last minute. The Government won 52 per cent of the popular vote, which was no doubt off the back of John Fahey's popularity. At the State funeral and during the contributions to the motion today we have heard that John took the 1995 election defeat hard and felt personally responsible. I was not aware of that, but I was pretty depressed and distressed at the time as well. It was a life-changing event for all of us. At the insistence of John Howard he picked himself up and went into Federal Parliament to provide much-needed political leadership to a fresh, newly elected government. I share these few reflections and thoughts about John Fahey as Premier of New South Wales because they speak to his strengths as a parliamentarian and his strong character. He was a good communicator—if a little longwinded. One of my favourite things about John was when he was giving an off-the-cuff speech and would look up and say, "We will conclude with this", we would all settle into our seats for another 20 minutes. He understood people better than his predecessor and better than many others; he was an incredible people person. John Fahey was a reformer but not one who got too far ahead of the community. He was proud to be a progressive Liberal and was firmly community and family based. As evidenced by the Prince Charles incident, he was also a brave man. He dedicated his life to public service time and again, whether as an MP, Premier, Federal Minister or, later, as Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. We thank John Fahey for mentoring many Young Liberals, including our foreign Minister, Senator Marise Payne, and Joe Hockey in that long list. I also thank Colleen Fahey for sharing him with us—a great, solid contribution to our society—and supporting him to do his important work. Vale, John Fahey. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (20:38:10): Last month our nation lost one of its true statesmen. John Fahey was a titan. He dedicated so much of himself and his life to serving the people of both New South Wales and Australia, and it is fitting that we acknowledge and remember him in the House today. Firstly, I extend my heartfelt condolences to John's wife, Colleen, and their children and grandchildren who have lost a much-loved husband, father, grandfather and friend. Every person in this State mourns his loss but, of course, none of us feel it as keenly as his family. I had the privilege to know John. What seems like a lifetime ago, when I was at university and before I saw the light, I joined another political party, the Liberal Party. I did so in part because I was inspired by the New South Wales Premier at the time, the Hon. John Fahey. His decency, authenticity and integrity set a powerful example to me that politics could be a truly honourable pursuit. It was inspired by that idealistic enthusiasm that, when I was asked to run for the seat of Heffron in the 1995 State election as a part of John Fahey's team— The Hon. Scott Farlow: How'd you go? The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: I readily accepted. Although that election proved to be not my greatest political triumph, the experience was formative for me. The beautiful and heartfelt letter of thanks I received from John after the election remains one of my most treasured mementos to this day. But, of course, as we heard today, everybody has a personal story about that fearless and decent man. So many remember John Fahey for his instrumental role in bringing the 2000 Olympics to Sydney—more specifically, they probably remember that incredible jump of his at the announcement. I think in that moment he embodied the way we all felt. John's advocacy for the 2000 games made so many Australian dreams come true, both for individuals and for the nation. Without John we would not have had the magical moment when Cathy Freeman won gold in Sydney. We would not have seen "Thorpedo", Ian Thorpe, win five golds for Australia. Without John the then International Olympic Committee President Juan Antonio Samaranch would not have been able to call the Sydney 2000 games the "best Olympic Games ever". John was always a passionate advocate for every Australian and, as the New South Wales Premier, he made extraordinary changes for the betterment of our society. He touched the lives of all Australians in many ways—and many of them probably did not even know it. Because of him, we have the Seniors Card and the Disability Services Act 1993, and because of him, a government first appointed a Minister dedicated to advocating Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3735

for the status of women. John Fahey dedicated nearly two decades of his life serving the people of New South Wales and Australia. He held the highest elected position in the State and one of the most significant in the Federal Government. Yet at his core he remained a truly humble family man. I always felt that John had time for people, no matter who they were. That has been oft mentioned by so many throughout his life, at his funeral and today. But he really was a man of the people. He had respect for everyone, no matter which way they voted or what side of the Chamber they were on. He understood that life was not always fair, and he and his family certainly faced many difficult and traumatising situations. But at the end of it all John Fahey understood what it meant to be a leader. New South Wales is profoundly better off because of his strength and courage. The Hon. John Fahey left a deep and lasting legacy on this State, and I feel immensely privileged to have known him. Vale, John. I fear we will never see your like again. The Hon. NATALIE WARD (20:42:33): I join with my colleagues to honour the memory of the Hon. John Joseph Fahey. I make my contribution as a "newer member" in this place, as one who did not serve with John but who knows that he is an icon of our party. As a member of the Liberal Party for 30 years, I feel a great obligation as I stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before me, and I acknowledge his legacy as an icon. I have one personal story, which I will get to. It caused me to go back and read his inaugural speech— or, as it was then called in non-politically correct terms, the maiden speech—and his final speech in this place. I was delighted to see a couple of things. First of all, of course, there cannot be too many lawyers in Parliament. Thank goodness John came from a legal background. I was delighted—there are no points of order; I am not hearing anyone taking any issue—to see that he was a lawyer and brought the strength and breadth of that experience to this place. I quote from his final speech where he recalls coming to this place: I found it especially difficult having come from practising the law where I had control of my life, and all of a sudden I was answering division bells and attending a room for rollcall. I agree with that wholeheartedly, coming from a place where the most difficult thing is a time sheet and entering six-minute units. He brought a great personality but also a great practice from law of an administrative and analytical background to this place. He was also the master of the understatement. He talked about his electorate and said, "Subsequently greater responsibilities were given to me." What an understatement from a man who I think felt very deeply about the circumstances in which he came to the highest position in New South Wales! But he always emphasised his work ethic and values. I note that he also dealt with some of the issues that we are still dealing with today. As much as things change, they stay the same. He talked about dealing with workers compensation. As a staff member in this place, I dealt with it extensively with the Hon. Greg Pearce. Fahey said: I had a similar experience with such things as workers compensation legislation … I am proud that, following a blow-out in unfunded superannuation liabilities, for the first time since the days of Jack Lang, my Government decided to pay its own way. Had superannuation liabilities continued in the direction they were headed, many people in this State would never have achieved their monetary entitlement on retiring from whatever job they might have held in the public sector. I note that we have continued to deal with the issues of workers compensation ever since. I thank him for his contribution in that space. One of the greatest parts of my admiration for him relates to his love of sport— something that we share. It has been alluded to by other members; I will not spend too much time on it. His love of sport, rugby and league gave him some great skills, including his very useful tackle skills, which were for the benefit of Prince Charles. Interestingly, I note that in his maiden speech he actually referred to the Olympics. In his first speech in this place on 15 August 1984 he said: The electorate of Camden is designed for a versatile performer; in Olympic vernacular, a performer who can compete in the decathlon rather than a single event, for the boundaries encompass a diversity of lifestyles … He went on to talk about the lifestyles. How prescient it is that he made that reference, being as he was the iconic man who together with his team—I should acknowledge the Hon. Bruce Baird in this place—brought the best Olympics ever to Sydney! All of us will remember his iconic jumping in the air. That is a part of our history that he brought about. I reflect on his contribution in this place and Australia. I have one short story. I had the great delight of working with him on the 2015 election. He was quite an icon. I was quite starstruck by his insight. He was such a delightful man and made himself available. I remember a very good friend of mine, Anne-Marie Elias, who was looking for career options at one stage and contacted him. She said, "John Fahey is happy to speak to me and return my call." She was delighted that he would make the time for her, as he did for so many people who followed him. During the 2015 election we were on a panel on election night, as you do. There are a number of interview panels and there are experts on them who go on TV and talk about their views and analysis as the election results come in. While they are great, insightful, intelligent and articulate people, their contribution is assisted by quiet people on the side who get the election results in and feed them either text messages or bits of paper to enhance Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3736

their knowledge of the night as it progresses. My husband, David Begg, and I were very privileged to be able to do that in the 2015 elections. We sat alongside him beforehand talking about seats, distributions and where things might go. We were feeding him information about different seats and key seats. He had one focus: the seat of Penrith. He was really cross that a former member, Jackie Kelly, had run as an Independent against Stuart Ayres. All he cared about was that seat. As much as we tried to feed him information about other seats and where they were going, he kept saying, "Tell me what is going on at Penrith. How are we going in Penrith? Let me know what is happening in Penrith." That is something I loved and adored about this great icon of our party: He was tribal about it. He cared about every seat but, in particular, he cared about our key seats. That interaction with him will stay with me for a very long time. He was a person who really knew his stuff but was interested in every single seat as it came or went. Of course, all of us in this place know that we are here through the grace of our families and our faith. I have heard the stories—I will not repeat them—but his faith and that of others in this place guides us, is our centrepiece and is ultimately what we cling onto when we face dilemmas. I will return to that. John mentioned his family in his maiden speech and also in his final speech. I note that his family were present in Parliament House today. He said in his maiden speech: I should like to pay tribute to the many people who have supported me in recent times; in particular my wife, Colleen, who has made and is continuing to make many sacrifices. Her quiet strength and unassuming loyalty have been a constant source of inspiration. They are absolutely beautiful words from him. In his final speech in this place—and I urge all of us to think about these words—he said: I urge those of you who have families to do your utmost to recognise them within it all. Whatever I have achieved, I could never have achieved without my wife, Colleen. Without her encouragement and support God knows I would not have gone to Canberra … she was willing to go along with it. Without her I could do nothing. To me, the most important thing is to be able to say to my wife at the end of any day that it was for her, for the other people we know, and for the people that are part of our community and our State for whom we spend ungodly hours inside and outside this place. John articulated that so beautifully for all of us who are aware of the hours that we spend in here away from our beloved families, partners and children. I particularly thank his family for giving him to us, to this Parliament and to the national Parliament, for the contribution that he made and for the nights that he was not there. I close by referring to one of the statements that John made about principles. It is important that we take away from him his own words: If I could offer a word of advice to my colleagues, I would say please do not lose your way or your principles. Do not accept political expediency in the decision of the day, but stick to your principles and maintain credibility. John absolutely did that to the end. I know that others in this place had the privilege of working with him more closely day to day. But what I have learned and what I take from him, his family and his contribution are those principles: his faith and his ability to be approachable and to be there for colleagues and friends. I thank him for his contribution, I thank his family for his contribution and I thank God for his contribution. Vale, John Fahey. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (20:52:54): I also contribute to the condolence motion for the Hon. John Fahey. Everyone who has preceded me has given examples of instances in his life and his contribution to political life in this country. He did lots of things: People talk about the Olympics, his contribution to the World Anti‑ Doping Agency and the famous tackle on the assailant of Prince Charles. My contribution will be a bit briefer. I will concentrate on some of the personal elements of his life. John Fahey lived a life of exemplary public service. For nearly 12 years as a member of the lower House, he represented the people first of Camden and then of the Southern Highlands. He was the Premier of this great State for almost three years. He went on to serve a further five years representing the people of Macarthur in the House of Representatives and serving as Minister for Finance—a great portfolio to have and from which you may go on to greater things—and then as Minister for Finance and Administration. In his maiden speech, delivered on 15 August 1984, he said: I am one of eighteen new faces in the Forty-eighth Parliament and wish the class of '84 well in their parliamentary careers, for new members in such numbers cannot fail to exert some influence on the future well-being or otherwise of the State of New South Wales. John Fahey certainly did the former, contributing significantly to the wellbeing of the State. We have heard about his contribution during his tenure in this place—to Seniors Cards, workers compensation, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, and the like. In that speech he spoke simply and honestly: I am conscious of the responsibility and trust that have been placed in me. I am resolved to apply myself with earnestness and perseverance in the interests of all constituents. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3737

He then commented on the support he drew from his wife, Colleen: I should like to pay tribute to the many people who have supported me in recent times; in particular my wife, Colleen, who has made and is continuing to make many sacrifices. Her quiet strength and unassuming loyalty have been a constant source of inspiration. More important in many respects than the things that we achieve is the character we have. John Fahey was distinguished by his devotion to his family and to his faith. That was as important to him as the contribution that he made to public service. He was once asked in relation to his faith and his Catholic values about his position with the World Anti-Doping Agency. He reflected on why people engage in drug use to enhance their performance in respect of sporting achievements. He said that at the end of the day it was pursuit of potential fame. What comes with fame is the potential ability to give endorsements. At the end of it is just straight-out greed. That sort of thing really went against the grain for John Fahey. The principle that guided him through his life was that looking out for others was much more important than pursuing fame, money and notoriety. In a moving eulogy at his State funeral, his surviving daughter, Melanie Fahey-Cicala, spoke of her faith in God and of the determination "to fight hard for what we believe in". She treasured these—alongside a love for rugby—as lifelong values imparted to her by her father. Citing Simon & Garfunkel's song The Boxer, Melanie reflected on the loss of her father and our loss of a great man with these words: I am leaving, I am leaving But the fighter still remains. John Fahey has left us after a lifetime of public service exemplifying his values of faith, determination and a genuine chivalry in the best sense of that word—displaying "a knight's courage and ideals" as Archbishop Fisher put it during his memorial service. His last appointment was as the Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. On a personal level, he went to the same school as the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and I did, Chevalier College at Bowral. When I started at the school the principal was a priest, Father Tyson Doneley, who also happened to be the principal of St John's Catholic College in Darwin when Barry O'Farrell was at school there. Tyson Doneley had the infamy of being principal at two schools that delivered to New South Wales two Premiers. It goes a bit deeper than that, of course. He got a bursary to Chevalier and said that was where he got his love of rugby. We are all aware that he went on to play for Canterbury, but I can tell you that there were better footballers than John Fahey at Chevalier. There was a bloke called Adrian Haertsch who played for New South Wales against Queensland. He was a mountain of a man and a terrific footballer. John Fahey would have played football in the same teams as Adrian Haertsch. The school at that time produced pretty good football teams, primarily because of people like Tyson Doneley. There were others there at the time. I remember there was a fellow called Tony Prentice who eventually became principal of the school. Tony Prentice used to ride a Harley Davidson motorbike. Priests riding around on motorbikes in the 1960s and 1970s was unheard of, but this priest was ahead of his generation. John's uncle, Monsignor William Fahey, who was a priest at Parramatta, had a big impact on his life. I will finish by saying that the motto of Chevalier College at Bowral is "fortes in fide", which means, as the Latin scholars who are here would know, "strong in faith". The biggest tribute that I can pay to John Fahey was that he lived the motto of the school that he attended. I express my deepest sympathy to his wife, Colleen, to his daughter Melanie, to Amber, Campbell, Matthew and to all of his family. May each of us resolve to honour his memory by renewing our dedication to integrity in the service of the people of New South Wales. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (21:00:53): This is a really sad occasion for me. Throughout my career John Fahey has been one of the members of this Parliament, Premiers of this State and leaders of the Liberal Party who I admired most and in so many ways. His accomplishments have been listed very well in this debate, but they actually belie the enormity of the man's personality and goodness, if I can put it like that, and the stability he brought as a family man. He was a gentleman and, philosophically, a true Liberal. I am not sure if this has been explained, but John was also a full-on, good, fun guy who was popular. He was great company and made this Parliament a better place while he was in it. I first met John Fahey when I was a Young Liberal and there was a by-election on the Central Coast. This was the start of the Wran-Unsworth Government falling to pieces. It was quite an exciting time. John was the newly elected member for Camden. We were on the Central Coast and we were all doing letterbox drops and handouts. I was with this group of guys and I had a car. When we had a break we drove to the beach and three of the boys, including John Fahey, decided that it was so hot and so beautiful that they would all go for a swim in their underpants. I was not up to that. I had a kite in the back of my car and I went kite flying while the boys swam in the water. I can only describe them as halcyon, Camelot days in terms of the youth, enthusiasm, energy and good fun that he brought. The focus and the work ethic is legendary. He was an exciting person to work with. Matt Kean and John Brogden wrote an incredible obituary for John in The Sydney Morning Herald, which I recommend to everybody and which I thank both of them for writing. But there was one line that Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3738

totally amused me. It talked about how in meetings John could distract the conversation with some story about rugby and everybody would go off topic, then someone would come into the room and the meeting was over. That was a famous thing about John. Parliament was a different place. It was a very social place. I am sure there was too much drinking and partying. It was a different time, but it was a fun time. Marriages fell apart, and marriages still fall apart in politics, but not for John Fahey. John and Colleen were always a couple. He was a very loyal person to his family, to his faith and to the party. John was part of the ministry when the Greiner Government was elected. I had the privilege of serving as a minion—a small-time staffer—to Virginia Chadwick. That was a great honour, which I have spoken about previously. But I was always a person that John noticed and spoke to as an equal, even when he was a Minister and Premier. John became Premier of New South Wales when our party was at its nadir. The demise of Nick Greiner was a devastating event for all of us. We were in chaos. Nick had been our anchor, our compass and our soul. Everybody supported him. We were in shock and we were mourning his premature demise as Premier due to a hung Parliament. There was a leadership ballot and, unexpectedly, John Fahey emerged the winner of that ballot. To me, John had a 100 per cent impossible task. What government has ever retained power in that situation? It was not a fragile majority; we were relying on what Michael Yabsley referred to as the "gang of five" in order to continue in our role. When Fahey became the Premier he chose his new Cabinet and he brought in new blood. He put his own stamp on things straightaway. It was a surprise to people that he was the Premier. Equally, it was a surprise that he had this steely plan for how he was going to run things. His work ethic and his energy came as no surprise, but suddenly things started clicking into place, relationships were rebuilt and the Parliament functioned very well. John's period as the Minister for Industrial Relations, which was a very difficult role to have during those Greiner years of quite radical reform, served him particularly well. As my husband Chris Crawford always said to me, "John Fahey has an enormous amount of patience." That is probably the quality that this Government needs most at the moment. John set up much of the infrastructure governance arrangements that we have today, although some of them were exploited and buggered during those dark years of Labor. The whole concept of shareholder Ministers was initiated under the Greiner period but it was John Fahey who made them all work. It was incredibly effective, bearing in mind we were coming out of the most terrible economic recession of my lifetime. It was a period of enormous uncertainty; I can only put it like that. Then chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Moore, wrote that he was an incredible choice for us to have made. He was the second Catholic Liberal leader after Nick Greiner. He was obviously an accomplished athlete, a great rugby player and he had a big connection with the guys, but Matthew termed it "those big cow eyes" that all of us girls fell into. There is no doubt he was a really appealing Premier for this State. Anyone who has read Bob Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister will see his concern and consternation. He had been the Leader of the Opposition for some time. He felt the cusp of things turning when Nick had his demise, but within months John Fahey's success as the new Premier put the Leader of the Opposition into a deep funk. It was described that John saved Prince Charles. I think we all know that that, as a matter of fact, was not exactly what occurred. It was more that John Fahey would throw himself physically towards a danger or risk instead of away from it. His security detail was very upset with what occurred that day, but also everybody understood that this was the man he was. Secondly, there was this incredible ambition to win the Olympics for Sydney. In fact, half of the Government and most of the State did not believe it was achievable. It was not just the vision to have this magnificent sporting event, but John Fahey was the one who said, "Let us transform this absolute disaster zone called Homebush Bay", which was redundant, highly polluted State land. A closed abattoir, it was an enormous site in a brilliant location in Sydney, but there was absolutely no funding at the time or in the foreseeable future. The concept of hosting the Sydney Olympics was a brilliant solution for that piece of land. It was a brilliant opportunity for Sydney and Australia. It all looked wonderful on paper, but the idea that this organisation—this corrupt and difficult beast of the International Olympic Committee—would ever give the Olympics back to Australia seemed fanciful. I read with interest John Coates' wonderful recollections of John Fahey's role during that period and his support for our bid. John was able to phone the Premier, make these suggestions, say we are being outflanked and quickly get the answers that he needed. My husband lost a very big bet to me when, unbelievably, Sydney won the Olympics. We had the famous John Fahey leap. It is a remarkable thing that he has passed away during the week of the anniversary of that event. We were a minority government; the wheels were falling off and we had no end of problems. Incredibly John Fahey held the show together and put us in a position where the election was winnable. We did not know the result of the 1995 election on the night. The electorate of Badgerys Creek, formerly Minchinbury, was still in Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3739

play and Anne Cohen was still fighting for the electorate. Labor won a wonderful electorate in that election campaign. Poor Anne Cohen; I put the loss down to the cleaning contract in New South Wales schools because I think that is what did her in in the end, but at the time she was fighting because the result was not known. I consider that to be an extraordinary achievement by John Fahey, given everything that was thrown at him and us during that 12 months. He was a very popular and respected man. I note that 1994, the year before the election, was International Year of the Family. I had my first baby, Josh, and John appointed me to a consultative committee for International Year of the Family. I was not working for the Government at the time. It was a really great honour and the photos I have of myself, Josh and John are absolute treasures. John never forgot his friends or the people. He was always very real to all of us. He was very excited to see Chris and me starting a family. He had lived through all of that with us. I kept in touch with John, of course, on and off over the years. His battle with lung cancer was a terrifying event where we all thought we had lost him. He has passed away at the age of 75. I have received many messages from people saying that 75 years old is just too young—and it is too young—but we also had 20 years of John that I was scared we would not have. I am very grateful for that. I feel his personality very much contributed to that. We know of John's love of his family and the challenges that he faced. I will speak briefly about a flight to the Gold Coast I was on with him one night. I was an MP by this point. John was flying up to attend an international drug conference for athletes of some sort on the Gold Coast and, coincidentally, we were on the same flight. My car was at the airport so I drove him up to Surfers Paradise and we got to have this really great chat about Melanie and the impact of politics on families. Melanie went to my school, Kincoppal-Rose Bay, but the story John told me was not a story I recognised as a past student. I was living on the North Coast at the time. His advice to me was, "If you can keep your kids in the country, please do so." There is something magic about growing up in the bush and not being exposed to all the sophistications and challenges in Sydney. It is particularly challenging for boarders. John was particularly passionate on the point that, as parents, we cannot choose the peer group for our children; we have to cross our fingers and hope. Chris and I had always thought that we might send our kids away. Certainly, I had benefited greatly from a boarding school education, but John really persuaded me to the contrary. He contacted me again after the conversation because he felt so strongly. I reassured him that Chris and I had made that decision based completely on his advice. I am grateful to him for that advice because my sons have the magic of having grown up fully in the regions. And who cares about two or 10 points on your results in the HSC compared to the happiness of your children and their wellbeing. I am eternally grateful for his advice in terms of my family, and I am so grateful that he reached out and felt that he could give me that advice; it was a trust on his part. From my point of view, it is the greatest gift he could have given us. I have nothing but sadness for John's family. The way he and Colleen embraced their grandchildren and brought them up is an incredible story. John Fahey the person is actually a bigger story than John Fahey the Premier. He was such a great and good person. John is somebody whom my family and I, and everybody who knew him, will miss incredibly. I acknowledge John Ryan who has kept us all informed of how things have been going with John. When I have had my tribulations in politics, John Fahey has been on the phone to me, helped me and reassured me. He was so loyal to his friends, his party and his beliefs. He never stopped. I really want to emphasise that John was such a fun guy. He was the life of the party. He was full of charm. He was the best that New South Wales politics has ever seen. He raised the standard while he was in Parliament and in every subsequent organisation he participated in. He was a man we could trust. He was a man who had no guile. He was full of chat—there is no question about that—but it was all well-meant. I am so sad and sorry, and I give my condolences to his family. New South Wales has really lost one of our best. I thank everyone in the Parliament for the opportunity to make this contribution. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:18:36): In reply: I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate for a great Australian and an extraordinary person, Mr John Fahey. I commend the condolence motion to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3740

Bills ROAD TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (DIGITAL LICENSING) BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (21:20:08): On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I am pleased to introduce the Road Transport Act Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020. This bill will give the Digital Driver Licence (Digital Driver Licence) the same status as the plastic licence card. This means that any time a New South Wales driver licence holder is required by law to produce their licence, they can choose to do so using their plastic card, or their Digital Driver Licence. This is a natural next step given the success and popularity of the Digital Driver Licence, and a significant step forward in advancing the New South Wales Government's commitment to digital transformation. The Digital Driver Licence went live in October last year and within only 10 days 750,000 customers had already opted in. Now, over 1.7 million people have downloaded the Digital Driver Licence or around 31 per cent of all driver licence holders in New South Wales. There are around 2,000 new Digital Driver Licence downloads each day. Customer satisfaction with the Digital Driver Licence is overwhelmingly positive, tracking at an impressive 95 per cent. Of the 192,000 people who have given feedback on the Digital Driver Licence, 182,000 have given it the thumbs up. Service NSW has made it easy for customers to provide feedback on the Digital Driver Licence through the Service NSW app and customers tell us every day that it is convenient and easy to use. Just in the last week customers have said that the Digital Driver Licence is "simple and efficient", "easy to set up" and "so easy if you forget your wallet." The popularity of the Digital Driver Licence has resulted in a strong customer expectation that the Digital Driver Licence can be used in all situations where customers can use a plastic licence card. The Digital Driver Licence does not replace the plastic card but provides an additional option for customers that find it easier and more convenient to use. This bill does not change that. What this bill does is ensure that if a customer chooses to use the Digital Driver Licence, they will be able to rely on it to satisfy any legal requirement that they produce their driver licence. Such circumstances include buying pseudoephedrine, buying from a second-hand dealer, buying explosives and various other transactions with government. The Digital Driver Licence does not only offer convenience but has greater security assurances than the plastic licence card. It uses unique and easily identifiable features that demonstrate that the Digital Driver Licence is "live", such as the animated New South Wales Government logo and New South Wales Waratah hologram and last refreshed date and time. With basic information and training, the Digital Driver Licence is easier to authenticate and validate than the plastic licence card. The NSW Police Force verifies driver licences using a device called MobiPol. MobiPol devices are available to meet the requirements of highway patrol and other officers in the field, providing benefit to both citizens and police officers in the field by making roadside checks easier and allowing New South Wales police to suspend a driver licence in real time By giving the Digital Driver Licence the same status as a plastic licence card, this bill will make the experience of using a Digital Driver Licence even simpler and more consistent. It will provide further industries with the benefits already experienced by the Liquor and Gaming industry. A key industry group that will benefit from this bill is pharmacists. Pharmacists are required by law to verify identity using a driver licence for the sale of pseudoephedrine. The added security features of a Digital Driver Licence give additional assurance to pharmacists during this transaction, which involves a risk of fraud. Further, and importantly in the context of COVID-19, the Digital Driver Licence provides a no contact option for conducting identity checks. Service NSW has already been working with pharmacists and other industries to prepare them to recognise and validate a Digital Driver Licence. On 3 July 2020, Service NSW began a pilot with five community pharmacies to ensure that there are no barriers to accepting the Digital Driver Licence for proof of identity. Feedback from both pharmacists and customers has been positive. The Government is also working closely with other States and Territories, in particular their police forces, liquor and gaming regulators and peak bodies, to ensure they are ready to recognise and accept the NSW Digital Driver Licence. Throughout its development, the Digital Driver Licence program has been subjected to a number of Privacy Impact Assessments, and my department has worked closely with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that personal information dealt with when a Digital Driver Licence is used remains secure. The Digital Driver Licence is subject to a regular ethical hacker program to ensure that robust security measures are in place. Most recently, a short form Privacy Impact Assessment was completed on these legislative changes and found them to be low risk. In the time the Digital Driver Licence has been live, there have been no increase of driver licence related complaints reported by the Information and Privacy Commission or the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This is despite over 1.7 million downloads. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3741

This bill will also enable further improvements to the security of the Digital Driver Licence, by allowing the Digital Driver Licence to be validated directly against the New South Wales driver licence register. This will bring the Digital Driver Licence into alignment with international standards for digital identity documents and pave the way for the Digital Driver Licence to be verified across jurisdictions. As well as expanding the use of the Digital Driver Licence, the Road Transport Act Amendment (Digital Driver Licensing) Bill 2020 will create a legal framework for customer driven sharing of photos and information among licensing authorities. Amendments to the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act will update the existing photo sharing provisions to ensure all licensing authorities can easily enter arrangements to share customer information—with the customer's consent. Our customers have told us that they are frustrated by having to provide information to Government more than once. Currently someone applying for a licence such as a high risk work or contractor licence has to attach a passport style photo to a paper licence application. This person has to spend time, effort and money going to a retail outlet and paying for a passport style photograph, going to Service NSW in person and waiting for counter service to lodge their application—even if they have previously provided their photo to New South Wales Government. If the applicant does not have a valid photo when they lodge their application, Service NSW will send them away to have a photo taken and printed correctly, while Australia Post will charge for a photo to be taken. The amendments in this bill will pave the way for government agencies to share photos and other information with customers' consent so that in the future, someone applying for a high risk work or any other licence, will only have to agree to use their driver licence photo and New South Wales Government will do the rest. This is one way that we are pursuing the priority of Government Made Easy and continuing to increase the number of transactions where a customer only needs to tell government once. By making the Digital Driver Licence equal in legal status to the plastic card and creating a framework with customer-driven information sharing, this bill builds on the success of the Digital Driver Licence and furthers secures New South Wales as a leader in digital innovation and customer service. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (21:20:33): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020. First, I recognise my colleague in the other place Sophie Cotsis who, with me, has dealt with this bill. Sophie has taken a lead for the Opposition on this matter and I thank her for the work she has done and for the contribution she has made in the other place to this debate. I also thank the Minister's office for the briefing it provided to the Opposition. The briefing was helpful and managed to clear away a number of the concerns we might have had in dealing with this legislation. I state at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, we are concerned about the Government pursuing further digital initiatives, given the poor record this Government has on cybersecurity and digital issues. Digital driver licences were first introduced in 2017 with a trial in Dubbo. That trial was subsequently expanded first to Sydney's Eastern Suburbs and then a statewide rollout commenced last year. That rollout was the subject of questioning at budget estimates because it had been delayed by several months, only to crash when the service was finally launched. I was one of the early adopters. I was onto the app, keen to get my digital driver licence but, like many other citizens of New South Wales when this service was launched, I was unable to download my digital driver licence because on my first attempt on the first day, despite the delays, the service crashed. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 29 October 2019: The digital driver's licence that was meant to allow citizens to display their ID on smartphones has suffered from an outage under immense load following its launch this week. The delay of the launch and the crash when it was finally launched is one reason we say in the House today and we have said in the other place that we do not have confidence that the Government has the competence to deliver these new digital initiatives. What is clear from the briefing we received from the Minister is the strong demand for these digital services. That is very encouraging. The Opposition certainly believes that digital initiatives, when done well, can make it easier for citizens to interact with government and to fulfil their legal obligations. In theory, this bill will make it easier for people to prove their identity using a digital driver licence and make it easier for people to apply for other licences or to interact in other ways with government. Those things are all welcome—not just welcomed by the Opposition but clearly they have been welcomed by the public, and we recognise that. They are the reasons, in light of those potential benefits, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. But I place on record those strong concerns about the potential adverse impacts if the Government becomes complacent or if it is negligent about cybersecurity and privacy risks. I turn now to the bill. The bill contains three elements. First, the bill will give digital driver licences the same legal status as traditional, physical plastic cards. In theory, the in-built security features in a digital driver licence should mean that they are at least as resistant, if not more so, than plastic cards. However, we note that as Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3742

the digital driver licence becomes more prevalent it also becomes a bigger target. The incentives for cybercriminals to try to find ways to circumvent these security features will become stronger. That is why we place on the record our concern that the Government should not become complacent about the risk of fraud. The second element of the bill is an expansion of the range of situations in which information can be released from the central driver licence database. Currently, information can only be released from that database to allow a digital driver licence to be issued. The bill will provide new options for information to be released, including for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the digital driver licence. In theory, this should make the licence a robust form of identification by allowing real-time verification against the Government's main database. However, I think anyone in the House could hear the risk there. Increasing the range of situations in which that database can be accessed of course increases the risk that cybercriminals may be able to find some way to find a back door and potentially hack into that database. We reiterate the call: The Government must not become complacent about these cybersecurity risks. The third element of the bill is an expansion of information-sharing arrangements among agencies that administer licences. The Opposition has looked carefully at this aspect of the bill. We do not believe those information-sharing provisions should be adopted lightly. The bill will allow a person who has provided information for one licence application or renewal to consent for that information to then be shared with other agencies. That should make it easier for people to apply for licences or to have them renewed by saving people from having to supply the same information to multiple agencies. We understand that it is a key issue with the public, who do become frustrated having to provide the same information to multiple agencies which, at times, they expect should already have that information. However, there is always a risk that information may be shared or accessed inappropriately and we believe that ongoing monitoring by independent bodies like the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General will be essential. Of course, those are important safeguards but we would also call on those agencies to lift their level of scrutiny. Having heard evidence before the committees of this House from the Privacy Commissioner, personally I was unconvinced by the vigour with which that office was pursuing some of these issues. Its role is as a key safeguard agency right across government. In that role it needs to be able to work collaboratively with agencies that should have security measures and it needs to be able to push agencies that do not understand the importance of those values to the citizens of New South Wales. We therefore call on the Privacy Commissioner to continue that role and to increase, if anything, the work that is being done in that area. While there are advantages to delivering programs and services digitally, we cannot afford to be naive about those risks. One of the reasons I say that is that earlier this month the New South Wales Government admitted that 3.8 million documents relating to 186,000 people had been stolen by cybercriminals from Service NSW. I outlined the work that my colleague Sophie Cotsis in the other place has done on this bill. She has now discovered that she has a personal interest in this matter: She was one of those 186,000 people. She was one of the people whose data was held by Service NSW and whose name, signature and banking details have now been accessed in an inappropriate way. She was doing her job. She had submitted a Government Information (Public Access) Act application seeking information about staff cuts in Service NSW, and that action—doing her job and providing her details, her name, signature and banking records for that process—has seen that information inappropriately accessed and at risk of inappropriate activity. We could not have a better demonstration of the Opposition's concerns when our key spokesperson on this issue has seen this activity, which has only been admitted to in the last month. The hack was originally discovered in April this year. However, the New South Wales Government has only just begun notifying people whose data was stolen. It only came to the attention of the member in that time frame. Despite the fact that the hack occurred in April, it has taken this long for her to be notified. I note that the Minister for Customer Service, who introduced this bill, is responsible both for Service NSW and for the New South Wales Government's cybersecurity policy. It is therefore concerning that this Minister is bringing forward another bill to expand digital service delivery when he has not taken responsibility for the single largest data leak in New South Wales history. A report by The Guardian on 10 September 2020 sets out the scale and the cause of this hack: In April, Service NSW reported it had been subject to a phishing attack where attackers send emails appearing to be legitimate emails but with links to sites that collect login information and compromise those email addresses. In total, 47 staff accounts were accessed, and after four months of investigation, Service NSW reported on Monday that after examining 3.8 million documents in the email accounts of those staff, around 500,000 documents contained personal information and 186,000 customers will be notified about what data may have been obtained. The incident happened shortly after Service NSW began using Office 365, Microsoft's cloud-based email and office software suite. Staff had not yet switched on multi-factor authentication, which would have required any people obtaining logins to verify their identity by another way beyond just the password. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3743

The head of Cyber Security NSW, Tony Chapman, told Guardian Australia that multi-factor authentication could have prevented the majority of the incidents occurring in New South Wales Government agencies last year. The Opposition joins with the head of Cyber Security NSW in calling for multi-factor identification to be in place in more places across the New South Wales Government. Mr Chapman said: My team last year had determined that 61 per cent of incidents reported to Cyber Security NSW would have been prevented if multi-factor authentication was in place. It is clearly an urgent need and a big gap in the system. It could be easily fixed, and it should be fixed. This is an example of how with these big systems something as simple as multi-factor authentication—which we are all becoming used to—may have prevented the majority of these breaches, including the Service NSW breach which is the largest in New South Wales history. Service NSW is an agency that the Minister for Customer Service is responsible for. He introduced this bill and Service NSW will play an integral role in administering the reforms that this bill will enable. However, that agency was recently subjected to a massive data breach that the officials responsible for cybersecurity in New South Wales have said could have been prevented. That underlines the concerns that the Opposition raises in this debate. I note from the report that staff at Service NSW were sharing significant volumes of personal information via email. That is particularly concerning, given this bill will allow more information sharing. I ask the Government in reply in this House to address some specific issues. Firstly, what reforms have been implemented since that leak at Service NSW—the biggest in New South Wales' history—to reduce the volume of personal information shared via email? Secondly, will the expanded information sharing arrangements enabled by this bill authorise Service NSW staff to share even more information via email? I invite the Government in its reply to answer those questions. I also place on record the Opposition's concerns about other recent cybersecurity incidents. In addition to the one I have referred to, it was reported that images of more than 50,000 New South Wales driver licences were able to be accessed on an unsecured cloud service. That very concerning news was recently reported. Additionally, there was a recent report that 17 gigabytes of sensitive data relating to the New South Wales Government child protection and family services was stolen from Anglicare in a ransomware attack. Every member of the House would be concerned about that incident. The reason I raise these issues is that it is increasingly clear that there is a problem here. These issues become more important as the systems become bigger, meaning the vulnerabilities become bigger as well. We are concerned that the Government lacks the technical capacity to keep people's personal information safe. The Legislative Council has commenced an inquiry into cybersecurity for these exact reasons and I trust that these issues will be looked into by that inquiry. These issues are not always simply technology driven in nature. Often it is budget pressures that are making these things worse. That is certainly my experience as a shadow transport Minister. When we look at the budget pressures on transport agencies, the IT systems that are in place as well as the asset management plans relating to those agencies, we do have concerns that one of the key drivers is the budget being squeezed and the IT not coping. That is not just the Opposition's view, it is also the view of the agency. The asset management plan for Transport for NSW relating to its digital assets highlights these risks. It states: Under current TIP funding, ongoing maintenance requirements will not be able to be met. As a result, operational risks will be realised with Cluster wide impacts. Some are: Transport service disruptions to clients due to IT network outages, cyber security exposures with "out of support" software, increased risk of failures in the GovDC data centres due to assets at end of life, being non-compliant with legislative requirements (Equip Payroll) and no provision of End User Computing devices (laptops, monitors and spare parts) to the Cluster. Those are the concerns that the agency has put on the Minister's desk in the asset management plan. These are not just digital issues; these are budget issues. They show that at the back end of these big agencies the state of the assets is making the situation worse. The cybercriminals who are attacking our State government agencies are not working with laptops that are years out of date; they are working with the latest equipment. It is an unfair fight for our public servants if that is the state of the IT equipment in our key agencies. I raise those matters as a shadow Minister in a transport portfolio. While the Opposition will not oppose this bill, we urge the Government to stop and think as it pursues further digital initiatives. Digital service delivery is not risk free. Privacy is a fundamental human right and cybersecurity is essential. We are concerned that the Government has failed to keep people's private information secure. I conclude by quoting an observation my colleague made in the other place: Instead of introducing more legislation for more digital initiatives, the Minister for Customer Service should take responsibility for presiding over the largest data theft in our State's history. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (21:38:49): The Greens also will not be opposing the Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020. We understand its purpose and the benefits of digitalisation to the community but the New South Wales Government does not have a stellar track record on the safekeeping of data. The damage Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3744

that can be caused by data leaks—and the risks that the Government faces in relation to those leaks—cannot be underestimated. It is simply not good enough. By all means, we need to embrace these digital initiatives but they must be implemented well and with due regard to cybersecurity risks. The Greens note the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner in the letter she wrote to the department in relation to the reforms on 6 August this year. As she said, proper implementation is vital and that requires adequate funding as well as bolstering in-house capability within government. The Government has some work to do in convincing us that it is up to the task. That said, The Greens will not oppose the bill but we will seek to follow up on more general privacy issues in other forums, including our participation in the cybersecurity inquiry. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (21:40:20): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I am pleased to support the Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020. The bill will give the digital driver licence [DDL] the same legal status as the plastic licence card—which we are all aware of and which we all carry—so that customers can use the DDL whenever legislation requires that a driver licence is to be used. It will also allow New South Wales licensing authorities to share customer information only with a customer's consent. The digital driver licence has proved very popular, with over 1.7 million downloads. The digital driver licence has security benefits for licence holders, such as being protected by their personal identification number, fingerprints or facial recognition. It has security benefits for checkers, such as unique features that can make it easily verified and difficult to replace fraudulently. The bill will give the digital driver licence and plastic cards the same equal status as authority to drive. The bill will allow the release of information for the purpose of verifying the digital driver licence. It will also allow licensing authorities to share customer information and photographs only with consent. It has been encouraging to see the number of community organisations and businesses that have been enthusiastically supporting the legislation, including the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and other organisations. On 3 July 2020 Service NSW began a pilot with five pharmacies, working with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Feedback from pharmacists and customers has been very positive. The Department of Customer Service is working closely with other State and Territories to ensure readiness to accept the digital driver licence. Police forces in all States and Territories except the Northern Territory have confirmed that they will accept the New South Wales digital driver licence. That will give comfort to all the New South Wales residents who apply for a digital driver licence. I am pleased to support the bill. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (21:43:35): On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: In reply: I am pleased to reply to debate on the Road Transport Amendment (Digital Licensing) Bill 2020. I thank the Hon. John Graham, Ms Abigail Boyd and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their remarks during the debate. I acknowledge my friend Ms Sophie Cotsis, who is very diligent, as was evident in the member's remarks. I do miss her in this place. It was very good grounding for her—if I may say that—and I thank her for her contributions. The bill will strengthen and increase the utility of the New South Wales digital driver licence, enhancing an initiative that is hugely popular with the people of New South Wales. It is an initiative that over 33 per cent of all New South Wales driver licence holders have already opted into and that has a 95 per cent approval rate amongst customers who provide feedback. Just today feedback from customers has included comments such as "easy to access", "I love my new digital licence" and "absolutely brilliant"—which might have been my comment. The bill will ensure that if a customer chooses to use the digital driver licence, they will be able to rely on it to satisfy any legal requirement for which they produce a driver licence. It will not replace the plastic card, but it will create a better experience for the 1.8 million New South Wales drivers who have chosen to download it. Giving the digital driver licence the same status as the plastic card removes any doubt that the digital driver licence is a valid form of identification. It provides reassurance to customers that they can expect their digital driver licence to be accepted, so they will not have to worry about which transactions they need to carry their plastic card for. The experience of using the digital driver licence will become simpler and more consistent. It provides reassurance for businesses that they can be confident in accepting a digital driver licence. Further, the digital driver licence can be verified easily and accurately by sight alone, providing businesses with the option of a no-contact ID check. That has been very handy in the months of COVID. The Government has been working closely with industry to ensure that the digital driver licence can be identified and validated easily and accurately. There are many reasons to congratulate the Minister on this world-leading initiative, but the way in which he has consulted with the affected industries has been exemplary. Part of the reason our customers are saying it is absolutely brilliant is they use it, and the reason they can use it is the incredibly detailed and time-consuming work that has been done with industry. In 2019 the Government conducted comprehensive consultations that led to the successful rollout of the digital driver licence with the liquor and gaming industry. That was an enormous exercise that was conducted successfully. It included face-to-face briefings and online training material focused on how to identify and check Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3745

the digital driver licence. It is pleasing to see businesses that use a driver licence as a form of ID choosing to accept the digital driver licence, even when they have no legal requirement to do so. The Government will continue to work with banks, telecommunications industries, the real estate industry and others, such as the aviation industry, to make the experience of using a digital driver licence consistent and seamless. By ensuring that the digital driver licence is legally considered a New South Wales driver licence, the bill supports the use of the digital driver licence in other States and Territories. The Department of Customer Service has been in contact with police forces in all other States and Territories—another enormous and complex exercise across portfolios—and all have indicated that there are no barriers to accepting the New South Wales digital driver licence. The bill will also pave the way to make it easier for the people of New South Wales to apply for and manage licences by enabling agencies to share customer information and photos with a customer's consent. Currently, if a person applied for a driver licence one day and a crane driver licence the next, they would have to provide the Government with the same information twice. They would have to provide a new photograph of themselves to display on their crane driver licence, despite having had a photo taken at Service NSW the day before. The bill will allow agencies to share information and photographs if directed to do so by the customer. That means when applying for their crane driver licence the customer could request that the Government use the information and photograph that has already been supplied. The amendments are truly customer-centric. They are designed to ensure that information sharing is customer driven, has informed consent and follows the approach recommended by the Privacy Commissioner. Under those amendments sharing is allowed only between New South Wales government licensing authorities and their service providers, which will primarily be Service NSW. If a licensing authority uses a service provider other than Service NSW, sharing will be allowed only if that provider complies with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. I refer to the Hon. John Graham's questions about cybersecurity and government arrangements. The first point is that the March phishing attack had nothing to do with the digital driver licence or access to drives. That is an important point. It is a totally separate issue. In relation to the Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Act 2002 reforms, no transfer of licensing information or photographs will be undertaken by email. That directly addresses the issue the member raised. As the Hon. John Graham indicated, the member for Canterbury raised privacy and security as key issues for the Government to consider in its digital agenda. I assure the House that the Government takes seriously the privacy and security of the digital driver licence. Four privacy impact assessments are being conducted on the digital driver licence, which includes a short form privacy impact assessment on the legislative changes before the House. That assessment found the amendments to be low risk. The NSW Privacy Commissioner has been consulted throughout the development and the rollout of the digital driver licence and will, of course, continue to be consulted. As I have already mentioned, despite 1.8 million downloads, driver licence-related complaints to the NSW Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner have not increased. The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and the Road Transport Act 2013 tightly restrict the disclosure of the personal information and provide robust privacy protections. The bill does not detract from any of those privacy protections. Cyber Security NSW [CS NSW] has led the creation of new cybersecurity governance arrangements, principally the Cyber Security Senior Officers' Group, which includes key agency leadership from across the New South Wales Government. A cybersecurity advisory council has been established to provide independent external expertise and advice. CS NSW has implemented email advisories for whole-of-government cybersecurity alerts and has developed cybersecurity awareness materials for use across governments. I hope that answers the Opposition's questions. They are valid questions and I thank the Hon. John Graham and the member for Canterbury for raising them. The bill will make the experience of applying for, managing and using a licence, in particular a driver licence, simpler for the people of New South Wales. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to service excellence. I am very proud of this popular initiative. The Government thanks all members of this House for their support for the bill and the amendments. Again I commend the Minister for his vision. Given that it is groundbreaking internationally, the way in which the exercise has been conducted in close consultation with industry and affected stakeholders and the seamless implementation of changes to date are remarkable. It was an enormous exercise and an enormous number of employees, in clubs and pubs alone, for example, have had to grapple with the changes. As I say, the Government is very proud of it and we thank all members for supporting this next step. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3746

Third Reading The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That this House do now adjourn. CENTRAL COAST COUNCIL The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (21:54:27): Over the past three years I have had to stand in this place far too often and highlight the ongoing failures of the Central Coast Council to appropriately manage its responsibilities in the region. The Ettalong channel and The Entrance channel have both silted up to such an extent that passenger ferries carrying commuters are unable to travel in the Ettalong channel. The Tuggerah Lakes area floods completely. Earlier this year hundreds, if not thousands, of homes in the area were flooded. Time and again the council has failed to apply for grant funding that the Government has had on offer. In fact, the council has handed back $4.6 million of grant funding—money that it asked for. It has sabotaged local infrastructure, namely the Warnervale Airport and job-creating projects. It has supressed information and reports, making them unavailable to the public. It has wasted money to fight losing battles. The $200,000 it gave to the Australian Coal Alliance with no strings attached is an example, as are the many legal battles it takes to the New South Wales Land and Environment Court and loses. The Minister is aware of the Regional Performing Arts Centre for which the State and Federal governments provided $12 million and $10 million respectively. The council had budgeted $10 million. For five years the council could not decide on what to do—and that is after the funding was committed. The Gosford Regional Library has still not got off the ground. A few months ago we saw scenes of erosion at Wamberal Beach. For decades the need for action has been known but council has done nothing, not to mention the asbestos that litters Wamberal and Terrigal beaches. Recently the councillors gave themselves a pay rise of 6 per cent. The Labor mayor voted for a 10 per cent pay rise. Four years after the council was amalgamated, progress on a consolidated local environmental plan is limping along and probably will not be seen during the current council term. That is typical of the controlling block of councillors who are intent on stalling progress and job creation and on stifling any form of economic development. For some time Central Coast residents have known in their gut the state of the council, but I do not think anybody appreciated just how dire the situation was until last Tuesday when the council's CEO, Gary Murphy, put out a press release advising that the council's budget deficit, which was budgeted at $41 million, will in fact be $89 million. The council revealed that it is in a serious financial situation and faces an immediate and serious liquidity issue. To be frank, rumours are circulating that the council cannot pay its bills. Some expenditure in the previous 12 to 18 months may have resulted in restricted funds being used, contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1992. Put simply, the law may well have been broken at Central Coast Council. These revelations are truly shocking. The Central Coast Council, with its majority made up of six Labor councillors and two Greens in Independent clothing, are to blame for the failures. They oversaw this mess. I am reliably informed that the mayor has tried to sack the CEO during the past week and string him up as a scapegoat. No-one is running the place because the CEO is away on sick leave after that incident. The council's solution was to dismiss the whistleblower within one week of him blowing the whistle. Labor has no money to pay the bills on the Central Coast so it decides to trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance pay to get rid of the CEO and leave the council rudderless with nobody in charge. The current Labor mayor and the previous greenie Independent mayor have spent all their time playing stupid games. When you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Unfortunately, in just three years the prize is to make this council insolvent with nobody taking responsible action. A zombie council exists on the Central Coast. All the councillors must go so we can clean out the rot. Councillors who made unprecedented requests for intervention, citing 11 recent failures of council, believe there is no alternative. I am told reliably that the council may well have stopped paying some invoices. Time does not permit me to go on. When the councillors met last night, they squabbled and blamed but the fact is that they want $100 million and 100 days to work out what has Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3747

gone wrong. I am saying no and the residents of the Central Coast are saying no. Everybody is saying it is time for them to go. TRIBUTE TO SUSAN RYAN, AO The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (21:59:33): Tonight I pay my respects to the Hon. Susan Ryan, who served with great distinction as a Minister in the Hawke Government. I express my deepest sympathies to Susan's partner, Rory, her children, Justine and Benedict, and her grandson, Amir. My thoughts are also with Susan's many friends and former parliamentary colleagues. Susan Ryan was a giant of the Labor Party movement, a tenacious defender and promoter of women's rights in particular and human rights in general. Susan was a trailblazer: She was the first person in her family to attend university, she was elected by the Australian Capital Territory as one of its first senators in 1975, and in 1983 she became the first female Minister in a Labor government. Susan was a proud and passionate feminist. When she started her active involvement in the Labor movement she also became one of the founders of the Women's Electoral Lobby, a profoundly important organisation in the progressive development of our society. The Hon. Trevor Khan: To this day. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. In 2017 she described her motivation for getting involved in politics. She stated, "I felt from the youngest possible age that it was unfair, intolerable really, that females were regarded as second-class citizens." In 1975 Susan campaigned on those ideals when she ran for a Senate seat under the slogan "A woman's place is in the Senate". At 33 years of age she was elected to the Commonwealth Parliament. Prime Minister Hawke's appointment of Susan as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in 1983, saw her become the first woman in a Federal Labor Cabinet. Susan promptly went to work drafting and ensuring the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984. She said that it was "probably the most useful thing I've done in my life." That legislation is considered one of the most important steps forward for women in our nation's history and was internationally recognised as a pre-eminent and comprehensive legislative framework. Speaking as a lawyer, I think it was also a profound development in the law of anti-discrimination and in ensuring greater equality for women across Australia. The passage of the bill was no easy feat; there was a great deal of opposition within the Parliament and, of course, from parts of the community. Susan relentlessly fought for what are now considered basic rights and protections by society; however, at the time they were profound and, to some people, dangerous changes. Prior to Susan's groundbreaking legislation, it was legal to discriminate against an individual on the basis of their sex. Women could be fired due to their marital status, age or for being pregnant, and maternity leave was scarce. While those things are not perfectly remedied in our society, they are much better today than they were before because of Susan's achievements. Women were refused finance and loans—securing them was only possible with the help of a husband or father—and landlords were within their rights to refuse rental properties to single mothers. Women were prevented from securing opportunities in workplaces, and access to education was often obstructed. Susan did what she could to address those issues. Susan followed that legislation with the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, which ensured that women were able to be recruited, trained and promoted on an equal basis with men. It required large employers to remove discriminatory measures to ensure women were judged on their merits for employment. Both Acts were significant achievements and have changed our society for the better. Susan was an outstanding education Minister with many groundbreaking achievements. Only three in 10 Australians completed year 12 when she first took office; her measures lifted that to nine in 10, and she was responsible for doubling the number of girls who completed high school. She ensured further schools were built for Indigenous children and created over 36,000 tertiary education places. After politics Susan continued to excel in her dedication to improve the lives of Australians. Her roles included the Age Discrimination Commissioner, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Pro-chancellor of the University of New South Wales, President of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the CEO of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. Susan served as a mentor to many within the Labor movement, particularly young women. Her legacy as a bold and courageous champion for women's rights will continue to inspire generations of Labor women who will follow in her footsteps. Of course, she inspired many, not only women, and I count myself among those who were inspired by her work to enter politics to try to achieve some measure of progress for our society. Her contribution to public life has had an immeasurable and beneficial impact on Australia. As both a highly skilled legislator and reformer, Susan was able to bring forward profound changes to Australian society that transformed the fabric of our nation for the better. She will be deeply missed. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3748

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION) 2019 The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (22:04:28): The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has been following the life and times of the State Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP] (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 closely since its midnight passing late last year. The party's interest in it differs to most. While most, particularly those in the media, are using this policy to illustrate the splintered nature of the Coalition, our interest lies in the damage that this policy has done to farmers, businesses and property owners across the State, without any input— parliamentary or otherwise—into its application. Part of the damage has been done through the science that underpins the new koala SEPP, which commenced operation on 1 March 2020. One is a document referred to as A review of koala tree use across New South Wales, dated 24 July 2018, published by the Office of Environment and Heritage. The review identified evidence of koala use in 137 tree species across New South Wales. In 2019 this list was refined to 123 tree species in the Koala Habitat Information Base Technical Guide, a document published on 13 September 2019 by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. We are told that the 2019 guide offers the best available statewide spatial data on koala habitat, koala preferred trees and koala sightings in New South Wales. There are a number of reasons why this SEPP has been flawed from its inception. However, the mapping has been of particular concern. The two maps used to identify core koala habitat and potential core koala habitat in the 2019 koala SEPP use this spatial data, which is supposed to be the best available. However, jacaranda trees, avocado plantations, individual paddock trees, blueberry plantations and the harbour sides of some of our busiest cities have been identified as core koala habitat based on these maps. That leads the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to think that although it may be the best spatial data available, maybe it is not doing that great a job. We have a problem because this SEPP, which has been around since March using a broken instrument to guide it, has already rendered many properties damned for owners wanting to develop them. The most recent press release from the so-called "united" Coalition states that the pink development application map will be removed in favour of returning to an on-ground survey method, and the blue site investigation map will be refined and made available to local councils. The science behind the koala SEPP is completely unsound. The spatial data maps prove that. They have already incorrectly mapped hectares of private land as core koala habitat. What recourse is there for these landowners now that one map has been removed and another is being refined? The Nationals launched an anti-Liberal tirade against the koala SEPP in September. The Nationals members' list of demands was long and justified. They demanded that the Government ensures the definition of core koala habitats includes thresholds for koala presence, provides verified records for highly suitable koala habitat, includes only high and significant use koala tree species consistent with the Koala Habitat Information Base Technical Guide, increases the number of core koala trees species from 10 to 39, and provides a clear and reasonable definition of highly suitable koala habitat. The old SEPP required a 30 per cent threshold of tree species. The new SEPP proposes 15 per cent. The Nationals propose a 30 per cent threshold based on the increase of tree species. That is a lot of demands about tree species considering what they settled for. All 123 tree species remain despite the National Party's focus on semantics and chest beating. The Nationals also called for the decoupling of private native forestry from the koala SEPP, and for rural regulated land and agricultural production to come under the land management framework, operating outside the SEPP. True to form, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party gave notice of a motion to introduce a bill entitled Local Land Services Amendment (Land Management and Forestry) Bill 2020 in the last sitting week. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party bill would decouple private native forestry from the SEPP and ensure that land categories were not fiddled around with. It is coincidental—or something along those lines—that we have now been approached by The Nationals members to pull our bill because it just so happens that they have something of the same nature to put forward. For the record, we are not surprised because we were already tipped off by their Liberal colleagues that The Nationals were waiting for us to introduce ours and then they would introduce a watered-down version in the other place to placate Liberal Party members. True to form, that is what has occurred. I like Adam Marshall. I see him as a future leader of The Nationals. He is a good Minister, but he has followed the member for Pittwater's pixie dust up the garden path. At the end of the day it is petty to quibble over whose idea it was first. But I will say it was neither members of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party nor The Nationals who thought of it first. We were all approached with the solution many months ago, before guidelines were approved and signed off on. The Nationals could have done something with it back then, but they chose not to. I go back to the list: local councils must be required to undertake on-ground surveys in areas of proposed core koala habitat on private land and the cost of survey work must be borne by local councils. Putting the cost of appealing a scientifically flawed decision about koalas back on councils, and therefore back on the State Government, was never going to fly and that is why it did not make it onto the press release. The Government Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3749

has made changes to council koala plans of management exhibition time frames and is also introducing clear dispute pathways for landholders. This means that the landholder appealing a decision, off the back of some very bad science, then has to pay an ecologist to dispute the decision on their behalf with no guarantee of success. The final two demands were that councils must amend core koala habitat based on surveyed guidelines and that those guidelines must be consistent with the landholder's. But this is all semantics. All they have done is fiddle with the words. It still needs to make its way through the Executive Council. What needs to be understood is how private landholders can appeal the decision, where can they appeal it and at what cost. It is in this detail that the SEPP does the most damage. It is of utmost importance that we do not continue to let the detail evade us. BALI BOMBINGS ANNIVERSARY The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (22:09:33): The date 12 October is the anniversary of many events, including my birth. It is also the anniversary of Christopher Columbus landing in the Bahamas and the events that followed there, the end of the Salem witch trials, the death of Edith Cavell in 1915 and the bombing of the USS Cole. From the Australian perspective, it is also the anniversary of the 12 October 2002 terrorist attacks known as the Bali bombings, in which 202 lives were tragically lost, including 88 Australians and 38 Indonesians, and more than 200 people were injured. In the aftermath, Australians received tremendous support from the Indonesian people both in terms of treatment and the subsequent investigations and capture of the bombers. The Indonesian chief of police said that the bombings were the worst act of terror—obviously up until that stage— in Indonesia's history and the various Indonesian law enforcement agencies demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication in identifying and capturing most of the orchestrators of the attack. While there are tensions from time to time with Indonesia over a variety of issues, its efforts in identifying the bombers and bringing them to justice is a testament to the strength of the relationship between Indonesia and Australia. I also acknowledge the heroism and dedication of the many Australians who worked tirelessly to assist the many victims and their families after the bombings. Just 17 hours after the blast, the first RAAF flight arrived to evacuate injured Australians and some foreign nationals as well. It was the largest aero-medical evacuation since the Vietnam War, with many of the burns victims being airlifted to Darwin and then transferred to cities like Perth and even Sydney to receive treatment. Then director of burns surgery at Concord Hospital Dr Peter Haertsch described the severity of the burns on some victims as something he had never come across in 22 years of burns surgery and "something you'd only see in a war-like situation". Finally, I pay my respects to the victims of the bombings, their families and friends. The emotional and physical tolls of this tragedy may no longer make news headlines, but they are not to be forgotten. In the context of Mental Health Month, I leave the House with the account of Mr Peter Hughes, who suffered 54 per cent burns as a result of the bombings. He said: It reminded me of a war movie or a horror movie. There was lots of screaming, lots of crying. There was too much, very much [crying], too many [victims] … I have lots of bad dreams, I have lots of flashbacks and lots of anger. I sometimes don't like myself because of the way I look. It's a memory that I will never forget. Members, we should never forget. SMALL BUSINESS WORKERS COMPENSATION The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:13:11): Imagine the grit you must show as a New South Wales small business owner in 2020 confronting the shock of a once-in-a-century pandemic having braved a terrible drought and the worst bushfire season ever. Imagine the sad and difficult conversations you have had to survive: the hard conversation with your landlord, asking them to waive your rent and knowing that if they refuse your doors will shut, never to open again; that meeting with your bank manager and the awkwardness you feel asking for a loan deferral knowing you and your family could be evicted from your home if they say no; or perhaps the hardest conversation of asking a hardworking staff member to see you at the end of the day and then telling them they no longer have a job. It is not your fault; it is not theirs either. But these are the conversations 800,000 small business owners in New South Wales needed to have this year. In October, the month that we honour New South Wales small businesses, I and NSW Labor honour them all—those surviving and those who cannot. This is a small story about ingenious New South Wales small businesses. I remember meeting Hayden and Brodie in May on Zoom. Hayden is a personal trainer. He trained his clients in some gruelling, early morning sessions at the gym Brodie opened in Newcastle in February. When the pandemic hit, Brodie locked down. Despite his bills piling up, he stuck to the rules. To earn some money, Brodie and Hayden started drilling their clients online. But it was not enough. He simply could not cover his costs with online revenue. His gym members wanted to train in the gym they paid for. Brodie was itching to reopen when the worst of COVID-19's first wave was over but he could not get a straight answer about when New South Wales gyms could open again. So Hayden started his first ever political campaign. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3750

He started an online petition and 32,000 people signed in the first week. NSW Labor noticed it, then the media noticed it, then the Government noticed it, then the gyms reopened. Brodie and Hayden survived because they came together and organised. But for them to thrive, it helps to have a government on their side—a government which instead of promising small business grants actually delivers them, a government which does more than issue press releases about payroll tax and land tax relief and actually pays it. New South Wales can have a government like that again soon, one which is not arrogant enough to expect accolades for making promises but is humble enough to actually deliver them. During Small Business Month we on this side affirm that the 800,000 New South Wales small businesses employing 1.6 million people deserve nothing less. After I began to scrutinise wrongdoing at icare, so many employers, doctors, unions and injured workers sent me troubling information about other bad behaviour in the New South Wales workers compensation system. Tonight I wish to tell one story. It is about a medical centre called IMMEX, which trades mostly in western Sydney. IMMEX calls itself a specialist in occupational health and medical practice. On its website it boasts of returning 50 per cent of patients with lower back injuries to pre-injury duties within three weeks. IMMEX's methods are suspect. I have heard many worrying stories about the poor decisions IMMEX makes about its patients—patients like Michelle. Michelle was four months pregnant and worked as a traffic controller on a building site. One day she tripped and injured her ankle, ribs and shoulder. Her boss told her to go and see the doctors at IMMEX. They told Michelle to go back to work and resume light duties because "that is what the builder wants". Two days later Michelle felt extreme pain. She visited an emergency department and after they X-rayed her she learnt she had fractured her ankle and ribs. Her shoulder might have been injured too but the emergency doctors could not tell. They could not X-ray her without harming her baby. Michelle told staff at IMMEX they got it badly wrong. IMMEX apologised. Then IMMEX told her to return to work. Why? Because the builder said so. Michelle refused to risk her health or the health of her baby any further. Her GP took over her care. Michelle will not see IMMEX again. Michelle is not the only patient who IMMEX maltreated. Tupou is a carpenter who was working for a large builder when some plywood hit him in the eye. IMMEX sent him back to work on full duties even though he could not focus and his vision was affected. One week later Tupou was hit in the head with more plywood. He said he did not see it coming towards him. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority needs to investigate IMMEX. Michelle's and Tupou's are not the only two stories I have heard about patients being maltreated and given bad advice by IMMEX. Its habit is seemingly to order workers to return to duties at the behest of employers despite them needing more care. Injured workers deserve much better than that. NSW POLICE FORCE SUSPECT TARGET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:17:53): It is still a crime to be black in a public place in this State. We saw this in the violent arrest of a First Nations boy in Surry Hills earlier this year. We saw it in the death in February 2004 of young TJ Hickey, who died while being pursued by police just a few hundred metres from his home in Redfern. It is a fact that the NSW Police Force has a secret watchlist that it uses to target people, especially First Nations people, so that they can be constantly stopped and searched. First Nations children as young as nine have been placed on that list. Surely that is inexcusable. How could anyone justify that? But that is exactly what the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] did when it released its report seeking to justify the NSW Police Force Suspect Target Management Program [STMP] and its appalling racial bias against First Nations people by reference to alleged modest reductions in property crime. The STMP targets First Nations people at more than 10 times the rate of non-First Nations communities. For kids the over-representation rises to over 20 times. It is part of the police commissioner's publicly stated plan to make us all a little bit fearful of the police, and it has no basis in legislation. The BOCSAR study used a limited data set with no control group and a study cohort that had an inevitable and powerful selection bias that it failed to correct. The report also failed to consider the large body of evidence that shows how early involvement in the criminal justice system has lifelong negative impacts on First Nations peoples. This is a racially biased program that is aimed directly at them. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission's analysis in February 2020 showed patterns of targeting that appear to have led to "unreasonable, unjust and oppressive interactions for young STMP targets". Analysis from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre shows a high proportion of young people—72 per cent of the cohort—whom the NSW Police Force had identified as possibly First Nations or Torres Strait Islander were selected for STMP targeting. Just today a series of prominent justice advocates have delivered stinging statements about STMP. Camilla Pandolfini from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said: We continue to have serious concerns about the lawfulness of the STMP proactive policing measures, particularly seemingly arbitrary "home visits" and searches that may be conducted without reasonable suspicion. Tuesday, 13 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 3751

Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Service, said: The STMP is a deeply invasive policy which disproportionately targets Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal kids and erodes the relationship between the public and law enforcement. … We should be supporting kids to thrive in community and culture. The use of the STMP for kids under the age of 18 should immediately cease. Just Reinvest NSW youth ambassador Isaiah Sines and Weave's Creating Futures program manager, Daniel Daylight, said: Being targeted by the police is not something any young person should have to face. Our young people need support not surveillance … When you cannot walk down the street without getting harassed it affects your mental health and makes you feel like the world is against you. Sarah Hopkins, the co-chair of Just Reinvest NSW, said: The relationship between Police and the Aboriginal community needs to be reset. Proactive and punitive policing practices that disproportionately target Aboriginal young people are having a traumatising impact on communities. Dr Vicki Sentas from the University of New South Wales law faculty, who has written on this issue, said: The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] study doesn't tell us about the long term effects on different types of offending or the effects on individuals, especially on children, young people and First Nations which we know can be devastating. Constant police intervention, erosion of fundamental legal rights and oppressive surveillance is not the way to address the causes of offending in a liberal democracy. Lastly Samantha Lee, a solicitor at Redfern Legal Centre, said: What we really want to see is for those under the age of 18 to be removed from this aggressive policing program, which entrenches young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into the criminal justice system. It is time to respect, resource and empower First Nations communities, not to police and imprison them. In short, it is time to end the STMP. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Taylor Martin): The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 22:22 until Wednesday 14 October 2020 at 10:00.