Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 22 June 2021

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. Matthew Ryan Mason-Cox) 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.

Bills MANDATORY DISEASE TESTING BILL 2020 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION AMENDMENT (COMMISSIONERS) BILL 2021 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bills. Announcements CHAMBER SOCIAL DISTANCING The PRESIDENT (14:32): I advise the House of arrangements in place for COVID-safe sittings this week. I draw the attention of members to the arrangements for social distancing in the Chamber and request their cooperation in that regard. Additional cleaning will take place during each break and frequent hand sanitising is encouraged. The air conditioning will maximise the airflow through the Chamber and utilise 100 per cent fresh air. This may result in the Chamber feeling cooler than usual. Documents LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016, I table the supplementary report of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission entitled The Child Protection Register: Operation Tusket, dated June 2021, received out of session and authorised to be made public this day. The Hon. : I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, I table the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption entitled Investigation into the regulation of lobbying, access and influence in NSW, dated June 2021, received out of session and authorised to be made public this day. The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 2

Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: I table the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled Legislation Review Digest No. 32/57, dated 22 June 2021. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. : I table report No. 49 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 22 June 2021. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: According to paragraph 4 (1) of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee, I move: That the following bills not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report, this day: (a) Families, Communities and Disability Services Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2021; (b) Motor Accidents and Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; (c) Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Vilification) Bill 2021; (d) Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; (e) Rock Fishing Safety Amendment Bill 2021; (f) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021; (g) Appropriations (Parliament) Bill 2021; (h) Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Bill 2021; (i) Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure Contributions) Bill 2021; and (j) NSW Generations Funds Amendment Bill 2021. Motion agreed to. Documents AUDITOR-GENERAL Reports The CLERK: According to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of the following reports: (1) Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled WestConnex: changes since 2014, dated 17 June 2021, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 17 June 2021. (2) Financial Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled Universities 2020 audits, dated 18 June 2021, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 18 June 2021. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Government Response: The Use of Exotic Animals in Circuses and Exhibition of Cetaceans in New South Wales The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government response to report No. 46 of Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry entitled The use of exotic animals in circuses and exhibition of cetaceans in New South Wales, tabled on 14 December 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 15 June 2021. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 3

Documents INSURANCE AND CARE NSW Further Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table additional documents relating to a further order for papers regarding the administration of Insurance and Care NSW, received on 11 June 2021 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents received on 11 June 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. BUYING IN NSW, BUILDING A FUTURE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding the consultation paper entitled Buying in NSW, Building a Future, received on 11 June 2021 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 those of the documents received on 11 June 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. EASTLAKES SHOPPING CENTRE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Eastlakes Shopping Centre modification, received on 11 June 2021 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents received on 11 June 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 12 May 2021, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding jobs created by the COVID-19 Recovery Plan, received on 16 June 2021 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. WATER MODELLING Further Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 9 June 2021, I table documents relating to a further order for papers regarding water modelling, received on 16 June 2021 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. SYDNEY METRO WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT PROJECT Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 24 March 2021, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport Project, received on 16 June 2021 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 4

SNOWY VALLEYS COUNCIL AND COOTAMUNDRA-GUNDAGAI REGIONAL COUNCIL DEMERGER Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 9 June 2021, I table correspondence relating to a further order for papers regarding demerger proposals for both the Snowy Valleys Council and the Cootamundra Gundagai Regional Council, received on 16 June 2021, from the Chairperson of the Local Government Boundaries Commission seeking an extension to the return date. Further Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 9 June 2021, I table additional documents relating to a further order for papers regarding demerger proposals for both the Snowy Valley Council and the Cootamundra Gundagai Regional Council, received on 21 June 2021, from the Chairperson of the Local Government Boundaries Commission, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on 21 June 2021 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. CORE INTEGRITY Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Core Integrity, received on 17 June 2021 from the office of the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, forwarding correspondence from the Department of Customer Service requesting that a non-privileged document be made privileged and be replaced with a redacted version provided. According to the request, the original document has been classified as a privileged document and the redacted version made public. Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Core Integrity, received this day from the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. REVENUE NSW Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 10 June 2021, I table correspondence relating to the disputed claim of privilege regarding Revenue NSW investigations, received on 17 June 2021 from the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, forwarding correspondence from Revenue NSW advising that, in view of the volume of documents involved, a response to the resolution of the House will be provided by 23 June 2021. NARRANDERA TO TOCUMWAL RAIL LINE REOPENING FEASIBILITY STUDY Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged The CLERK: According to paragraph (1) (b) of the resolution of the House of Thursday 10 June 2021, I table redacted documents received on 17 June 2021 from the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 24 March 2021, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to Narrandera to Tocumwal Rail Line reopening feasibility study. Petitions RESPONSES TO PETITIONS The CLERK: According to sessional order, I table the following responses to petitions signed by more than 500 persons: (1) Government response from the Hon. John Barilaro, MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade, to a petition presented by Mr on 13 May 2021 concerning Forestry Corporation logging in Kalang Headwaters, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 17 June 2021. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 5

(2) Government response from the Hon. John Barilaro, MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade, to a petition presented by Mr David Shoebridge on 13 May 2021 concerning Kalang Headwater Forests and Logging, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 17 June 2021. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until Thursday 24 June 2021. Motion agreed to. Ms : I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 2 be postponed until Tuesday 10 August 2021. Motion agreed to. The Hon. : On behalf of the Hon. : I move: That business of the House notices of motions Nos 3 and 4 be postponed until Thursday 24 June 2021. Motion agreed to. The Hon. : On behalf of the Hon. Don Harwin: I move: That Government business notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That Government business orders of the day Nos 1 to 7 be postponed until a later hour. Motion agreed to. Presiding Officers TEMPORARY CHAIRS OF COMMITTEES The PRESIDENT: According to Standing Order 18, I nominate the Hon. Catherine Cusack to act as a Temporary Chair of Committees during the present session of Parliament. Committees SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 16 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising the following change to membership: Mr Mallard in place of Mrs Maclaren-Jones. Mrs Maclaren-Jones in place of Mr Martin. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 16 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising the following change to membership: Mr Poulos in place of Mrs Ward. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 16 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising the following change to membership: Mr Farlow in place of Mrs Ward. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 6

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 16 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising the following change to membership: Mr Farlow in place of Mrs Ward. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 5 - LEGAL AFFAIRS Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 16 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising the following change to membership: Mr Martin in place of Mrs Ward. SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Chair The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, according to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 8 May 2019, Mr Mallard, as Government Whip, is Chair of the Selection of Bills Committee. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Chair The PRESIDENT: I further inform the House that the Leader of the Government has nominated Mr Poulos as Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 21 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition advising the following change to membership: Mr Primrose in place of Ms Jackson. Mr Buttigieg in place of Mr Mookhey. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 1 - PREMIER AND FINANCE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 21 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition advising the following change to membership: Ms Sharpe in place of Mr Searle. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 5 - LEGAL AFFAIRS Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 21 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition advising the following change to membership: Mr Searle in place of Ms Jackson. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 21 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition advising the following change to membership: Ms Jackson in place of Mr Buttigieg. SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE GREYHOUND WELFARE AND INTEGRITY COMMISSION Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 21 June 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition advising the following change to membership: Ms Houssos in place of Mr Secord. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 7

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Deputy Chair The PRESIDENT: I further inform the House that the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition nominating Mr Buttigieg as Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Message The PRESIDENT: I also report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly: MR PRESIDENT The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution: That: (1) Pursuant to section 6 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, Robyn Anne Preston be appointed to serve on the Legislation Review Committee in place of Felicity Leslie Wilson. (2) A message be sent informing the Legislative Council. Legislative Assembly JONATHAN O'DEA 22 June 2021 Speaker PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Extension of Reporting Date Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: According to paragraph (6) of the resolution of the House establishing the portfolio committees, I inform the House that on Friday 11 June 2021 Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment resolved to extend the reporting date for its inquiry into the health and wellbeing of kangaroos and other macropods in New South Wales to Thursday 14 October 2021. Members SENIORITY OF MINISTERS The Hon. DON HARWIN: I inform the House that on Tuesday 15 June 2021 the Premier approved the following changes to the seniority of Ministers of the State: The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, MP Premier The Hon. (John) Giovanni Domenic Barilaro, MP Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade The Hon. Dominic Francis Perrottet, MP Treasurer The Hon. Paul Lawrence Toole, MP Minister for Regional Transport and Roads The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin, MLC Special Minister of State, Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, and Vice- President of the Executive Council, Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council The Hon. Mark Raymond Speakman, SC, MP Attorney General, and Minister for Prevention of Domestic and Sexual Violence Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly The Hon. Damien Francis Tudehope, MLC Minister for Finance and Small Business Leader of the House in the Legislative Council The Hon. Bradley Ronald Hazzard, MP Minister for Health and Medical Research The Hon. Robert Gordon Stokes, MP Minister for Planning and Public Spaces The Hon. Victor Michael Dominello, MP Minister for Customer Service, and Minister for Digital The Hon. Andrew James Constance, MP Minister for Transport and Roads The Hon. , MLC Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 8

The Hon. David Andrew Elliott, MP Minister for Police and Emergency Services The Hon. Melinda Jane Pavey, MP Minister for Water, Property and Housing The Hon. Stuart Laurence Ayres, MP Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney The Hon. Matthew John Kean, MP Minister for Energy and Environment The Hon. Adam John Marshall, MP Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales The Hon. Anthony John Roberts, MP Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock, MP Minister for Local Government The Hon. Kevin John Anderson, MP Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation The Hon. Dr Geoffrey Lee, MP Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education The Hon. Bronwyn Taylor, MLC Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women The Hon. Natalie Peta Ward, MLC Minister for Sport, Multiculturalism, Seniors and Veterans The Hon. Alister Andrew Henskens, SC, MP Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services Budget BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS 2021-2022 The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (15:27): I table the following budget estimates and related papers for the financial year 2021-2022: (1) Budget Paper No. 1—Budget Statement 2021-2022 (2) Budget Paper No. 2—Outcomes Statement 2021-2022 (3) Budget Paper No. 3—Infrastructure Statement 2021-2022 (4) Budget Paper No. 4—Agency Financial Statements 2021-2022 I move: That the documents be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DON HARWIN: I seek leave to move a motion forthwith to take note of the budget estimates and related papers for the financial year 2021-2022. Leave granted. The Hon. DON HARWIN: By leave: I move: That the House take note of the budget estimates and related papers for the financial year 2021-2022. I seek leave to have the Treasurer's Budget Speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FUTURE A COVID response ten years in the making NSW is back. From the deepest recession in our lifetime, we are back to growth, and back on track. And it is no accident. Ten years ago we imagined a better future for our State. In our first budget, Treasurer Mike Baird, observed: Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 9

Governments that lose control of their Budgets lose control of their destiny… [and they] have few options available when external shocks emerge. He was reflecting on the Budget inherited from NSW Labor: black holes, backlogs, an economy in the slow lane on the road to nowhere. The first Baird budget was a statement of intent. The last 10 years have been a decade of delivery: O'Farrell, Baird, Berejiklian. Before the pandemic hit, NSW was the only State to grow above its long run average. 643,000 jobs were added. Unemployment reached the lowest rate since records began. $150 billion in infrastructure built—the biggest build since Federation. Net worth up by more than 40 per cent. More than 160 new and upgraded schools delivered. And $140 billion invested in education for the children of NSW. We reimagined government services and pioneered a digital revolution. And in the decade before a brutal pandemic, the NSW Liberals and Nationals built the best public health system in the country. We took back control of the Budget and reclaimed control of our destiny. So when the biggest external shock in a generation hit, we didn't just have options: we unleashed the most successful health and economic response of any State, underpinned by a world-leading COVID-digital platform. Our health system set the bar—and kept raising it—with gold-standard testing, tracing, quarantine, and now vaccination to keep our people safe. Our economic stimulus worked. It has kept people in jobs and businesses in business. None of it came easy. Our State has been more exposed to a fast evolving virus, accepting more returning travellers than any of the other States and Territories combined. Yet we have kept our borders more open and our way of life more free. Our pandemic response—and the decade that enabled it—is the fruit of our values. We believe in the people of this State—in letting them thrive and getting government out of the way. Our job is to be disciplined in the good times, so we are ready to weather the hard times. To imagine a better future, and do the hard work to make it possible. The values that have served us well so far are the same values that underpin this Budget. Today we say to the people of NSW that we will take this State from recovery to reform for your family and for your future. And we will do that in three ways. We will keep NSW safe and accelerate our recovery. We will invest in our people. And we will transform our State for a brighter future. But before I address those three core objectives, I will first update the House on the State's economic and fiscal position. The economy has rebounded Mr Speaker, keeping the economy open has made NSW the confidence capital of Australia. Consumer confidence in NSW is well above every other State and Territory, and business confidence reached its highest level since records began. Confidence is back because we kept calm and carried on. NSW is open for business. And today this approach is paying dividends. Between the June quarter of last year and the March quarter of this year, State Final Demand grew 11.5 per cent. Consumer spending rebounded 15 per cent. Dwelling investment is up 18 per cent. Economic activity is back above pre-COVID levels. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 10

And that all adds up to more jobs for our people. The unemployment rate has fallen from 7.1 per cent in July last year, to 5.0 per cent in May—that is two full years faster than forecast. And I am pleased to inform the House that not only have we recovered all of the 270,000 jobs lost to the pandemic—we have added 36,000 more. This is a strong start, but we must go further still. Our ultimate goal is to lift the wages and living standards of our people. And the only way to do that is to drive unemployment down even further and create more competition in the market. We have done it before, and our economic policies will work to do it again. The deficit has halved Economic strength means stronger finances too. GST and transfer duty revenues are up $6.4 billion and $1.4 billion respectively, over the forward estimates. Even with payroll tax cuts and deferrals, the jobs rebound has improved payroll tax to $1.2 billion above previous forecasts. We promised to put jobs before the Budget, and because we did, both have benefited. Last year we forecast an operating deficit of $16 billion for 2020-21. That has halved to $7.9 billion. For the coming financial year, we forecast a deficit of $8.6 billion. An increase from $6.8 billion that reflects our decision to protect the safety of our citizens and further stimulate our economy. Over the four years to 2023-24, our net operating result from last year's Budget has improved by more than $6.8 billion. And we forecast a surplus of $466 million in 2024-25. These numbers reflect our progress, but the future is volatile, and we will be ready. Keeping NSW safe, accelerating our recovery Keeping NSW safe Now let me turn to this Budget's three core objectives. The first core objective is to keep our people safe and accelerate our recovery. We will continue to push the pace to vaccinate our State with more than $260 million for the rollout. And with a further $796 million we will keep up our gold-standard COVID defence, bringing our total commitment for the COVID health response to more than $4 billion. Our goal has always been to lock down the virus, not to lock down the State. This COVID-safe funding is part of a record $120 billion investment in health over the next four years. Two thirds of our 46 new and upgraded hospitals and health facilities are being delivered in our regions—part of a $30 billion investment in regional health. We will employ almost 1,800 more nurses, midwives, doctors and allied health staff in the year ahead. And today I can announce we will upskill 246 paramedics for intensive care service as part of a $214 million boost to NSW Ambulance, including a new, state-of-the-art operations centre. This Budget also builds on last year's investment in better mental health, taking this year's total to $2.6 billion. We will create 25 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Crisis Teams, and establish 57 mental health Response and Recovery Specialists in regional and rural communities. Among other important benefits, these investments will help us combat the tragedy of youth suicide. We will take Australia's best public health services rapidly into the digital future, increasing expenditure on Digital Health to over $500 million over four years, and continue to develop opportunities for Virtual Care and Telehealth. Strong public health has been the foundation of our recovery. But NSW also had a secret weapon: a digital government platform light-years ahead of the competition. Today I can announce an additional $500 million for the Digital Restart Fund to expand digital services, so they are there whenever you need them, wherever you are. That takes our investment to transform digital services for our citizens to $2.1 billion. Accelerating our recovery This Budget creates jobs and locks in a strong recovery. More than 100 support programs and almost 200 capital projects have boosted our rebound, from tax relief to training and supporting thousands of jobs. This Budget winds back stimulus where it is no longer needed, and redirects support for maximum impact. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 11

Almost 9 million Dine and Discover vouchers have been redeemed, and we have extended that program, which has injected over a third of a billion dollars into 12,500 businesses across the State. Our accommodation sector support program kicks off in July. And we'll offer $100 to spend on Fridays in the city to stimulate recovery for small businesses. Our construction stimulus provides the biggest economic bang for buck. Last year's Budget injected $3 billion for construction stimulus. This year, our big build gets bigger. $3.3 billion for 44 new and upgraded schools—the biggest State school building program in our country's history. $1.15 billion to start building the new Bradfield City Centre—home of our second airport. More than $360 million for social housing just in the next financial year—part of an $812 million investment delivering more than 800 new homes and upgrades to 16,500 more. $2.7 billion for the M6 Extension Stage 1. $2 billion for the Great Western Highway Upgrade. $1.3 billion for the Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital and Community Health Services Redevelopment. This takes our four-year infrastructure program to a record $108.5 billion. And we will continue our successful asset recycling program—including the sale of our remaining share of WestConnex—to keep funding State-building projects for a stronger NSW. And we will progress planning for a major urban renewal of Newcastle's Hunter Park, to deliver sporting and entertainment facilities and new homes. Today I can also announce further local stimulus to boost the Community Building Partnership program by $100,000 per electorate each year for the next two years. This will enrich our local communities, while supporting jobs and local businesses. The bonds of community are forged at local sports grounds and they should benefit from investment so everyone can access them. So today I can announce $200 million to make access to local sporting facilities more equitable—delivering more women's change rooms, as well as funding upgrades to equipment like playing surfaces and lighting. These investments add to the wave of transformative projects already underway. Three new metro lines, WestConnex, and major road safety upgrades across the State. There is new funding for planning works on Henry Lawson Drive Stage 1B and Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2. We call it a pipeline, but it has been more like a lifeline. Years in the planning, priceless in a crisis. Reinforcing the finances Mr Speaker, the next order of business is reinforcing the finances. Last year, we forecast net debt would reach $104.3 billion by June 2024. That position has improved by $10 billion. Net debt is forecast to peak at 13.7 per cent of GSP in 2024-25. And all the while we remain committed to reducing net debt to 7 per cent of GSP by 2030. We will methodically and responsibly restore our State's finances, with ongoing savings through procurement reform and efficiencies across the sector. Long before COVID-19, we set up the NSW Generations Fund: Australia's first sub-sovereign debt retirement fund, to safeguard future generations from unsustainable debt. This Fund has achieved extraordinary growth, forecast to reach more than $90 billion over the next decade. And today we will strengthen the Fund's transparency and accountability with new legislation, so any future government that wants to draw-down on these funds must report it to Parliament—and be held to account. A great place to visit, a great place to live Border closures have hurt thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on tourism. But our endurance through COVID—and our strong recovery—have set off a groundswell of pride in the Premier State. This Budget invests to harness that pride. We will make Australia's premier global city a thriving 24-hour metropolis. We will put NSW in pole position to win major international events and blockbuster exhibitions. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 12

We will invest $60 million to support more cultural experiences in Greater Sydney and the regions. And $80 million to create multi-day walking experiences, as part of a record $9.5 billion environment budget over the next four years. We will transform the old Powerhouse Museum and reimagine the Registrar General's Building on Macquarie St—part of a new cultural ribbon that celebrates our history. And our Blue Plaques will elevate the places and people who have made our State great. Mr Speaker, politics can be divisive. But if there is one belief that can unite us all, it's that the Cahill Expressway is the greatest act of vandalism ever inflicted on our beautiful Harbour. So, as we can't get rid of it—yet—for an entire week over New Years, we will reclaim it for the people, and that is a start. A highline experience above Circular Quay in the lead up to the Sydney Festival, as we dare to imagine what our future Harbour could look like. And we will afford pride of place on the Harbour Highline to the front-line responders who have done NSW so proud. A strong future for our regions This Budget continues to rev-up our regions. The $100 million Regional Job Creation Fund will keep restoring jobs lost to the pandemic. A new drug court in Dubbo will help offenders get healthy and fight the scourge of ice in the west. There's $50 million for regional tourism and events. And we're upgrading country race tracks, to make regional racing great again; investing to keep communities at the cutting edge of ag-tech; and creating future jobs and industries, with over $460 million in funding for regional Special Activation and Regional Job Precincts. Welcome rain has put an end to the drought, but the pain is not forgotten. Outside Dubbo last week, one of our Central West sheep farmers told me he'd spent $400,000 just to feed his stock when the grass wouldn't grow. At the time his old shearing shed was on its last legs—100 years old, unsafe, and in need of an upgrade. Borrowing more from the bank wasn't feasible. But then he secured a low interest loan from our $1 billion Farm Innovation Fund, and it gave his business a new lease on life. He turned the old shed into storage and built a new one for shearing. And the local builders who built it told him 60 per cent of their work was coming from Farm Innovation Fund projects. They had 90 people on the books, and sourced their materials from local suppliers. That is the impact our investments are making - rippling through communities, helping farmers stay afloat, and supporting local jobs and businesses right across our regions. The drought may be over, but the next one is never far away. So this Budget invests to continue the Deputy Premier's important work helping farmers build resilience to drought, through Farms of the Future. Today I can also announce $719 million to complete the upgrade of our critical communications network - to guarantee radio coverage for first responders right across the State. And we will invest $268 million in response to the Bushfire Inquiry. This frontline funding for our brave men and women will protect property and save lives. Investing in our people This Budget's second core objective is investing in our people. Higher wages, lower taxes The pandemic has forced all governments to borrow more. But while other states resort to lower wages and higher taxes, we will do the opposite. In 10 years we have delivered $9.4 billion in tax relief. We've almost doubled the payroll tax threshold from $689,000 to $1.2 million, and cut the headline rate to the equal-lowest in the nation. It has saved thousands of businesses tens of thousands of dollars, and many more pay no payroll tax at all. But at the last election Labor promised to scrap our tax cuts, threatening businesses and farmers with higher taxes for creating jobs. Labor's taxes are bad enough in good times, but in a pandemic they would have been devastating. On this side of the House, we believe in lowering the tax burden. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 13

And in this Budget we are providing a further $200 million in tax relief, while at the same time lifting wages higher. Last year we took the difficult but necessary decision to constrain public sector pay rises. But with recovery well underway, from 1 July our new Wages Policy will offer increases up to 2.5 per cent for NSW public servants. And we will provide for even higher wages where productivity and employee expense savings are made. This is a $2.7 billion vote of confidence in our public sector workers, and a return to the steady wage growth that has lifted public sector wages in NSW by 27 per cent over the last 10 years. Meeting families where they are The understands the pressures families face just to get by, let alone get ahead. Now, we can't increase wages in the private sector. But we can continue to bring down the cost of living and improve our quality of life. For the past 10 years we have kept finding ways for families to save. A $50 weekly Opal cap. Cut price travel for seniors and pensioners. Green slip reforms delivering $60 dollars in average savings. Free rego for regular toll users. Free pre-school. Free TAFE courses. Free dental checkups. Rent subsidies. And tens of thousands in stamp duty savings for first home owners. In 2018 we introduced Active Kids, and the following year we doubled it. We introduced Creative Kids and families have flocked to get involved. These are just a handful of the 130 rebates and savings available to the people of NSW. And we've made it easier to find them through our Cost of Living program at Service NSW. The average saving for people who have made an appointment is $600. In this Budget we are providing even more support. We will continue to fund two days of free pre-schooling per week for the 2022 school year, extend the Regional Seniors Transport Card, and offer energy rebates saving households an average of more than $300 a year. We believe all children should have access to swimming and water safety education. But we also know many families can't afford the lessons. Today we announce $100 in support for every pre-school child aged 3 to 6 to learn to swim. It will save families money, and it will save lives. This Budget offers more cost of living support than any state budget in the history of our nation, with $470 million in new measures, and total savings of over $6 billion available for individuals and families in 2021-22. We want a new generation to understand that making the right financial choices will safeguard them from challenges ahead and set them up to chase their dreams. From Tommy in kindergarten to Gina in her teens, the NSW Treasurer's Financial Literacy Challenge—introduced in this Budget— will empower the children of NSW with lifelong skills and habits that lead to a secure financial future. More social support This Budget provides extra support to help those most in need. The Together Home Program has already helped over 400 rough sleepers find safe and secure accommodation. We are expanding it because it works, funding a further 250 wraparound service packages and 100 new homes. We will fund a dedicated guardianship and adoption taskforce, so more children in out-of-home care can find a loving and permanent family home. We will redouble our efforts to eliminate domestic and family violence, with an additional $94 million to support victims and their children so they aren't forced from their homes. $30 million in social impact investments will provide pathways out of disadvantage for women and Indigenous youth. And $4.9 million will enable St Vincent De Paul to provide crisis accommodation, so that women who have fled violent relationships have a safe place to stay. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 14

More than 100,000 women suffer miscarriage in Australia every year. If they need time off work, they have to access sick leave or holiday leave. This is not acceptable. Having a miscarriage is not an illness - it's a loss that should be recognised. As the largest employer in the State, the NSW Government will, for the first time, offer 5 days of leave for women who suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth. We are also increasing support for women in the NSW public service whose babies are born premature. Colette and Colman O'Driscoll were both employed in public service, when their son Rory was born at just 685 grams at 28 weeks at the Royal Hospital for Women. And they spent the next 13 weeks in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit watching their son fight for his life. But Colette's maternity leave started the moment Rory was born. So what should have been a time of joy with her son was consumed with the stress of hoping he'd survive, while worrying about having to return to work earlier than planned. Premature babies need acute care, and that time should not come out of parental leave. That's why—starting in July—our Government will offer additional premature-birth leave for NSW public sector employees, so parental leave will not start until the day the baby would have reached full term. Empowering Aboriginal communities When funding gets outcomes, governments should keep investing. This Budget invests in our State's Aboriginal communities, to close the gap and celebrate culture. Two years ago we piloted the Roads to Home program, creating jobs in remote communities to build the local infrastructure they need. The program has been a success, driving employment and improving quality of life. In this Budget we are expanding it to ten more communities, and we will keep working to roll the program out across NSW. We will build 250 new Aboriginal Housing dwellings, and upgrade 7,000 more. And we're investing in Aboriginal cultural and tourist attractions in the Hunter Valley, Coffs Harbour and Birubi Point, so that local businesses can continue to thrive, creating prosperity and opportunity for current and future generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Honouring the dignity of our most vulnerable citizens A healthy society does not allow its most vulnerable members to feel they are a burden. As our population ages, all of us will have to dig deeper for the elderly and those suffering terminal illness. NSW has led the nation in investing in palliative care. In this Budget, we build on those efforts with another $82 million to strengthen services and honour the dignity of our elderly and dying citizens. One chronic illness increasing in prevalence is Parkinson's Disease. I was deeply moved to hear the former Deputy Premier of NSW, John Watkins, share his own experience right here in Parliament. John spoke of a disease that has mercilessly attacked his physical and mental health, robbing him of everything from his career to his balance. At the heart of this Budget we acknowledge the suffering of people with movement disorders And we will invest $8.6 million in additional funding for more specialist nurses and better community care, including $650,000 to support the valuable work of Parkinson's NSW. Transforming our State This Budget's third core objective is transforming our State. A call to arms In the long run, governments should not be judged on how well they have recovered from the COVID pandemic, but by what they have done to imagine what comes next—and make it a reality. The Intergenerational Report lays out the challenges our children will face. Our population will age, expenses will rise. By 2061, 40 per cent of revenue would need to be spent just to cover the interest on public debt—a crippling burden on our children and grandchildren. Governments of tomorrow would face harrowing choices: cutting health, cutting education, cutting services. Make no mistake: this is a call to arms. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 15

What sets NSW apart from every other State—and the Commonwealth—is that we are not just focused on today, we are focused on the future. Productivity is everything The key is productivity. Lifting productivity means the people of our State get more value for their efforts and more reward for their hard work. Higher productivity means higher wages, better jobs, better services and more freedom. But since the Hawke, Keating and Howard Governments, productivity reform has virtually stopped. It takes imagination to build a better future. And long before any pandemic, this Government saw the future coming. In 2018 we appointed the first NSW Productivity Commissioner, and we've acted on advice to get the ball rolling. We're advancing reforms to deliver a more streamlined planning system, to get more houses built faster and more affordably. We're piloting flexible pathways into trades, especially for women and older citizens. And we've legislated for the automatic recognition of interstate licences—because Australia should be a nation of trades without borders. But we're not stopping there. Last month the Commissioner released his first White Paper. There are 60 recommendations, and we did not commission them to gather dust on a shelf. Every 6 months I will give an update to parliament on how we are progressing. Legislation will make a steady march through this House, and every member's vote will hold them to account. Because we all have a responsibility to rise above the politics of the day, to do what is right for our State and our people. This Budget continues our nation-leading productivity agenda, starting with education. The most valuable policy we can pursue is lifting education standards for our children. This Budget invests a record $20.5 billion in the NSW education system. But improving education is about more than just money. We must be willing to do things differently. So we are reforming the curriculum, and changing the way teachers can enter the profession, to attract the highest quality teachers and enrich the learning experience for our children. This includes $2.9 million for Alphacrucis College to bring high achievers into teaching, especially in regional NSW. And this Budget supports a landmark pilot, with certain school communities trialling alternative school hours, to better fit the busy lives of mums and dads. If the pandemic has enabled us to live and work more flexibly, governments must be more flexible too. Education is just the start of our productivity agenda. We're implementing the Gonski-Shergold Review, to embed skills training in high-schools. We'll pilot Institutes of Applied Technology in Kingswood and Meadowbank, bringing industry and training together to fast track our young people into high quality careers. We're funding new research to develop emerging industries like advanced manufacturing. We'll launch Careers NSW - part of an unprecedented $2.9 billion skills budget to help our young people get the skills they need for the jobs they want. Today we introduce legislation to reform infrastructure contributions, and it will unlock housing supply faster and more efficiently, and make homes more available and affordable. We're progressing our property tax proposal, because we know housing affordability is the challenge of a generation, and we want young people to get a foot in the door. We're legislating today to stamp out stamp duty on electric vehicles, for a greener future, where stamp duty on all cars will be a thing of the past. We're setting up a better system for funding our roads, establishing a road user charge on electric vehicles but only once they reach a critical mass, so we're driving takeup, not impeding it. We're implementing the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, to provide reliable, affordable energy for generations to come. And we're driving a manufacturing renaissance right here in NSW, supporting local production of new technologies like batteries, electric buses and renewables. And our economy of the future is taking shape before our eyes in innovation precincts, bringing together research, investment, innovation and industrial might - in which vision and imagination lead to new jobs, new products, new markets, greater prosperity, for an economic future Made in NSW. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 16

Another decade of delivery These are the foundations of a future that will be brighter if we dare to do things differently. For a decade we have kept the State's finances secure and the economy strong. We invested to build the best services in the nation, laying the groundwork for our pandemic response. That has fuelled confidence, spurred our recovery, ignited our economy and boosted our finances. And as we look to the future, we do so from a position of strength, in control of our Budget and in control of our destiny. This Budget keeps NSW safe, and accelerates our recovery. It invests in our people. And it transforms our State. Today, other governments are raising taxes and cutting wages, sacrificing growth to save their Budgets. In NSW we do not have to make that choice. The future we imagine is not built on austerity. This is a Budget for our future prosperity. Another decade of delivery has already begun. And this Budget gets NSW dressed for success. I commend the Budget to the House. YOUR FAMILY, YOUR future Debate adjourned. Bills ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS) BILL 2021 Second Reading Debate Debate resumed from 10 June 2021. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (15:30): On behalf of the Opposition I lead in debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition does not oppose this bill. The bill proposes amendments to facilitate the upcoming local government elections in September 2021. As the Minister has indicated to the House, the bill makes a range of key amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 which were requested by the Electoral Commissioner. By and large, the Opposition regards these as commonsense amendments. The bill contains several measures to clarify the intended operation of the Local Government Act 1993 where local government elections were postponed from September 2020 to ensure that the commission is in a position, in its view, to conduct COVID-safe elections. New section 296 (2) of the amendment bill provides that if councils entered into arrangements with the Electoral Commissioner prior to postponement the Electoral Commissioner is to administer the election of the council in September 2021 in accordance with the existing agreement. There are new time-limited provisions. I think the time-limited nature of these provisions is particularly important to the Opposition's position on the bill. These provisions give the commissioner the flexibility to conduct COVID-safe elections in September 2021. New section 296C will operate to allow the commissioner to publish COVID-safe election rules based on applicable public health orders concerning relevant health recommendations made by NSW Health on the holding of public events during the COVID-19 pandemic. These provisions are time-limited and automatically expire on 1 January 2022, though there is provision in the bill for an extension to 26 March 2022 by regulation. We are also attracted to the Minister's suggestion—this has not always been the Government's approach—that no council be required to pay any more for their elections as a result of this measure. If the NSW Electoral Commission needs to apply COVID mitigation strategies at those local government elections it will not be councils that foot the bill. I thank the Minister for putting that on the record. Obviously it is a key concern for local councils, and that assurance is one of the reasons why the Opposition does not oppose this bill and supports these individual provisions. The bill introduces a second major change, to the Electoral Funding Act 2018, that expands the circumstances in which a party agent can choose to be responsible for electoral expenditure and donations disclosures on behalf of endorsed candidates, councils or groups. There is already provision for that to happen in the local government system but it does happen by voluntary agreement. As the Government has pointed out, with all the administration that goes with securing and documenting those agreements we accept the case that is made Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 17

there. This would extend that provision to allow the party agent to intervene and choose to take on those dual responsibilities both for expenditure but also donations and all the disclosures that go with them. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. However, we have a number of issues with the bill. A number of those issues have been raised in discussion with the Government and I will detail some of them for the benefit of members. The first issue is the date of introduction of this bill and the date at which we are having this debate. The bill has been introduced very late in the local government election cycle. The capped expenditure period for local government elections opens 1 July 2021; we are just days away from the commencement of that expenditure period. The election will be held on Saturday 4 September 2021—just 73 days away—yet here we are still in the second reading debate of this bill. It is very late to be introducing any changes to the electoral law, particularly for councils. It is one thing to be doing it for State government elections, but we know that councils, councillors and council candidates— including those who are making their way in local government politics for the first time—are having to grapple with new rules and a new system. I place on the record our concern about dealing with these issues late in the electoral cycle. Having said that, if there are measures that strengthen the system then the Opposition certainly does not want to stand in the way of them. That is why we take the position we do today. The second issue, which again has been raised with the Government, is that in his second reading speech the Minister indicated that the bill will be accompanied by regulation that will introduce technology-assisted voting for the first time and that will allow this technology to be used in September. We took this to be a reference to the iVote system, which was confirmed by the Government in discussions. I place on the record the Opposition's view—it is also the view of other parties and the considered view of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—that there are concerns about the extension of that iVote process. The dynamic here has been that the NSW Electoral Commission and Electoral Commissioner have been more keen on the extension of the iVote system than the parties using the system, which are trying to speak to voters and ensure that they are able to safely cast their ballots. There is a difference of views there. I place on the record the Opposition's caution about this measure, though it is not in the bill before members today and will be the subject of later regulation. I indicate that the Opposition—I am confident it will be the case for other parties—will scrutinise that regulation very carefully. We do not want this to be a major shift of the goal in the way that iVote is used. The principle we will apply is this: If it assists voters who might otherwise not be able to vote—that is, disabled voters—or allows access to the system to voters who otherwise would not be able to vote then we are open to that. Where it steps beyond that, the Opposition will have real concerns that we believe will be shared by other parties. The Government made it clear it may be used in very limited circumstances where people may not be able to effectively exercise a postal vote. I anticipate that there will be a number of contributions from members of the Opposition who serve and have served for quite some time on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. They will deal with the iVote issue in some more detail, so I will not deal with all those matters now. However, I commend the committee's report in relation to iVote and indicate that the Government's response was largely accepting of its recommendations. The recommendations included reviewing, upgrading and testing the iVote system; ensuring that the development process for the next State election is subject to independent oversight; making the source code public at least six months prior; ensuring that the verification system is delivered by someone other than the provider dealing with iVote; making sure how-to-vote information was available; providing information to disability advocacy groups; and employing specialised staff at the elector call centre. These were all accepted or accepted in principle by the Government. When that regulation comes through we would appreciate from the Government, and I would appreciate from the Minister in the debate, here and in the other place, an indication about progress on these matters before we extend the iVote into local government elections. Labor will be watching that closely as this process is extended in the very short time between now and when live ballots will be cast, including pre-poll voting for that local government election. I expect that my colleagues will have some more to say on that issue. I make this comment in relation to the usage of this provision. The Opposition does not stand in the way of the party agent provision in particular—the idea that a party might take responsibility for some or all of its candidates and their donations and disclosures. I indicate on behalf of the campaign team for NSW Labor that the expectation is that it will not be used by the Labor Party in this cycle, in part due largely to the late introduction of these provisions. I indicate this so that there are clear expectations about whether or not these powers will be used to step in. That will not be the case for the political party to which the Opposition belongs. However, if this is a measure that might improve integrity in other parties, if this is a measure that the Government believes is necessary to make sure that donations and disclosures are appropriately dealt with in another party, Labor will certainly not stand in the way of that. That is the approach we choose to take. We will support this amendment Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 18

being in the law, although I make it clear that it is unlikely to be used in this cycle by the political party to which Opposition members belong. I raise one other issue with the bill, which is in relation to the party agent powers and the way they are drafted. Again, this has been the subject of some discussions with the Government. The bill is drafted to regulate members of the party, rather than endorsed candidates. Labor has some concerns about the drafting of this provision, and any information that the Minister can place on the record about how it will work and the protections that might be in place will be welcomed in the course of this debate. During those discussions the Government indicated that, yes, it is true: The provision relates to the members of the party rather than strictly to the party's endorsed candidates. The Government indicated it has been drafted that way to align with comparable language under section 14 of the Electoral Funding Act and that the drafting as it is allows the most minimal change to any of the provisions of that Act. The Government has also indicated that any new provision that refers to endorsed candidates would require more comprehensive drafting, including definitions about what constitutes endorsement. Obviously, that is further complicated by the timing issues. The Opposition understands that is a potential hurdle, particularly where candidates are not yet endorsed. We have some concerns about the drafting. We welcome any clarification. We certainly would not like to see this measure used for a party agent to step in to manage the donations or disclosures in a case where members of a party are running on a ticket but are not running on an endorsed party ticket and the party agent chooses to step in. The Government has provided some assurances informally that that is not what is intended. It certainly would be an odd situation. Having written the law, we send it out into the world for the parties and the candidates to happily use this in the way in which they choose. I welcome any additional clarification on that. I want to be clear what the Opposition's intention is about how this law is used, and I understand the Government's intention. If it were used in a different way, the Opposition would certainly seek to regulate that behaviour. I refer to the discussions with Local Government NSW where it indicated it was broadly supportive of these measures. That is important to the Opposition's position. I thank that agency for its consultation. It has indicated it will also look closely at the proposed wording of the regulation. At the time we spoke that was not available, either to it or to us, and accordingly will be the subject of close scrutiny from it as well. I understand Mr David Shoebridge will move an amendment by The Greens that relates to the prohibition of property developers from civic office. I indicate up-front that the Opposition will support that amendment. We will wait to hear the member's speech and the detail of what he puts. It is very similar to the provisions of a bill that was brought in this place by my colleague the Hon. —the Local Government Amendment (Disqualification from Civic Office) Bill 2020. I recognise the work put into that bill by the Hon. Walt Secord and my colleague the shadow Minister for Local Government in the other place, Greg Warren. The provisions are similar. The goal here is to separate the level of government which is most open to development pressures from developers running. I know there is support for these measures across the political spectrum. I acknowledge that there is support in the Government for these measures. We know that from some of the reporting. I recognise the fact that the Hon. Walt Secord has put some of that on the record. It is clear that this measure does have some backing from senior figures in the Government. One of them said: Putting a developer on council is like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. That was the view of one unnamed Minister in the Government. Minister Matt Kean said: We want to clean up the party. The public expects the Liberal Party to run candidates who will fight for community interests and not their own interests. I agree with those views. That is the reason my colleagues have moved on that issue previously and why we will support the amendments today. We do so in a careful way. I do not think that electoral legislation should be one of those vehicles to be batted backwards and forwards across the Chamber or between the Houses in a partisan way. It is essential that electoral law is dealt with carefully so that the public has confidence in the electoral system. That has to be part of the guiding principle for us. The Opposition will listen carefully to the arguments put by the Government about this. However, it also believes that public confidence will be best secured by separating developers from the level of government which is most open to the decisions that may impact on communities where development is proposed. The Opposition supports the amendment. I am interested to hear what the Government says in response. As I have indicated, Labor does not oppose the bill. We would have preferred to deal with it perhaps at the start of the year or even last year, but there is no time that is too late to take integrity measures forward, no matter how modest. Labor is committed to backing those when they are presented by the Government to the House. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15:48): On behalf of The Greens I indicate we do not oppose the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. The bill does a number of things seeking to slightly smooth the way for the upcoming local government election. I note at the outset that pre-poll voting for Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 19

the local government election will start in just under nine weeks. These kinds of changes should have come months ago to allow all parties to properly review and consider them. Notwithstanding that, The Greens have reviewed the bill and we broadly support the measures that are contained in it. There are a number of small reservations which I will read onto the record, some of which may be explained by the Minister in his speech in reply. As the Hon. John Graham indicated, The Greens will move one amendment in Committee to try to prohibit property developers from being elected onto councils and then having access to all of that critical information that can lead to huge windfall gains for people in the property industry who are aware of potential future zoning decisions. That is where the real money is and that is one thing on which we think we should collectively move to remove that conflict of interest from local government. This bill amends the Electoral Funding Act 2018 to enable a party agent of a registered party to elect to be the person responsible for disclosing certain political donations and electoral expenditure relating to local government. It also amends the Local Government Act 1993. It clarifies the relationship between the regulations under that Act and arrangements between a council and the Electoral Commissioner in relation to, in particular, the administration of local council elections. It provides for the making of rules for the safe conduct of council elections during the COVID-19 pandemic—those rules being made by the Electoral Commissioner—and it clarifies that the postponement of a council election by the Minister does not affect the validity of certain council resolutions passed and arrangements entered into by the council. In relation to the changes to the Electoral Funding Act 2018, these amendments propose to allow an additional option for the party agents of registered political parties to deem themselves to effectively assume the responsibility for the disclosures of political donations and electoral expenditure for their endorsed candidates. I ask the Minister to confirm in his speech in reply the scope of proposed section 14 (4) which I will address briefly in this contribution. The ability of a party to be the sole agent for all endorsed candidates is something that The Greens support. Our party is preparing for the current local government election and, like the Labor Party, we are adopting the rules as currently applied where each local campaign will be responsible through their agent for the disclosures and for the reporting. That is providing quite a deal of discussion. A degree of documentation and a lot of quality control are required to ensure that that is all in place. Those are the arrangements that we are adopting as we assumed that the rules would apply under the current laws. We expect that that will be the way in which we run the election, regardless of whether or not this bill is passed. The amendment to insert a new section 14 (4A) proposes: (4A) A party agent of a registered party may, by written notice, given to the Electoral Commission in an approved way, decide to be the person who is responsible for making a disclosure required under this Part for the following: (a) an elected member who is a councillor, including the mayor, of a local government area who is a member of the registered party— I note that it does not say "endorsed candidate"; it simply says "member"— (b) a candidate in a local government election who is a member of the registered party— I again note that it says "member of the registered party", and not "endorsed candidate"— (c) a group in a local government election where all, or 1 or more, of the members of the group are members of the registered party. Again I note that the term that is used is "members of the registered party" and not "endorsed candidate". I know that the intent of the Government is that it apply only to endorsed candidates, but clearly the drafting goes beyond that. I hope that The Nationals finally assume some kind of control over their members who repeatedly run for local government election, deny they are in the scope of Nationals candidates, and assume control over their finances. That would be useful. My guess is that the bill is not aimed at that, but Mr Deputy President might correct me if I am wrong in that regard. If we are talking about endorsed candidates it probably should reflect endorsed candidates. That is The Greens' only concern in relation to that matter. We could have a political discussion back and forth about why the Liberal Party wants to put this in place. Some might suggest it has a couple of rogue candidates out there who are closely developed with the property industry and they want to have some control over them. In this regard control is probably a good thing, and we do not want to push against that. The other aspect of this bill is that it seeks to allow the Electoral Commissioner to make rules to facilitate COVID-safe elections. We have had some ongoing discussions with the Minister's office in relation to this matter. The Greens were concerned that this might allow for postal elections to be substituted for real-life elections. As I understand it, that is not the intent of this legislation. Its intent is to allow for social distancing and other similar rules at polling booths. Given that is what we understand is the scope, we will not be opposing it but we would like that clarified by the Minister in his speech in reply. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 20

The other aspect on which The Greens seek clarification is that it is not clear from the wording of the bill whether the Electoral Commissioner can make determinations for specific local government areas. As we know, the public health orders have often provided different limitations on different local government areas. We would want to ensure that that flexibility was available for the Electoral Commissioner. The Hon. Don Harwin: What was the first matter? Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The first matter was whether or not it allowed for postal as opposed to COVID-safe distancing and other social distancing arrangements at polling booths. Obviously we would support social distancing arrangements as an important part. I finally address the iVote issue. It is my understanding that the bill seeks to facilitate the rollout of iVote through regulations over which we will have some scrutiny. The Hon. Don Harwin: Yes. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: We are concerned about iVote because we have seen the reports from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It has raised concerns about iVote. I particularly note the work of Associate Professor Vanessa Teague in this regard—one of the leading academics in Australia looking at online voting systems. I draw the attention of the House to an article Professor Teague published in 2019, following a review of the Swiss iVote system. It is relevant because the Swiss iVote uses the same software as the New South Wales iVote system. Switzerland, unlike New South Wales, has made the code publicly available so it can be reviewed and assessed by academics and others who can look to see whether or not there are potential security flaws in it. Associate Professor Teague's article, which is entitled What a second flaw in Switzerland's sVote means for NSW's iVote, is published on Pursuit on the website of the University of Melbourne and states: A recent investigation found a trapdoor in the SwissVote election system that also exists in New South Wales' iVote, but further analysis has found a second problem in the verification process. Professor Teague's conclusion under the heading "The Bottom Line" states: We have now found two, independent means by which a single authority could commit large-scale fraud in the sVote system, while passing verification using a false proof that everything was correct. For iVote, we're told that the first issue has been patched and the second doesn't apply. If the source code were openly available, we could check; without it, we can't. There's no reason to think that correcting this second flaw in the proofs will be easy, or that it will produce a secure system with no further opportunities for undetectable electoral fraud. Deconstructing that statement, Associate Professor Teague and her colleagues found in their review of the sVote software that the votes come in to the authority in charge of receiving the electoral votes; they are encrypted when they are received from individual voters to ensure that they can be verified and that they reflect the wishes of individual voters; but when they move from the encrypted mode into the pool of ballots the encryption is removed and they are shuffled around and de-identified. In that process there is an opportunity for the electoral authority, if it was maligned—I do not in any way pretend that the NSW Electoral Commission is maligned—or an actor within the authority to change the votes in that translation process. There are two ways in which it could be done under the sVote system. The sVote system uses the same software as the New South Wales iVote system. Without the code being publicly available there are genuine concerns about the integrity of the election. I indicate again that The Greens do not oppose the bill. The Hon. (15:59): I make a brief contribution to debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. I seek the leave of the House for an extension of time. The PRESIDENT: You can start and we will see how we go. The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will support the bill. However, we will immediately move to disallow any regulation that we deem is not in the spirit of the bill, including any provision that would expand the use of iVote during the upcoming local government elections. I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters since I first became a member of this place. The concerns around iVote have been well articulated on many occasions: It is not transparent, it is not auditable, it is impossible to scrutinise and, subsequently, we cannot verify the votes. The Government has received many recommendations from academics and others, who recommended that iVote should not be further rolled out. If the Government truly wants to extend this form of voting it should accept the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that open-source systems are the way to go. The Government has not accepted the recommendation; therefore, our party does not trust the Government to do what it says it will. Would I take Minister Harwin, the mover of this bill, at his word? Definitely not. In his second reading speech, it would appear that Minister Harwin is up to his old shenanigans again. The Hon. Don Harwin: You asked for leave and you are saying this. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 21

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: That is okay. You have already given it. Thank you. Minister Harwin said: One of the key and enduring amendments being made to the regulation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic will make technology-assisted voting available at local government elections for the first time in September. In other words, technology-assisted voting is just a code word for iVote. COVID-19 has become a blessing for this Government. It loves nothing more than to be able to govern by regulations, so why not milk the crisis a little more and try to force its iVote agenda onto the electorate? However, I remind the Minister and the Government that they do not have the numbers in this House. The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Questions Without Notice ROAD TOLLS The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16:01): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Given that Sydney families pay more than $6,000 a year in tolls, will the Minister rule out signing any further contracts that will cost working families 4 per cent more per year? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:01): Is it not a great day? The Treasurer has delivered a budget that reinforces the financial reputation of not only this Government but also the O'Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian governments in total. It is the epitome of the lack of thought that goes into the manner in which those opposite develop policy that the first question they ask on budget day has nothing to do with the budget. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: There are two issues on which I take a point of order. The first is that the Minister is not being directly relevant to the question asked. The second is that he is debating the question again. The PRESIDENT: I think the Minister was about to come directly to answering the question, and those introductory comments were drawing to a close. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: On budget day of all days, one would think members opposite would ask a question about the budget. The Hon. Walt Secord: We did, you fool. The Hon. Shayne Mallard: Point of order: I am not sure if you heard it, but I certainly did. The Hon. Walt Secord referred to the Minister as a fool. I ask him to withdraw it. The Hon. Walt Secord: To suit the House, I withdraw my comment calling the finance Minister a fool. The PRESIDENT: The member would be aware that he should withdraw unconditionally. The Hon. Walt Secord: To suit the House, I unconditionally withdraw calling the finance Minister a fool. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: People have called me worse. The PRESIDENT: Order! I know it is budget day, but the Minister has been asked a direct question relating to tolls and future contracts. I encourage the Minister to directly answer that question. I discourage members from interjecting. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Those opposite have asked a question about tolls on a day when we have delivered the budget for this State. The PRESIDENT: Order! I encourage the Minister to directly answer the question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: We have delivered a budget that epitomises the financial management of this State. Rather than ask a question about pay rises for public servants— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: The Minister might not like the question that was asked, but he does not get to debate it. He needs to be directly relevant in answering it. This is a question about tolls on families. I ask him to answer the question directly and to not reflect upon the way in which it has been asked. The Hon. Natalie Ward: To the point of order: The Minister has on two occasions attempted to answer. Immediately, within a couple of words, there have been interjections. He has not even been allowed to answer the question sufficiently. I ask that all members be called to order so that the Minister may have the opportunity to answer the question. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 22

The PRESIDENT: That was a generous interpretation of the Minister's response. I have asked the Minister to directly answer the question on three occasions. If he does not wish to directly answer the question that has been asked, he can resume his seat. If he wants to cavil with my ruling, I will call him to order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I am not cavilling with your ruling. The reality is that this Government and the previous Government has delivered infrastructure to this State, which is unsurpassed in the delivery and the importance of infrastructure. We make no apology for delivering for the quality of life of the people of this State. To the extent that this question goes to contracts that are entered into by way of asset recycling and the like, which underpin the basis on which we are delivering infrastructure for this State, we will not resile from that because it is for the benefit of the people. It creates jobs. Since this Government has come to power, 630,000 jobs have been created. Families have been supported. That is what this Government does. We will continue to deliver infrastructure that is in the best interest of the people of this State. Today in the budget we outlined the delivery of schools, hospitals and infrastructure for the people of New South Wales. To the extent that that is underpinned by a process in which we recycle assets— [Time expired.] STATE BUDGET AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (16:07): My question is addressed to the arts Minister. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is supporting our cultural institutions in this year's budget? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:07): I am very glad to answer the question. In this year's State budget, $1.3 billion has been committed to the arts portfolio to cement New South Wales as the cultural heart of Australia. The budget will leverage our State's current capabilities and further position New South Wales as a world-class destination— The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members are interjecting a bit too fervently. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The budget will leverage our State's current capabilities and further position New South Wales as a world-class destination for performances, events, exhibitions and cultural visitation. Contrary to reports that the Government is cutting funding to the cultural institutions, the operational budgets have increased from the 2020-21 revised recurrent expenditure detailed in Budget Paper No. 4 from $332 million to almost $362 million this year, with significant increases allocated to the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Australian Museum to support expanded operations as the Sydney Modern Project and Project Discover come online. The recurrent budget allocations for the cultural institutions will rise over the forward estimates to $430 million in 2024-25 and our Government's commitment to building and upgrading cultural infrastructure is at an all-time high. We now have around $2.4 billion allocated to deliver projects such as Powerhouse Parramatta, the redevelopment of the Sydney Opera House Concert Hall, the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct, and 136 existing projects through the Regional Cultural Fund. In this year's budget, a total of almost $221 million is being allocated to cultural institutions for capital works—including funding to complete the landmark Sydney Modern project—and funds to ensure that critical upgrade work can be undertaken across all institutions. The State's cultural institutions are set to receive blockbuster funding in 2021-22, with an additional $40 million commitment to support the attraction of major blockbuster exhibitions from across the globe to New South Wales over the next four years, which will excite and delight residents and tourists. Exhibitions such as Ramses the Great and the Gold of the Pharaohs, which previously may have been out of reach, will be targeted for this funding. Finally, we are committing funding to support free general admission to cultural institutions in and around the Macquarie Street precinct for the next 12 months. All of these commitments form part of our Government's push to revitalise the CBD and make arts and culture accessible to everyone. STATE BUDGET AND ROAD TOLLS The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (16:10): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Given that tolls will increase in this budget by an average of 8.1 per cent per year and fines will increase by 7.3 per cent per year, why are drivers and their families footing the bill for this budget? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:11): The premise of the question is entirely wrong. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Stop debating the question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Entirely wrong! Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 23

The PRESIDENT: The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I will start by saying this: I wonder how many of those opposite have claimed the toll rebate, which they are entitled to as a result of having the tolls, and getting free registration for their car on saving paid tolls. What the Government has done in relation to tolls is grant free registration attached to it. The second component, which displays the absolutely abject ignorance of those opposite, who are charged with the responsibility of developing a response, is that they are not recognising the whole of the strategy. Towards Zero in relation to road fatalities was outlined when? In last year's budget. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call. The Hon. Shayne Mallard: Point of order: I raised this point of order two weeks ago. Honestly, the Hon. John Graham, who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, must have the loudest sotto voce. He is haranguing the Minister at the lectern. The Hon. John Graham should be called to order. The PRESIDENT: I encourage Opposition members to curb their enthusiasm to a degree. I know it is budget day, but we are trying to hear the Minister. I know Hansard will be struggling with the level of background noise. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Are Opposition members really serious in suggesting that the revenue supporting the budget is hypothecated on raising fines? Is that really seriously a proposal? I think it is potentially a 3.5 per cent contribution, but that is the Opposition's focus. The Opposition's narrative in response to the budget is tolls and fines and that represents the Opposition's attack on the budget. This is a budget that is delivering 66 new schools. Is it 66? The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: No, 44. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: It is 44. I beg your pardon. It might be 66 new hospitals. There you are: We can be a bit elastic! The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: The fact of the matter is we deliver a budget today that delivers schools and hospitals infrastructure. We will employ 1,800 additional hospital staff and employees. This is the Opposition's line of attack. The Opposition is so devoid. I have to congratulate the new shadow Treasurer. Congratulations! It is great to have him in the Chamber. In his first press conference in relation to the Government, what was his attack? Tolls and fines. Is he serious? [Time expired.] MICE PLAGUE The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:15): In directing my question to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, I refer to the current mouse plague, which is a tragedy for humans, animals and the environment. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision to approve the use of the poison bromadiolone to kill the mice. It will have a devastating impact on predators, such as owls and kites, and concerns have been raised that it could wipe out Murray cod, which feed on dead mice. Surely, after drought and bushfires, we need to be especially cautious about the impacts on wildlife. Will the Minister please review his decision? The Hon. : Point of order: That was not a question. It was an invitation for a speech. Mr President, I suggest you should rule it out of order on the basis that it does not seek information from the Minister. The Hon. John Graham: It squeaks through. The Hon. Trevor Khan: If it squeaks, it is a real tight squeak. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: Members have up to a minute to ask a question. The Hon. Mark Pearson particularly likes to ask longer questions. I believe he was asking for an answer from the Minister. The question should be ruled in order. The PRESIDENT: I have read the question. Whilst the question had a very interesting long introduction it formulated a question at the end. I will allow the question. The Hon. (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:16): I thank the Hon. Mark Pearson for his question in relation to mice and the chemical bromadiolone. I acknowledge that this has been a real concern in the bush; there is no doubt about it. We have seen firsthand what has happened with this mice plague, but the decision about the use of the extra strong chemical that the Hon. Adam Marshall Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 24

has spoken about will need to be approved by a body and we await that approval. That body will take all of the considerations into account in dealing with that. The Government has put money towards helping people to purchase baits and to mouse-proof their homes. The plague has been quite an adverse event and it is something that we as a Government need to consider. The Government has allocated $95 million to deliver a rebate program to primary producers to assist in dealing with the mice and $5 million to provide for a freight subsidy to bring the required chemicals to regional New South Wales. There has been quite a concerted effort by the Government. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Hon. Mark Pearson but that is why the Government has another body assessing whether this is the most suitable method of dealing with this mice plague. STATE BUDGET AND EDUCATION The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:18): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister outline how the 2021-22 New South Wales budget will support students in New South Wales? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:19): I am delighted to answer that question. Today the Government has delivered a budget that is all about recovery, families and the people of New South Wales. It is a record budget for education with a spend of $24.4 billion. The Government is spending $725.9 million on early childhood education to support children during their first 2,000 days of life, which is a critical time for their development and success. We talk a lot about schools in this place, and I am so delighted to report that a record $17.4 billion in this budget is going to our schools and towards our students' success. I also love talking about new and upgraded schools. There is plenty to talk about on that topic. The budget has continued the Government's historic spending on school infrastructure, with $2.1 billion funding 44 school projects. That takes the program's pipeline to 215 new and upgraded schools, which is an investment of over $7.9 billion over the next four years. That is building on a pipeline which has already delivered over 100 schools, invested $7 billion in communities and provided incredible places right across the State in which students can learn. The learning does not finish at school. There will be $2.6 billion going towards skills and TAFE, ensuring that students have the training for the jobs of the future. Beyond the significant headline figures, as I said from the outset, this budget is about people. For me it is about our students. This is a budget that breaks the mould, shows leadership and recognises that as a government we need to support our young people from the moment they are born through to after they leave school. That can be seen in the Government's $150 million investment to continue free preschool. As members would know, another area that is close to my heart is reading and the importance of books in children's lives. As a die-hard Dolly Parton fan— I am happy to admit that—announcing that the Government will be supporting her Imagination Library is certainly a career highlight. Her philanthropic work is incredible. I thank and acknowledge Clayton Noble from United Way for his efforts with the Imagination Library. The Government will partner with United Way to bring the gift of reading through Dolly's Imagination Library to more than 15,000 children across New South Wales. Books will be delivered every month. There is no greater gift that we can give our children than a love of books and reading. It is such a wonderful program and initiative for the Government to partner on. When students reach school, the budget will continue to support them and continue to deliver needs-based funding directly to the students who need it most. The budget also funds what will be a world-leading curriculum. Almost $200 million will be spent to supercharge our first-in-a-generation reform. Based on evidence, written by experts and tested by our best teachers, the new curriculum in New South Wales will give teachers the best tools possible to help students succeed at school. To deliver a world-class curriculum, we need to have excellent teachers. Teaching is an incredible profession and one that we want to encourage people to enter. Entry to teaching for mid-career professionals will be improved, removing the barriers to support anyone skilled in their field or in teaching to make the jump. That is just the start. There is much more to deliver. BOWRAVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:22): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. I draw the Minister's attention to the appalling academic record at Bowraville Central School. Every year for the past five years, the school's NAPLAN results have either been below or well below the Australian average in every subject. NAPLAN is tested in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. That is 100 substandard results in a row. Why has the school principal, Dave Taylor, sent a message to all parents in the June newsletter saying that he wants to make the school gender-neutral in all its language, abolishing words like he, she, his, her, man or woman? How can this weird and unnecessary political campaign be a priority at a school so badly failing its Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 25

students in reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar? Will the Minister tell the principal to get back to the basics of learning and forget about politically correct language control in Bowraville? The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:23): I thank the honourable member for his question relating to Bowraville Central School. For the honourable member's benefit, the Parliament did a lot of work in relation to the issues at Bowraville. I know he was not a member of Parliament at that time. An upper House committee did a lot of work in that space, and I was a member of that committee prior to becoming a Minister. I am well aware of the challenges in that community. As we often say about schools, when issues occur inside a school's gates, a lot of the time they relate to what is happening in the broader community. Members in the House, particularly those who were aware of some of the tragic circumstances that took place in that community, will understand that there are challenges and we do not shy away from that. We need to respect what has gone on in that community in the past and some of the intergenerational trauma that continues to impact a range of government services, including education. The member asked what the Government is doing to make sure that our schools are focusing on student outcomes. The key answer to the member's question is the School Success Model, which was introduced towards the end of last year. I have spoken about that numerous times in this House. The model is about setting targets and working very clearly with each and every public school, including the school in Bowraville. The Hon. : Point of order: The question was very clearly about how de-gendering language on the order of the school principal and how getting rid of words like him, her, he, she, man and woman is going to do anything to help any of these traumatic and serious problems in Bowraville, most particularly lifting school academic results. The question was not about some target plan in every school across New South Wales. Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: The question was trying to link one email with the academic performance in Bowraville Central School. The Minister is well in order when talking about the genuine reasons for the academic performance at Bowraville Central School. The PRESIDENT: The question is broad in the sense that it refers to reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar. The Minister is being directly relevant to the question. The Minister has the call. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: The question also specifically referenced NAPLAN results. Having targets around NAPLAN results is one of the key elements of the School Success Model. The Government recognises that with record funding going to schools, it needs to make sure that the focus of principals and teachers at every school across New South Wales is on improving student outcomes. We have never had a School Success Model like this before. We have never had this level of granular detail where there is an expectation on every school community to be focused on what matters most, which is, as the member referenced in his question, making sure that we give our children the best possible education, getting back to basics and lifting NAPLAN results. That is what I expect teachers and principals to be focused on. That is what I expect the principal at Bowraville Central School to be focused on. I expect that from every principal at the 2,200 public schools across the State. The model is about making sure that our children get the education they deserve. That is particularly important in more vulnerable communities like Bowraville. With the School Success Model in place, we will have the opportunity to ensure that results are lifted. If we are not seeing the results that we need, we will then have the levers to pull to make sure that funding is targeted to where it is needed, department policies are being followed and the focus of all staff at every school is on improving outcomes. The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:27): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer and tell the Chamber how de-gendered language helps raise the standard of numeracy and literacy at Bowraville Central School? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:27): As I said in my earlier answer, my expectation of all principals and all schools across the State is that they focus on lifting student outcomes using evidence-based best practice. That is exactly what the School Success Model is about. In his first question, the member referenced part of a newsletter where the principal has supposedly said "de-gendering language". The Hon. Mark Latham: Not supposedly—he has. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I have not seen that, but I will take the member at his word because he is a good and decent member. My point is that we do not have de-gendered pronouns in New South Wales education. I do not have a copy of that particular newsletter, but my focus in New South Wales and the focus of each and every one of the State's school principals has to be on improving student outcomes. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 26

The Hon. Walt Secord: Second supplementary. The Hon. : Second supplementary. Mr David Shoebridge: Second supplementary. The PRESIDENT: I congratulate the Hon. Walt Secord, the Hon. Mark Banasiak and Mr David Shoebridge on their enthusiasm. The Hon. Walt Secord has the call. The Hon. Robert Borsak: He has the loudest voice. The PRESIDENT: There is always an advantage in seeking the call with gusto in this place, particularly when it is a contest. The Hon. Walt Secord has the call. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:28): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer where she talked about setting targets in the New South Wales education system and lifting results? Has the Minister sought information on the targets and results at Bowraville so that she can target funding to improve results at that school? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:29): I thank the member for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, we have worked with our schools to set our targets throughout the term. Most of them are in place. There are some that we are continuing to put in place this year, for example, our year 1 phonics check, which was a trial last year and is now compulsory. When it runs this year, we will then have our baseline data to set the targets for next year. We are working with school communities to set the parameters for our pathways, which is how we will measure students' performance in the five years after they leave school. Some are still to be confirmed but the majority have been worked out already in consultation with our schools this year. We will track that data and look at how schools are going in the outcomes we want them to attain. We will be using a range of measures to do that. We will use NAPLAN data, when it becomes available, and check-in assessments, which are opt in but have very high take-up. The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Mark Latham will cease interjecting. The Minister has the call. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: We will be able to see at a school-by-school level whether targets are being reached and if not, why not. Then we can come in and provide targeted support to achieve the lift that we expect to see in all schools across the State. TRANSPORT ASSET HOLDING ENTITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:30): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business in his own capacity and representing the Treasurer. What is the Minister's response to community concerns, the concerns of professional advisory firms and the concerns of the Audit Office of New South Wales that the Government's Transport Asset Holding Entity [TAHE] accounting trick is putting public safety at risk on our trains and means that today's budget papers cannot be believed? The Hon. : Good question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:31): It is an interesting question, is it not? The Hon. Rose Jackson: Excellent question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: The member is entitled to form a view in relation to the Transport Asset Holding Entity. I have met with the Chair of the Transport Asset Holding Entity. I am satisfied that it is well run. In fact, to give the member the assurance that he wants, I am more than happy to say I think he can rely on what is set out in the budget papers. What I would say in relation to TAHE is that those opposite think they have found a smoking gun. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: There is no secrecy about its existence and its financial treatment. It is clearly set out in—which budget paper—2015-16. It exists in Queensland and in Victoria. It is the same government State-owned corporation arrangement in Victoria and Queensland and, in fact, in the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre for the purposes of holding transport assets—no secrets. In fact, in all those Labor jurisdictions, transport asset holding entities exist for the management of transport holding assets. To try to run a scare campaign— The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Graham to order for the first time. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 27

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: To try to run a scare campaign on the basis of people's safety being put at risk quite frankly does them no credit whatsoever. The TAHE exists and in fact has been signed off— The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: To try to create a circumstance where people's safety is called into question as a result of the holding entity for transport assets is just plain wrong. The Auditor-General has signed off in relation to the financial viability of the structure. The circumstances in which this particular transport asset holding entity continues to exist is as an asset-holding entity that delivers outcomes for the people of New South Wales. There are significant property assets that it is holding in addition to transport assets. I have to say that those opposite, who should profess to know better, are trying to deceive the people of New South Wales. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:34): I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the answer but can the Minister elucidate that part of it where he says that today's budget papers can be "relied on"? Why do the budget papers again fail to show the TAHE earning any revenue? Why are they not showing any income received for Transport for NSW to use a network that apparently it owns? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:34): A process is being gone through at the moment where a statement of corporate intent is being developed by the holding entity for the purposes of demonstrating the manner in which it will deliver income for the people of New South Wales. There is absolutely nothing strange in any of this. KPMG has done a report in relation to it. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It did two. The Hon. John Graham: It has done a couple. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Here they come! Come in, come in! Did we not know they would come in? One of the reports, of course, was done in relation to something that was not requested. The Hon. Walt Secord: No, no. Keep going, keep digging. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: But the report in relation to the financial viability of this State-owned corporation identified that this was a perfectly normal way that government does business and will deliver outcomes for the people of New South Wales. So dig if you like. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: We will, thank you. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: They will want another Standing Order 52 application and no doubt they are going to get it. More and more papers. Let us fill up the Chamber with more paper. They are going to find something somewhere because that is the only way that they do business in this place—by trying to fill it up with paper. I am prepared to stand by the existence of the organisation and the management of the organisation for the manner in which it has been run, the purpose for which it has been set up and the outcomes it will deliver in the holding of transport asset entities for the people of New South Wales. There is nothing strange in any of that, and those opposite know it. The Government has been entirely clear and transparent about the manner in which it exists. This is nothing more than a potential scare campaign that those opposite are proposing to run. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:36): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer with regard to the reference where he said the Government met with the chair? Did he discuss profit targets and when it would pay dividends? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:37): I am happy to say that the chair in meeting with me was happy to talk about the manner in which the entity would— The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Daniel Mookhey to order for the first time for his repeated interjections. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Mr President, this bloke wants the responsibility— The PRESIDENT: The Minister will not encourage the member to interject further. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I am not. He has just got the job as the shadow Treasurer and he wants to come in here asking questions about the TAHE. He does not want to acknowledge that it exists in Queensland and Victoria and that the operations in those jurisdictions are run in exactly the same way. He does not want to preface his comments— The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: I was listening carefully to the Minister's answer to my colleague's excellent second supplementary question. He is halfway through but he has not been directly relevant to the question, which is when is TAHE going to be paying a dividend to the taxpayers of New South Wales and what is its profit target? Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 28

The PRESIDENT: I encourage the Minister to directly answer the question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: In respect to acknowledging the existence of corporations like TAHE, they exist in Queensland and Victoria. They operate in those jurisdictions in the same way and, in fact, move towards delivering dividends and outcomes for the people of New South Wales. The PRESIDENT: I encourage the Minister to directly answer the question or sit down. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: It is an important component that any State-owned corporation develops a plan for the purpose of delivering outcomes for the people of New South Wales. Every one of those organisations is obliged to do that. I suggest to those opposite that in developing a strategy relating to this budget, they do not concentrate on things— [Time expired.] STATE BUDGET AND MENTAL HEALTH The Hon. (16:40): My question is addressed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Will the Minister update the House on key measures from the 2021-22 State budget for mental health? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:40): I thank the Hon. Wes Fang for his question. Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of the community is an absolute priority for the New South Wales Government. I am proud to advise that the New South Wales Government will invest a record $10.9 billion over the next four years, which includes $2.6 billion in 2021-22. Those key measures include $109.5 million over four years to recruit 25 safeguards child and adolescent mental health response teams across New South Wales. That is the single biggest investment in child and adolescent mental health in New South Wales' history. Those "flying squads" will provide immediate and ongoing support to our young people who are under 18 years old experiencing serious mental health issues, such as psychotic episodes, complex behavioural issues or suicidal crisis. They will provide wraparound care to ensure the families or carers of the young person are also supported and, most importantly, included. There is $69.7 million committed over four years for a package of measures to respond to the Anderson review into hospital security, including $25.8 million for the Police, Ambulance, Clinical, Early, Response—or PACER—program. The program embeds mental health clinicians with first responders at the scene to provide specialist advice and appropriate care to people experiencing mental health episodes. There is $36.4 million committed over four years for 57 mental health response and recovery specialists across regional and rural New South Wales to provide assertive outreach support for communities, and coordination with local services at the time of a disaster or crisis and during the very important ongoing recovery phase. Mums and babies in regional New South Wales will benefit from a $12.2 million investment for six new regional Tresillian Family Care Centres and five Tresillian mobile vans. This will provide support to families experiencing difficulties in the critical first years of their child's life. Funding will also support ongoing staffing for the Macksville residential unit, which provides inpatient services for families experiencing significant parenting challenges requiring intensive intervention. I am proud that there are now 11 regional Tresillian centres throughout New South Wales. That is a huge accomplishment. It is a terrific organisation to work with. In recognition of the continuing mental health impacts of the COVID pandemic, the budget committed $66.2 million over three years to continue the additional specialist mental health clinicians recruited in response to COVID-19. They will significantly enhance service capacity to provide care to people with mental health issues in the community. The budget also committed more than $50 million over three years to build on the expansion of telehealth. Those services are enabling more access to mental health care and support for people in immediate crisis in both metropolitan and regional New South Wales. I congratulate the Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet, on delivering a record mental health budget for the people of New South Wales. STATE BUDGET AND PRIVATE SCHOOL FUNDING Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:43): My question without notice is directed to the education Minister. Today's budget allocates $1.5 billion of State public funding to private schools in New South Wales, which will reinforce their overfunding beyond the national Schooling Resource Standard [SRS]. How much of the funding in this current budget is going to each of the following private schools that are already grossly overfunded and squirrelling away multimillion dollar investment funds—Sydney Church of England Grammar School, Newington College, Knox Grammar School, Abottsleigh, SCECGS Redlands and The King's School? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:44): I thank Mr David Shoebridge for his question. As the member has rightly said, the New South Wales Government is investing $1.5 billion to support around 950 non-government schools that provide education for approximately one-third of students in New South Wales. As I have said many times before, the Government supports the rights Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 29

of parents to choose the type of education that best suits their child. We are committed to ensuring that all students receive a high-quality education no matter what school they attend. In support of this approach, funding is provided to both government and registered non-government schools in New South Wales that do not operate for profit, as the member is well aware. As the member is also aware, we have already committed to bringing all non-government schools down to 20 per cent of the SRS by 2029. The member asked specifically about particular funding for a range of schools. I do not have that level of detail with me in the House. The Hon. John Graham: Have a swing at it. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I will not have a go. I will take that specific part on notice. I reiterate that as a government we are implementing the Gonski needs-based sector-blind funding model for all New South Wales schools. All non-government schools will be funded on a consistent basis, ensuring that schools have the resources they need. The member went into quite a bit of detail in his question about the specific funding allocations so I will take that part on notice and come back with a response. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:45): I ask a supplementary question. Noting that the Government is providing $1.5 billion to private schools in New South Wales, what, if any, consideration is given to the schools that are already so excessively resourced beyond the national Schooling Resource Standard? Is that considered when the Government is handing out $1.5 billion of public funds to private schools? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:46): I refer to what I said earlier. We have already made the commitment to bring all non-government schools down to 20 per cent of the SRS by 2029. STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE The Hon. (16:46): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. What is the Minister's response to parental concerns that she has re-announced 30 school infrastructure projects that her Government promised two years ago and has still failed to provide a time line for a single one of those projects? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:46): My response to parents is that I am really pleased to be part of a government that is delivering the biggest investment in school infrastructure in the history of this State. As I said in response to an earlier question asked by a Government member, funnily enough, in this year's budget we are seeing an allocation of $7.9 billion over the next four years and 215 new and upgraded school projects. That is building on our pipeline of delivering more than 100 schools and more than $7 billion in investments. In actual fact, we are talking about a $15 billion investment in public education infrastructure in New South Wales, the likes of which has never been seen before in this State. I am proud of that. I know that parents right across New South Wales are seeing the benefits when it comes to their own children's schools. Whether it is our new and upgraded schools, our renewal programs or our support for regional communities and western Sydney, record amounts of funding are going into school infrastructure. It is good news. Those opposite just do not like good news. I echo the comments of Duncan Gay, a former Minister. They just do not like good news. Question time after question time I am asked, "What about this school? What about that school? When are they being funded?" They are being funded. They are being delivered. As a government we have a track record of delivery in school infrastructure, the likes of which has never been seen and certainly would never be delivered by those opposite. The member asked me about the 30 schools previously designated as planning projects. As I have said in the House before, with any program of works one has to undertake extensive planning. Due diligence has to be undertaken to ensure that the right project is being delivered at the right time. It is exciting that those 30 projects are moving from planning to delivery. That is what happens with all of our school infrastructure projects. Indeed, that is what happens with all infrastructure projects—one plans them, funds them, delivers them and builds them. That is what is happening with us in New South Wales. A range of issues have to be analysed before decisions can be made. Again, we have canvassed these quite extensively in the House before. We look at the educational requirements, the condition of existing facilities, catchment boundaries and transport links. A lot of work is involved in building and upgrading a new school. We know that because we are the ones who are delivering them. Referring to the specifics of timelines with those schools, as I said, 30 that were in early planning are now moving to the delivery phase and 14 new projects were announced in today's budget, which is very exciting. The Government will now be able to do that further detailed planning work, put in all of the relevant planning and statutory rules that need to be followed, get projects out to tender and give communities accurate time lines regarding delivery. That is what a good government does. That is what a responsible government does. I am not going to cop any criticism from members opposite about our school building projects. We are seeing record Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 30

funding invested. Parents and families right across New South Wales are seeing the benefits of this Government's very amazing school-building program. The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (16:50): I ask a supplementary question. After two years, can the Minister name just one of those school infrastructure projects that has a time line? The Hon. John Graham: Just one. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:50): As I said in my earlier answer, again, if the Opposition ever built anything, it would understand how these processes work. Planning needs to be done and it needs to be done right. The Hon. Don Harwin: They've obviously learnt nothing. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: That is right. When the planning is done, the project can then move into the delivery phase, which is where we are now. I never would have thought I would see the day when the Labor Party is talking down a $7.9 billion investment in public education infrastructure, but here we are. This Government is proud of what it is doing. School communities will continue to be updated as projects progress, as the Government has done with all of the projects that it has delivered so far. Our record investment and delivery speak for themselves. The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:51): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elaborate on time lines for new schools and will she elaborate particularly on the statement she made in the House a fortnight ago about imminent announcements on the new selective school in south-west Sydney? This is a school that was announced by the Government two years ago. No location has been identified. Can the Minister give us the time line for actually building the school? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:51): I thank the honourable member for his question about a school that I know he has had significant interest in since it was first announced. Obviously it is something that the Government finds just as incredibly important. The reason we have committed to a new selective school in south-west Sydney is that we know a lot of parents out there are aspirational for their children when it comes to their education. The Government has committed funding in this year's budget to progress the delivery of the new selective high school in south-western Sydney, which is very exciting. Early planning works have been undertaken for the new school. As I said, we have looked at the projected demographic trends as well as how we establish the school as part of the broader development. The Department of Education has identified potential land opportunities, working with other government agencies to ensure that the location of the selective school can service the growing south-western Sydney community. Obviously we need to make sure that the school has good transport links, given that a lot of students will travel to attend a selective school. I am looking forward to sharing further updates with the school community as work on the project progresses. The funding is now secured. We can move to the next phase of delivery for that school. It is certainly a priority project for this Government, which is why it has received funding in this year's budget. STATE ECONOMY The Hon. (16:52): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Will the Minister update the House on how the past 10 years of delivery has set up New South Wales for success in today's budget? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:53): It is good to get a question from someone who really appreciates that today is a day we ought to be celebrating. In fact, I join with the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning in saying today is a day that exemplifies the maxim, "They just don't like good news." Today is a day we ought to be celebrating the recovery of the New South Wales economy. The Government's job is to be disciplined in good times so we can weather the storm in bad times. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Dom said this better. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Well, I endorsed it. I wrote it for him, mate. The fact of the matter is that we have built on three terms of government—the O'Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian governments—in making sure that we are able to deliver financial outcomes that support the people of this State. Let us look at some of the things that were announced in this year's budget, which members opposite do not want to ask about. They do not want to ask about it but, in many respects, this Chamber ought to reminded of the outcome that is contained in this budget. As I said earlier, in the past 10 years the Government has delivered 643,000 jobs to this State. We have delivered $150 billion in infrastructure. More than 160 new and upgraded schools have been delivered. We have developed the best public health system in the nation. We have delivered $9.4 billion in tax relief to the Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 31

people of New South Wales, including payroll tax cuts and stamp duty cuts for first homebuyers—payroll tax which the Opposition would have in fact increased. What we inherited from Labor, as the Treasurer so correctly identified— The Hon. Mark Latham: Point of order: Under Standing Order 91 (4), the reading out of documents is a clear abuse in question time. The Minister says he wrote the question; it is not a question without notice. Now he is reading a document prepared elsewhere. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I did not write the question. The Hon. Mark Latham: This is a breach of Standing Order 91 (4). The Minister should give answers that are extemporaneous in answer to a question supposedly without notice. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Minister is allowed to refer to a document. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: As a result of what in fact has been responsible financial management— The Hon. John Graham: We left you a triple-A credit rating. Where's it now? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: —this Government is now at a stage where it can tell actually— The Hon. Rose Jackson: Seven out of eight. This Government is now seventh in the country. Thank God for the Northern Territory. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Shayne Mallard: Point of order: Mr President, I know you are allowing some level of interjection in the Chamber, but the frontbench of the Opposition is certainly out of hand now and should be called to order. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. I have already asked members to reflect on that. I know moving from the cave to the frontbench can take some adjustment in the octaves, but Opposition members will cease interjecting. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I want to reiterate what is contained in this budget for the purposes of reinforcing that New South Wales is in fact heading in the right direction. Where are we in 2024-25? We will have a surplus. Labor could never deliver one. [Time expired.] BANKSIA MENTAL HEALTH UNIT The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:57): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Is the Minister aware that a recent order for papers returned on the Banksia Mental Health Unit in Tamworth revealed a great area of concern about repeated occurrences of sexual safety incidents at the facility over the past three years? Will the Minister inform the House on how long she and her department had known about the sexual safety incidents? With 31 per cent having occurred in the lounge area, 31 per cent having occurred in the bedrooms in the observation area and even 15 per cent having occurred in the shower of the observation area, will the Minister advise what steps she has taken to monitor incidents, and to remedy and compensate those vulnerable victims who have been further traumatised? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:58): I thank the honourable member for his question, which contains some very serious issues referring to the Banksia Mental Health Unit. I recognise that there have been issues at Banksia and that is exactly why we are building a new unit. However, those documents have just come in recently. The member asked whether I had been made directly aware of those incidents. I had not been made directly aware of those incidents, but if there is anything that shows in those documents I will be dealing with them. That is exactly why we have to build the new unit at Banksia. The current unit was built some time ago and, like other older mental health units around the State, they are not conducive to the sort of practice and the sort of care that is expected from those units. I will say that the staff at Banksia are very good people who provide a very good service. I commend them for that, and I very much look forward to the new unit being planned and being built at Banksia. We have seen some really great documents that show the planning that is happening. We are working with the local health district, which is really important. I commend the local member, the Hon. Kevin Anderson, who has worked very hard to advocate on behalf of his community to ensure that a new Banksia unit is built, which is important for the community. There has been really terrific consultation with the local community group regarding planning for the Banksia unit and what needs to happen. I look forward to that planning continuing and to working with the community to make sure they get the service they so rightly deserve. This is another opportunity to let Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 32

the staff know that we know they have been working in this unit which needs to be revamped and renewed. We look forward to continuing to do that. The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17:00): I ask a supplementary question. In response to my question the Minister initially made a statement that those sexual safety incidents occurring is exactly the reason why we need to build a new Banksia unit. Will the Minister elucidate how she has come to that conclusion, given that she also stated in her answer that she had no direct knowledge of those incidents even occurring? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (17:00): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. I refer him to my previous answer. My answer is that we will build this new unit. We need to build this new unit and it will allow staff to manage the unit in a more appropriate way moving forward. The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:01): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer in relation to the current facility and what steps she is taking to protect current patients? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (17:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. As the mental health Minister in New South Wales, it is my objective to make sure that all patients that are in an inpatient facility are safe. I do not have the detail of those particular incidents. It would be my expectation that each one has been investigated and that policies and procedures are in place that would ensure that patients within the New South Wales mental health system are safe at all times. The Hon. DON HARWIN: We started a little late, but it was not that late. If honourable members have further questions I invite them to place them on notice. QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE The Hon. Mark Latham: Point of order: I raise a point of order about answers from Ministers. Two weeks ago I asked questions of the education Minister about the Grow Your Mind program and also about Denison College. In question time the Minister undertook to get back to me and no such thing has happened. I am told by the Minister's office that they are going to use the three-week rule. Is there not a standard in question time that Ministers—who clearly would have the information within a couple of days, not two weeks—should come back to the member with that information promised in question time as a supplementary answer? That was two weeks ago. The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: The standing order is quite clear. The honourable member obviously has a degree of expectation but, nevertheless, the standing orders are quite clear about how long a Minister can have to provide an answer to a question taken on notice in question time. The Hon. Walt Secord: To the point of order: To give a bit of historical perspective, in the other Chamber there used to be a well-known Labor agriculture Minister, Richard Amery, who would often provide supplementary answers within one to two sitting days. The PRESIDENT: For the clarification of members, Standing Order 66 makes it clear that Ministers may respond within 21 days to questions taken on notice during question time. Different rules apply if it is a supplementary question for written answer. There is no point of order. Supplementary Questions for Written Answers EDUCATION AND GENDER FLUIDITY GROW YOUR MIND The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:04): I would like the education Minister to answer the questions about Denison College and Grow Your Mind that she promised a fortnight ago in this Chamber and to do that tomorrow. The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Mr President, I seek your guidance on this. My understanding is that the point of that sessional order was to allow a supplementary question on a matter that came up in question time on that particular day and not just reaching back into previous question times. I ask you to give a ruling on that so that all members of the House are aware of what the arrangements are going forward. The PRESIDENT: Before I deal with that point of order, I ask the Hon. Mark Latham to approach the Clerk to seek advice on the framing of the supplementary question for written answer he just put to the House. I will consider the matter raised by the Leader of the Government and come back with a specific ruling. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 33

STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE The Hon. (17:06): My supplementary question for written answer is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Would the Minister elucidate her answer and provide a timeline for each of the 30 schools that has gone into the delivery phase, in particular the Cumberland High School upgrade, the Galungara Public School stage two upgrade, the Marsden Park new high school, the Oran Park Public School stage two and the Rydalmere education campus? EDUCATION AND GENDER FLUIDITY GROW YOUR MIND The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:06): In relation to the education Minister's earlier answer concerning time lines of providing information to the House and about new school projects, in the supplementary question format, will the Minister provide that answer about Denison College and Grow Your Mind tomorrow? The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Mr President, you have kindly agreed to take my point of order on notice and come back to the House with an answer. I would be grateful if you would consider the supplementary question for written answer that has just been asked within the framework of that point of order. The PRESIDENT: I shall do that. Questions Without Notice: Take Note TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move: That the House take note of answers to questions. STATE ECONOMY The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (17:07): Throughout question time the Opposition asked a series of questions about today's State budget. In the sea of verbiage we heard, what we did not hear is an acknowledgement of this simple truth: This is a budget that is based on tolls going up, taxes staying high, fines reaching record levels, but wages barely moving. The Treasurer is patting himself on the back about today's result and so is the Government, but here are the facts. The Treasurer is latching onto an epic property boom to compensate for a decade of poor budget choices. Every additional dollar in tax revenue raised through stamp duty has been snatched from the wallets of working families. Working families are struggling to pay their bills; they have not got enough spare change to pay for the Government's as well. We needed a much bigger vision from the New South Wales Government than what we got today. What New South Wales needed was a plan to bust out of an emergency and turbocharge a post-pandemic economic recovery. Unfortunately, the Treasurer has put reform in the too-hard basket. New South Wales businesses are crying out for help to find skilled workers. But what did we say today about TAFE and vocational education? No budget change whatsoever. The arts Minister is standing in this place and boasting of record funding for the Art Gallery of New South Wales on the same day that the Government failed to hike the budget of TAFE in response to a skills shortage or the budget of the NSW Police Force. Families are anxious that they will never own a home. There is no plan to deal with housing affordability and the housing affordability crisis. Instead, we have more verbiage from the Treasurer about a tax reform he is not even proposing. There was no reference whatsoever in this budget to the Treasurer's signature tax reform proposal; there was a failure to say that this reform will be implemented this side of the next election. People are anxious that New South Wales is turning into a State that will not make anything again. Where is the plan for domestic manufacturing? Where is the plan to back Australian workers—missing, absolutely missing. We heard the reason why from the Premier herself. She does not think that this State is good at making things. That is why this Government has given up on the manufacturing sector in New South Wales. This 10-year-old Government is out of ideas, out of puff and increasingly out of time. BANKSIA MENTAL HEALTH UNIT The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17:10): I take note of the answers given by the mental health Minister in response to my serious questions about sexual safety incidents occurring at Banksia Mental Health Unit. To be frank, the responses were quite pitiful. In her answer the Minister said that she was not aware of these so-called incidents. She was not notified. But this is the Minister that gave a submission to the call for papers to have some of this information in the clinical services plan redacted. She would have had to look at the documents to know what she wanted to be redacted or what she wanted to be kept privileged. The Minister cannot say that she did not know that these incidents had occurred. They have occurred over three years. That is at least one every three Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 34

months. While I respect the comments about the staff doing a wonderful job, they are probably more indicative of the fact that this Government has undercooked the funding for that unit and there is not adequate staffing to ensure these people are being observed appropriately. The BS meter from the Minister's response to my second question is tipping the needle over into the red. She said that we are building the Banksia unit because of these incidents. One would not have that justification to do that if one did not know the incidents had occurred. The Minister has just caught herself out in a lie. Next time she comes to this Chamber and wants to give answers, she should make sure that she is being truthful and make sure she does not catch herself out in lies. STATE ECONOMY The Hon. LOU AMATO (17:12): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Small Business to a question about how the past 10 years of delivery have set up New South Wales for success in today's budget—and what a great budget for the great State of New South Wales it is. This Government has, as the Minister said, kept New South Wales open for business, with the result that our economic rebound has exceeded our expectations, resulting in an improvement from an anticipated deficit of $16 billion for 2020-21 to a revised $7.9 billion. That is allowing us to continue and expand on stimulus programs for 2021-22 to ensure that those sectors hit hardest from the challenges of drought, bushfires, floods and the pandemic can fully recover and flourish. In particular, I note that more than $2.8 billion has been secured in this year's budget for the Department of Regional NSW to help regional communities continue to grow, move through recovery and build on the benefits of regional living. I also note that this great New South Wales State budget has already been praised by third parties. The Business Council of Australia declares it to be a: … common sense budget that continues to support a strong business-led recovery that creates new jobs. The Australian Retailers Association [ARA] commends: … the NSW Government on keeping the state economy open while battling the Covid pandemic. The ARA has also welcomed the stimulus measures to help revive the hard-hit Sydney CBD, including the $100 CBD Friday vouchers and the $100 hotel stay vouchers. It noted from its national headquarters in Melbourne: The reactivation of the Sydney CBD is critical to our national economic recovery, and we congratulate the NSW Government for their strong leadership and support for business in this area. LIVERPOOL HEALTH AND ACADEMIC PRECINCT The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (17:15): I take note of answers to questions 6515 to 6519, which were directed to numerous Ministers regarding the Liverpool Health and Academic Precinct. Back in 2018 the Government announced: Infrastructure planning for the Liverpool Health and Academic Precinct commenced in early 2018 under the management of NSW Health Infrastructure with a budget announcement of $740 million to address the 2026-27 component of the SWSLHD Clinical Services Plan. The answers to my current question about the precinct were an amalgam of media spin surrounding the amorphous infrastructure pipeline and the145,000 jobs per year which the Government now admits will only be supported, not created—buck passing to other Ministers—and reference to publicly available information that I already had and was not seeking. Yet I was not provided with any information regarding the estimated number of jobs to be created or supported by the Liverpool Health and Academic Precinct, either during or subsequent to the actual construction work. The planning Minister referred all questions about the employment multipliers to the Treasurer, who in turn referred them "to the appropriate Minister", but when it comes to hard questions, it is not him. Apparently the Treasurer and would-be next Premier is unaware that his own department operates the NSW Treasury calculator that specifies the alleged number of jobs to be forthcoming. Further, his answers make it clear that the Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney does not even know how many jobs will be created by a project that is located in western Sydney. What precisely is his purpose again? The health Minister bizarrely refers in his answer to the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government's infrastructure pipeline as being $10.7 billion. The health Minister also says that his department uses the NSW Treasury calculator to calculate the number of jobs. But as the project was announced in 2018 and there have been post-2018 changes to that calculator, what actual figures were used to make any employment calculations? Not one Minister admits to being the responsible Minister, but all are happy to refer answers to questions about jobs to whoever is responsible. So who is it? Is anyone responsible for backing up this Governments claims about jobs? Who will take the blame? Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 35

Finally, this specific project in Liverpool has already been pushed back a year. No-one can even indicate what specific proposed expenditure is outside the forward estimates and why it has already underspent by nearly $5 million to June 2020. The people of New South Wales deserve to know. BOWRAVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (17:18): I take note of the answer provided by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning in relation to my question about Bowraville Central School. Most people will know that my colleague the Hon. Mark Latham is the education spokesman for our party, but I could not help but get involved when this came across my desk. This boiled my blood and caused me a great deal of frustration. We are talking about a school that is unfortunately below or well below average for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar—the basic foundations of a sound education. The principal of this school seems to be more focused on politically correct language issues rather than the educational foundation stones of reading, writing and arithmetic. Bowraville is a disadvantaged area. We know that. It has a large cohort of Indigenous students. The Minister spoke about the Bowraville community and intergenerational social issues. I am flabbergasted to think how teaching degendered language is going to help break intergenerational social issues. We all know the way to break the poverty cycle is through a good education that enables the student to leave school and get a job; to be a productive member of society; to afford a car; to get a house; to raise a family—those things to which people aspire. Learning PC, gender-inclusive language and removing gender pronouns at school should not be a priority of this school. Unfortunately, this school has nothing to gloat about. It needs to go back to the basics to provide a sound education for these students. Clearly its priority should be education. In her answer the Minister said that degendered language is not a policy of this Government. I call on her to ensure that the principal at Bowraville Central School is informed of that policy decision and to make sure that he gets on with the job of providing the students at that school with a sound education, which is clearly needed. BOWRAVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL STATE BUDGET AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:20): As the shadow arts Minister I make a brief contribution to this take-note debate in two areas: funding of the arts and Bowraville Central School. Many members in this Chamber have heard me talk about education being a great leveller in an unfair society. When the question was asked about Bowraville I immediately returned to my childhood. I attended a school that would have had similar results as those at Bowraville. I would have thought that if a Minister was presented with evidence about such difficulties faced by the students and teachers, she would be pouring resources into that school. If it was not for the support of public education I would not be standing in this Chamber, and my heart aches when I hear that a First Nation community such as the one that I grew up in is facing a similar challenge. I turn to the funding of the arts. The Minister is trying to pass off the massive expenditure on the Powerhouse Museum—some $2.2 billion now, which is a hell of a long way from Mike Baird's original promise that it would cost $10 million. This is on the back of massive cuts across the sector. The Minister is trying to portray the funding for the Powerhouse Museum as funding for the arts when, in fact, there has been a $9 million cut to the Art Gallery of NSW, a $9 million cut to the Australian Museum, a $9 million cut to the State Library of New South Wales and a $5 million cut to Sydney Living Museums. Meanwhile, $10,000 has been spent on birthday cakes, $13,000 on floral decorations and $20,000 on umbrellas—all at a time when this State is facing cost of living pressures, tolls and speed cameras. I give a shout-out to the brave Wes Fang, who called it for what it is. The Hon. Wes Fang spoke out against this whole mob and stood up for the community. I also point out that there was no funding increase for TAFE and a tiny $8 million program for numeracy and literacy. That is extraordinary. In the 1990s under Premier Bob Carr New South Wales was ranked equal first in the world, along with the Australian Capital Territory and Finland, but we have dropped to the rank of twenty-second in the world. I return to my original comment: Education is a great leveller in an unfair society. I am where I am today because of the resources put into public education. I urge the Government to fund literacy and numeracy programs and fund and support schools like Bowraville. BANKSIA MENTAL HEALTH UNIT The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (17:23): I take note of answers given by the mental health Minister, the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, to questions around the Banksia Mental Health Unit and put a little bit of information on the record. The Banksia Mental Health Unit continues to provide a safe environment for people experiencing acute mental health episodes that require an inpatient admission. All mental health consumers are entitled to be sexually safe. Anyone being admitted into a mental health service must be assessed for vulnerability, including vulnerability to being sexually assaulted and harassed. If a person is assessed as being vulnerable to sexual assault, Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 36

the following must take place. First, the vulnerability assessment is documented within all relevant patient documents; second, a plan is developed that outlines steps to be taken to address this vulnerability; and, third, the vulnerability assessment and management plan are communicated to all staff. Sexual safety incidents are types of behaviour that can breach and/or compromise the sexual safety of a mental health consumer. This includes sexual assault and harassment, consensual sexual activity in an inappropriate context or setting, and sexually disinhibited behaviour. Sexual assault is a serious crime and NSW Health employees have an obligation to support and encourage victims of assault to make a report to the NSW Police Force. They must also protect the consumer from further contact with the accused perpetrator, offer medical support to treat any physical or psychological injuries and take steps to secure any evidence. Mental health service staff and clinicians foster a compassionate and open culture that encourages reporting of incidents relating to the sexual safety of mental health consumers. However, respecting the wishes of our mental health consumers is their priority. All incidents of sexual assault are recorded and investigated by our mental health facilities so that any consumer who declines to make an immediate report can make a report to the NSW Police Force at a future date. Online sexual safety training is available for all mental health professionals employed in NSW Health mental health services, including nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, mental health peer workers and Aboriginal health workers. These staff members are encouraged to complete this training. Many mental health units, including Banksia, offer single-room accommodation to ensure that consumers' privacy and dignity is respected at all times. In addition, the young and vulnerable persons pod in the new Banksia unit will also provide a purpose-built area to optimise safety and care for young and vulnerable people. The New South Wales Government is delivering the $700 million statewide Mental Health Infrastructure Program to transform existing infrastructure and provide new specialist mental health units to support contemporary healthcare models. New mental health facilities are being co-designed with consumers, carers and staff to help deliver modern, welcoming, safe and therapeutic environments that meet the needs of the people who use them. [Time expired.] BOWRAVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:26): Like my colleague the Hon. Rod Roberts, I take note of the answer of the education Minister about Bowraville Central School. As a Chamber we need to always demand the very best results and outcomes for students, particularly in disadvantaged areas. It should be our great driving passion and effort to lift the results for disadvantaged students. In a place like Bowraville, along with public housing estates in western Sydney, all they have got is the hope of a good school lifting them up into qualifications and a better life—a good job, a good career and doing something better than what was afforded to their parents and grandparents. The Chamber needs to understand the extent of the insult to parents in this school newsletter. In calling for de-gendered language, the clear inference is that the parents have got to use it on the school grounds too. It is talking not just about teachers and students at the school using de-gendered language—getting rid of him/her, he/she and man/woman—but the parents also adopting this. I am sure it is a tough job at Bowraville Central School. Attendance, instruction programs and classroom direct instruction would all be huge challenges at the school. However, I have got to say that the newsletter reads like a principal who has given up on academic attainment. He is talking about well-rounded citizens who have got a good social outlook and so forth. Well, none of those things exist without a decent education and qualifications. Unfortunately there have been 100 substandard NAPLAN results in a row—below or well below the national average. Then you go to the growth figures at Bowraville over the past three years and they are marginally—but still steadily—falling behind not only the national average but also those of similar schools. These are dreadful results and we need to face up to that. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to try to turn around dreadful results and call out principals who are practising the prejudice of low expectations: "The school is not doing well academically, so we will turn to citizenship and social rounding of the students." The prejudice of low expectations is that somehow Bowraville cannot be a high-achieving school, that we cannot turn around the results that have failed so badly over the past five years. I reject the prejudice of low expectations and I expect—as I am sure every member would—that every principal is driving hard, especially in disadvantaged schools, to do everything possible to lift academic results. I thank the Minister for at least saying that de-gendered language is not part of school policy in New South Wales. If that is the case, I expect the Minister is in her office right now ringing Dave Taylor, the principal at Bowraville Central School, to tell him of that policy and how his instruction in the newsletter to students, teachers and parents is plain wrong and inappropriate and that he should get back to the basics of lifting those students to better academic and vocational attainment. That is what I expect the Minister needs to do. She needs to take some Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 37

direct action so school by school we fix up the overall declining results in the New South Wales education system and give our young people a much better start in life. They are not going to get it from de-gendered language. STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:29): I take note of the answers given to the Opposition today in response to our questions about the 30 schools that have been listed in the budget, have actually made it into the budget, but with no further information provided for those schools and their communities. For years these schools have been promised to local communities, who are fed up with the lack of action. The Government has finally put the schools into the budget papers but has provided no other information. Instead, we hear of the emergence of this new idea of early planning works. What does that involve? These communities want to know when their children can attend this promised, magical public school that is failing to materialise. Let us talk about some of the examples. Jordan Springs Public School stage two jumps onto the list. This school was only opened earlier this year, it was 18 months late and already it requires a stage two upgrade. The Macquarie Park Education Precinct was first promised in 2017, and it still does not have a site to be delivered on. What are the early planning works that are underway if there is no site? It is the same story in south-western Sydney with this magical, new selective school that is promised and promised and promised, but there is no action. Again, there is no site that it will be delivered on. Let us talk about Oran Park Public School stage two. Oran Park Public School has a current enrolment of 1,555 students. It has 15 teaching demountables and four additional demountables for the office staff. How does it not make the list of schools that will be upgraded in New South Wales? Western Sydney is experiencing explosive growth, but listing schools in the budget papers is not going to address the concerns of those school communities. I commend the shadow Treasurer on his response to the budget today. He talked about the lack of opportunities being taken, particularly manufacturing in western Sydney. We have heard the Government talk about prefabricated schools. Where are the prefabricated schools that are being built in western Sydney to address the explosive growth? We have heard about the five prefabricated schools. Where were they built? In Victoria and Queensland. When we asked the Minister whether she was going to take these opportunities she said, yes, there will be announcements in the future. Are the announcements in the future, like these schools? They are off in the never-never. These are serious opportunities for jobs and growth in western Sydney and they can be taken up right now. STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE The Hon. WES FANG (17:33): I take note of the answer given by the education Minister, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, about what this Government is doing for education in the budget. I cannot help but note again the contribution of the Hon. Courtney Houssos. I tuned out a little bit because she was going through school after school after school that was listed in the budget papers. We on this side of the House are delivering schools. It is a record budget for education of $24.4 billion—that is with a "b". I know that is probably hard for the Hon. Courtney Houssos to understand because when they were in power they were cutting schools. In early childhood education the Government is spending $725.9 million supporting children in their first 2,000 days of life. There is $17.4 billion going to schools, continuing our commitment to the needs-based Gonski funding. There is $2.1 billion in this budget to fund 44 school projects. That takes this program pipeline to 215 new and upgraded schools. That is an investment of $7.9 billion over the next four years. Why are we having to build that many schools? Because, as we know, those opposite neglected education for so long. It was 16 hard years of Labor. I say honestly, thank gosh we are in power because this side of the House knows how to deliver schools. There is $2.6 billion going to skills and TAFE, ensuring that students have training and jobs for the future. No government in the history of New South Wales has spent so much on schools as has this Government. This spend is only possible because of the sound fiscal management that we have displayed in our 10 years in government. 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. (17:35): I take note of the answers given by Ministers, starting with the Minister for Finance and Small Business to a question about how the past 10 years of delivery has set up New South Wales for success in today's budget. What a great budget for a great State. As the finance Minister outlined, the Government has kept New South Wales open for business, with the result that our economic rebound has exceeded our expectations with an improvement in an anticipated deficit of $16 billion for 2020-21 to a revised deficit of $7.9 billion. This is allowing us to continue and expand on stimulus programs for 2021-22 to ensure that those sectors hit hardest by the challenges of drought, bushfires, floods and of course the COVID pandemic can fully recover and flourish. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 38

Throughout the pandemic the Government made a conscious decision to put jobs ahead of the budget bottom line, and by doing so both have benefited in the end. As a result of 10 years of sensible financial management from a Coalition Government, we are in a position to protect our economy and save jobs and to accelerate out as we recover. Because we were disciplined in the good times, we were able to weather the COVID downturn and we can now power out of it. Labor's question time strategy again was very strange. They talked about changes to speeding fines—which were actually in last year's budget. They talked about the Transport Asset Holding Entity—which has been clearly set out in several budgets for many years now. In today's upper House question time Labor barely touched on the 2020-21 budget announced today by the Treasurer. Maybe that is all part of Chris Minns' positive plan. They have nothing bad to say about our budget. So the Coalition will continue building for New South Wales. The State has had a decade of building and we have just begun another decade of building. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Written Answers to Supplementary Questions SCHOOLS AND ASBESTOS In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (10 June 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Department maintains school Asbestos Registers which contain information about the existence and location of any known or presumed asbestos-containing materials on school sites, based on advice and qualified hygienists. Asbestos Registers have been publicly available since 2008 and are updated annually. They are currently published on the department's website at: http://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/our-reports-and-reviews/schools-asbestos-register. Bills FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES AND DISABILITY SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT BILL 2021 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Damien Tudehope. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: According to sessional order, I declare the bill to be an urgent bill. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be considered an urgent bill. Declaration of urgency agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. MUTUAL RECOGNITION (NEW SOUTH WALES) AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Messages The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments to the bill. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM: 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 the next sitting day. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 1 - PREMIER AND FINANCE Report: Budget Estimates 2019-2020 Debate resumed from 2 June 2020. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 39

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 3 - EDUCATION Report: Budget Estimates 2019-2020 Debate resumed from 11 May 2021. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:42): In speaking in debate on the report of Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education entitled Budget Estimates 2019-2020, I note that it was some time ago that this committee conducted its hearings. I bring to the attention of the House a number of issues. During budget estimates hearings in 2019 the Opposition raised with the Government for the first time the question of asbestos in New South Wales schools. We revealed that asbestos was present in 2,185 out of 2,200 public schools in New South Wales. We were concerned about the fact that 109 schools had friable asbestos—that is, asbestos that is breaking down—and a further 998 schools had damaged asbestos. But most concerning of all is that that information was based on registers that were two years out of date—information that was supposed to keep the public aware of what was going on in our schools and what was happening with asbestos, a dangerous building material. Subsequently Opposition members asked more than 30 questions in the House, lodged a number of calls for papers and continued to emphasise that the way in which asbestos was being treated in New South Wales schools should be more carefully done. We needed a more rigorous process, better regulation and more oversight of the way in which asbestos was managed in our schools. The Government said that the asbestos was encased in concrete. I accept that our schools are aging and that there is asbestos in Parliament House that is also encased in concrete. But the school environment is different. Balls are being thrown around, paintings are being pinned to the walls and there are many other activities. We need to be especially careful about what we are exposing our children to. Opposition members referred to the asbestos that was breaking down in school ceilings and walls. During the last sitting week we revealed that this continues to be an issue across our public schools. Opposition members asked questions about its location in school buildings—a matter that all schools are required to include in their registers. The current register system does not account for asbestos that may be concealed within the soil, which is what we spoke about when the House last sat. We raised concerns about Concord High School where asbestos had been found on the oval. It had been covered up but because of soil erosion it is fraying and coming to the surface—an entirely new issue that needs to be addressed by the Government. During the budget estimates process we discovered that 843 inspections occurred in 2017-18 but there were only 158 inspections in 2018-19—a dramatic decrease at a time when our school infrastructure is aging and more rigorous oversight than ever is needed. That is why the Opposition continues to prosecute the case in the House, in budget estimates and through its calls for papers. One concerning aspect that we uncovered was the Government's response to this problem. It put the problem back onto principals. In addition to being education leaders, supervisors and managers, principals are now also required to be site inspectors and managers of asbestos. At a time when we are seeing declining standards right across our education system, this Government is putting more pressure on principals to be doing more than just administration, educational leadership and management of staff. They are now required to be asbestos site managers. As was revealed in our subsequent calls for papers, schools were frantically updating their registers after Opposition members started to ask questions. This is not the way in which this dangerous building material should be managed. It is certainly not the way it should be managed in our schools and our children potentially should not be exposed to this dangerous material. During the budget estimates process the Opposition also asked about the Government's commitment to provide before and after school care to every family across New South Wales. In 2019, just six months after the election, the Government started to walk back that promise. Before the election the Liberal-Nationals Coalition said that it would be available to everyone. It also said that everyone who needed a place would have access to one. During the budget estimates hearings the Government started to walk it back and said, "It will be available to all parents." Two and a half years after the election more parents are on waiting lists, living under the promise and the expectation that they would have a place if they required one. That is just not the case. Opposition members will continue to prosecute that argument. The Opposition also asked about the Government's $88.4 million commitment to provide additional counsellors to schools. I acknowledge The Sunday Telegraph, which has picked up this case. The promise was for $88.4 million to fund 100 additional counsellors and 350 mental health workers, which would bring to New South Wales schools a ratio of one school counsellor for every 750 students. In this budget we have seen additional Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 40

funds for mental health because we have serious issues with mental health in our young people right across the board, and this has been exacerbated by COVID. It is time for the Government to agree to the campaign of The Sunday Telegraph for students in our schools to have more access to mental health practitioners. That means bringing the ratio to one to 500. It is not an unreasonable ask. It is very reasonable, and it is something that we need to be providing to our students and our children to ensure that they have the support they need within the school system. It has been some time since we have debated these matters and since we conducted those hearings. They were very robust hearings. These are important issues that are facing our schools in New South Wales, and Labor will continue to prosecute the case. I commend the report to the House. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION AND THE CRIME COMMISSION Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies Debate resumed from 4 August 2020. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports and Other Matters of the Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People Debate resumed from 4 August 2020. The Hon. (17:51): The report before the House tonight specifically relates to the public hearing that took place on 6 March last year in which the Advocate for Children and Young People came before the committee and provided the committee with the opportunity to ask her a number of questions relating to her responsibilities. I note that the advocate at the time was only the acting advocate. Her name is Ms Zoë Robinson. She had been in the role for a few months leading up to the end of the year before last. She was formally appointed acting advocate in January 2020, and we had the opportunity to meet with her on 6 March. The report is in a standard form, and I do not intend to go through the report in detail. On page v it contains findings and two recommendations, which are broadly not inconsistent with the types of recommendations that we have had in the past that acknowledge the work and reflect on the report, looking at the prospective priorities of the advocate. The matter that I specifically draw to the attention of the House relates to questioning that I undertook with the acting advocate over a matter that has been of concern to me for some time. It is a matter that I handle delicately because it is delicate by its nature, and that is the issue of children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria. I have had an interest in this matter for some time because I became increasingly concerned, as anyone would, by the literature and the reports of children and young people—some are not even in their teenage years— expressing feelings of "being born into the wrong body". That is the phrase that is used by a number of these children and young people. Gender dysphoria is a complex matter. It is complex for adults but it is particularly complex for children and adolescents. In simple terms, child and adolescent gender dysphoria is the distress due to the conflict between the physical manifestations of gender in the body and the perception in the mind of a child or adolescent. The body reveals one sex and the mind feels that they are the other. When I started to look at this matter in 2016, I inquired into the numbers that were occurring in this State. I have been collecting the numbers since 2016. I referred to these numbers when asking questions of the children's advocate. In New South Wales the treatment of children and young people with gender dysphoria is typically treated through the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network's gender clinic at Westmead, although in more recent times it is also being undertaken at John Hunter Hospital and at other sites. If one looks at the numbers of children and young people that are presenting, there were eight children presenting in 2014; 20 in 2015; 48 in 2016; 65 in 2017; 85 in 2018; and 95, plus a further 63 still being considered, in 2019. There has been a significant increase over that period. These children and young people with gender dysphoria are being invited, in the main, to consider entering into what are called affirmation programs. These are programs in which the child or adolescent is encouraged to affirm their gender dysphoria position, namely, if they are male that they really are female and vice versa. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 41

Typically a child or adolescent undergoing treatment via the clinics and affirmation programs will move through a number of stages. The first stage is what is called social transitioning; the second stage is puberty blocking; the third stage is cross-sex hormone treatment; and the final stage is surgery, which normally does not take place until the child reaches 18 years of age or over. The puberty blockers stage involves the provision of pharmaceuticals to the child or adolescent to block the development of the natal hormone. If they are female, they have a pharmaceutical which blocks their oestrogen; if they are male, it blocks the testosterone. There is a blocking going on of the natal hormone that would ordinarily develop. A few years later, in almost all instances, they progress to the cross-sex hormone stage. This means that males are provided with oestrogen and females are provided with testosterone. The final stage is surgery, which usually happens after the age of majority. In 2014 eight children and young people received puberty blockers. Then the numbers jumped to 14 in 2015, 26 in 2016, 34 in 2017, 35 in 2018 and 37 in 2019. The issue I wanted to present to the advocate, in her capacity as the children's advocate, was whether she was aware of this development. In effect, I wanted to know what the children's advocate was doing to assess the possible long-term impacts of this treatment on children and adolescents. My questions to the children's advocate may be read on page 6 of the transcript of the hearing on 6 March 2020. A number of questions were taken on notice and the committee's website provides the answers. Given that the children's advocate was only newly in the role, I did not expect her—and it would have been unreasonable for me to do so—to be across the issues in any significant way. The answers given by the children's advocate provided some insight into some of the questions I asked, but I think more information is required. I must say that the numbers I have highlighted very much represent only the tip of the iceberg. I have analysed the matter of gender dysphoria in three segments. First, the gender clinics are very visible and the statistics are available; indeed, I obtained figures for successive years through an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act [GIPAA] to view the trend. Second, there are a number of individual specialists, GPs and counsellors who are now advertising that they are experts in child and adolescent gender dysphoria. There are various websites where those individuals advertise their claim to be experts in providing such treatment. Almost invariably all that the treatment offers is affirmation treatment. The more thoughtful wait-and-see approach—that is to say, seeing how the child and adolescents mature and how the questioning of their gender develops—is set aside and the child or adolescent is moved onto affirmation programs and onwards through steps one, two, three and four to progress the transition. It is a matter of great concern that a number of websites can be accessed by children and young people to obtain information from a specialist, a GP or a counsellor and to contact them and then be very much on their way through the affirmation treatment. The third level is even more challenging, and that is self-diagnosis. Many children and adolescents are doing their own diagnosing and obtaining access to the pharmaceuticals—the gender blockers and the cross-sex hormones—that are on the internet or the darknet. We have quite a serious matter playing out in New South Wales and indeed across Australia. I have been collecting the figures for all five jurisdictions in this country that have the clinics: Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. I emphasise that at the level beneath the clinics, the specialists—they can be endocrinologists or paediatricians who hold themselves out to be experts, along with GPs and counsellors—do what I consider to be freewheeling by giving advice to children and adolescents who are experiencing identity challenges. I think it is diabolical and tragic that self-diagnosis is happening at the lower level of treatment whereby children and adolescents can self-diagnose and purchase pharmaceuticals as affirmation treatment. There is a reticence to touch this issue. It is considered to be a combustible issue. People who raise it are considered to be biased and discriminatory, et cetera. Members of the committee have heard all that rhetoric before but the fact is that with respect to the gender dysphoria treatment with stage one gender blockers, we are now aware that, contrary to what was originally claimed, they are not reversible. With respect to the cross-sex hormones, they also are not reversible as originally claimed. With respect to surgery, it is irreversible. It is very important to approach this issue in a sensitive and considered manner, but I believe members of this House need to look very closely at what is going on in this State and indeed in the other States, Territories and the Commonwealth. We must realise with respect to the steps being taken by children and adolescents that their decisions to embark on treatment will be irreversible decisions. One ought not put too fine a point on it but the treatment is sterilising the child. Steps one, two and three—and there is no question about the surgery being irreversible—sterilise the child. What we find is a tragic situation that as the child grows into adulthood, moves into their twenties and beyond, they in increasing numbers become highly distressed and regret deeply their earlier decision, which is completely irreversible. Effectively, they sterilised themselves. I encourage members to become informed about this matter. It crosses all boundaries. People all throughout the State cite instances and examples that have been brought to my attention. They are looking to their elected leaders not to put this issue aside because it is too difficult and too hard. It is a sensitive matter but it must be examined. In my view, some serious decisions must be made, Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 42

particularly about regulation of this treatment. I look forward to further reports on this important matter from the children's advocate next year. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Report: Koala Populations and Habitat in New South Wales Government Response: Koala Populations and Habitat in New South Wales Debate on the report resumed from 4 August 2020. Debate on the Government's response to the report resumed from 16 February 2021. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (18:07): As Chair of Portfolio Committee No. 7 and as chair of the inquiry into koala populations and their habitat in New South Wales, I take note of the report and the Government's response to it. I note that today is eight days away from the date the report was tabled last year—30 June 2020. It was the first inquiry conducted by Portfolio Committee No. 7. At the outset I thank my fellow committee members: the Deputy Chair, the Hon. Mark Pearson; the Hon. Catherine Cusack; the Hon. Penny Sharpe; the Hon. ; the Hon. Ben Franklin; and the Hon. Shayne Mallard. The inquiry ran for a year from June 2019 and received a total of 322 submissions, four supplementary submissions and 5,752 pro forma responses. That response is because our koalas are an incredibly loved animals in this country and indeed around the world. The committee was overwhelmed by the response. The committee chose to hold a number of hearings across New South Wales to hear directly from local communities. We held public hearings in Ballina, Campbelltown, Gunnedah, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour as well as a number of hearings in Sydney. As the committee was approximately a third of the way through the inquiry the terrible Black Summer bushfires hit, but the committee heard that koalas were very much in trouble before then. They were in trouble because of a hotter, drier climate. They were in trouble because of threats like development, logging, cars, dogs and the ongoing clearing of their habitat. Wildlife carers were telling us that koalas were very stressed and dehydrated because of the hotter, drier climate and because the leaves they needed to eat to survive were so dehydrated as a result of not just the drought but also the systemic dewatering of the country. That meant the trees had been drying up for a long time. Wildlife carers were in tears before the bushfires because of what was happening to koalas. A submission to the inquiry made before the bushfires by Dr Stephen Phillips of Biolink talked about koala numbers. Committee members wanted to try to get a sense of the koala population, including the various local populations and the overall numbers, because we were not satisfied with the numbers given by the Government. Its figures were outdated and from various old reports. Dr Phillips' submission from before the bushfires stated: Biolink estimated that the total rate of population decline over the past three koala generations would now be somewhere between the lower bound of 28.52 per cent and the upper bound of 65.95 per cent. The committee heard that there was a loss of two-thirds of the entire koala population before the bushfires hit New South Wales. That has only occurred over the previous three koala generations. A koala generation is about eight years, meaning that the loss occurred over about 25 years. Then the bushfires hit. Before that summer of awful, horrendous bushfires down south, the bushfires in the north-west of the State decimated tracks of Gondwana Rainforests around Dorrigo, which is core koala habitat. Some parts had never seen fire and were burnt to the ground. Some parts of the forests in northern New South Wales that were areas of regional koala significance or core koala habitat were 80 per cent to 90 per cent burnt from those fires. There were scientists before the committee in tears. Community members, activists and people who had been trying to protect forest and bushland in their areas for decades were coming to us in tears because they thought that that was it for koalas in their areas. I particularly acknowledge ecologist David Milledge who presented at the Ballina hearing. I acknowledge a wonderful forest activist who has worked so hard to protect koalas and their habitat for decades, Dailan Pugh of the North East Forest Alliance, as well as Ashley Love of the National Parks Association Coffs Harbour branch. Those activists and scientists have been shining a light on what has been happening for a long time. Those three members of the community were incredibly distressed at what they were seeing. Maria Matthes, who is a wonderful wildlife carer in Ballina, was also incredibly distressed. She presented at the Ballina hearing, where the most extraordinary of scenes happened. The hearing was being held on the river. Just after Maria Matthes presented, she looked over and she could see the red in the sky over her place. She is a wildlife carer and has koalas on her property. She had to rush off because she was facing the very real prospect of Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 43

some of those koalas being killed in those fires. I think some of those koalas did die that day. I think all members of the committee were understanding of the grief, and being a part of it in some ways, and recognising the importance of the inquiry and the weight of the recommendations we would eventually make. Remember, the report from this inquiry was handed down a year ago. One of the findings from the report made international headlines. That finding states: That, given the scale of loss to koala populations across New South Wales as a result of the 2019-2020 bushfires and without urgent government intervention to protect habitat and address all other threats, the koala will become extinct in New South Wales before 2050. That finding was discussed by committee members. Committee members worked well together on the hearings and the issues. Without fail, members from all political parties were incredibly touched. It was incredibly distressing when we realised what was at stake and how at threat koalas were. We discussed the finding at length and it was ultimately a consensus finding. It could not be argued against. After everything committee members had heard, no-one could say that koalas would be okay after those bushfires without urgent government intervention to protect habitat and to address all other threats. The committee was the recipient of many reports. Government witnesses attended a number of times to talk to the committee about what they were doing. But members of the committee never got the sense that the need for the protection of koala habitat at a State level was being acknowledged. Finding 4 states: That the fragmentation and loss of habitat poses the most serious threat to koala populations in New South Wales. Finding 5 states: That the future of koalas in the wild in New South Wales cannot be guaranteed unless the NSW Government takes stronger action to prevent further loss of koala habitat. There were a couple of findings and recommendations that some members, particularly The Nationals member the Hon. Ben Franklin, did not want to support but overall most of the recommendations and findings were supported. Finding 16 is also important. It states: Protecting koala habitat is hampered by the inconsistencies and disconnection between the different planning instruments within the NSW planning system, and there is an urgent need to address this. A number of different recommendations came from those findings. Recommendation 2 states: That the NSW Government urgently prioritise the protection of koala habitat and corridors in the planning and implementation stages of urban growth areas. It was interesting to see that in the Government response, which came out six months after the report was tabled in this House in June 2020, 14 of the committee's recommendations were noted, 11 were supported and 17 recommendations had this extraordinary comment "supported in principle". I am still trying to work out what that means because some of the recommendations that were "supported in principle" are not supported by the Government at all. One recommendation supported by the Government, which I do not think can be right, states: That the NSW Government urgently prioritise the protection of koala habitat and corridors in the planning and implementation stages of urban growth areas. The Government says it supports that recommendation. To justify that support, it states that it is: Releasing new, best practice planning guidelines to help ensure developments can be designed to avoid koala habitat and to limit the indirect impacts on koalas. After the Government's report was handed down and after the enormous international media attention on that key finding, from the Hindu Times to the BBC to various publications in the US—the world was watching—the environment Minister, to his credit, said that he wanted to double koala numbers by 2050. That was a very good thing. We can commit to doubling koala numbers by 2050, but a government report states that koalas will become extinct before 2050 if their habitat is not protected and all threats are addressed. The number one thing we should do to stop them becoming extinct by 2050 is protect their habitat. The report did not state how to double their numbers, only how to stop them from becoming extinct before 2050. Instead, as a result of the environment Minister saying, "Let's see what we can do to double koala numbers by 2050," we saw the horrendous display by the National Party concerning the poor little grey fluffy creatures that everybody thinks are so adorable—koalas—to try to bring down the Government because the report stated that action was needed. Who knows? Part of the report looked at threats such as private native forestry. That is important because private native forestry has been carved out, as has logging. If just one person in the Government had read the entire report, they would have recognised that most of those things would have to be implemented. The Government cannot pick out one or two and say, "This recommendation here is a little bit easier. Maybe we will combine underpasses and overpasses to stop koalas being killed on roads. We will do a couple of things like that and we can say we are protecting koalas." No, all of the recommendations have to be considered, particularly those concerning habitat loss. As a result of the bushfires there was some good action. I acknowledge that the Government has put more money into supporting wildlife carers and koala hospitals. It has to put money into something because it is certainly not putting much-needed money into protecting koala habitat for future generations. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 44

Some of the recommendations were around private native forestry, which is important because I understand that changes to private native forestry legislation will be proposed this year in this place. The committee heard about the impact of private native forestry on koala habitat. Several hundred thousands of hectares of potential koala habitat is on private land that could be subjected to logging. The Government must protect koala habitat on private land as well as public land. I urge the Government to look at recommendations 30 to 33. They all relate to the need to protect koala habitat on private land. Recommendation 30 states: That the NSW Government, in the Private Native Forestry Review:  require consideration to be given to whether private native forestry plans are consistent with the objects of the Private Native Forestry Codes of Practice before such plans are approved; and  require that the objects of Private Native Forestry Codes of Practice be amended to refer to the protection of biodiversity, water quality and soil quality. Recommendation 31 states: That the NSW Government assess the interaction between legacy Private Native Forestry plans and koala plans of management to ensure core koala habitat is protected. The committee also heard alarming evidence about the tens of thousands of hectares, if not more, of koala habitat that is tied up in legacy private native forestry plans. That means that potentially they could be approved without some of the checks and balances that are in place now. Having said that, not as many checks and balances are in place on private land for private native forestry as there are in forests on public land. The Government can act on some of those recommendations—for example, assessing some of our State forest estate—that we made some recommendations around logging. As a Greens Chair, I would have liked to have gone further but I did not get the recommendation that I would have preferred. The report did recommend that the Government assess the forestry estate to identify if any core koala habitat can be transitioned over with the appropriate forestry workers' support or transition package. That has not happened. The Government response to the issues of private native forestry and public native forestry logging indicated that the recommendations in the report were not good enough and that it will not take action. If the Government does take action on State forests and public forests, it must take action on private land. The committee heard that two-thirds of koala habitat is found on private land yet what we saw with the Deputy Premier's dummy spit after the report was— The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: The member is seeking to cast aspersions on a member of the other place. She should do so by way of a substantive motion, although I do not suspect she would get very far. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The member will continue. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: With the Deputy Premier's marvellous show of wanting to bring down the Government over koalas— The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order— Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: To the point of order: If he is going to take a point of order, could we stop the clock? I have one minute and 41 seconds left. The Hon. Wes Fang: I raise the same point of order, which is that Ms Cate Faehrmann is casting aspersions on the motives of the Deputy Premier, who is a member of the other place. If she wishes to do so, then I suggest that she does that by way of substantive motion. It should be lodged as formal business, which then provides all members in the Chamber with the opportunity to make a contribution to any debate that is brought on as a result. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Ms Cate Faehrmann has the call. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: After The Nationals threatened to bring down the Government as a result of it wanting to introduce a planning policy to protect koalas and their habitat, we witnessed an extraordinary situation. Unfortunately, now we have a weaker koala policy. All the recommendations in the report should be adopted and interjections such as those made by the Hon. Wes Fang should be ignored. I commend the report to the House. Debate adjourned. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (18:28): On behalf of the Hon. Robert Borsak: I move: Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 45

That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 8 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Rulings SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWERS The PRESIDENT (18:29): At the end of question time today the Hon. Mark Latham sought to ask a supplementary question for written answer to effectively obtain answers tomorrow morning to questions the education Minister had taken on notice during the last sitting week about Denison College and Grow Your Mind. Under Standing Order 66 (1) the Minister has 21 days to provide the answer to that question. As neither Denison College nor Grow Your Mind were dealt with in a question or answer today, the Hon. Mark Latham's supplementary question for written answer is out of order. The PRESIDENT: I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m. Documents CORE INTEGRITY Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 May 2021, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Core Integrity, received this day from the office of the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, forwarding correspondence from the Department of Customer Service requesting that non-privileged documents be made privileged and be replaced with redacted versions provided. According to the request, the original documents had been classified as privileged documents and the redacted versions made public. PUBLIC LAND AND PROPERTY SALES Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 12 May 2021, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding land or property sales, disposal, or divestment targets, received this day from the office of the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, stating: The Office of Transport Safety Investigations, as constituted under Part 5A of the Transport Administration Act 1988, is an independent statutory office which is not subject to Ministerial direction or control. Accordingly, the Legislative Council should liaise directly with the Office of Transport Safety Investigations in relation to the resolution. According to sessional order, I will write to the Office of Transport Safety Investigations to communicate the terms of the order. Bills ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS) BILL 2021 Second Reading Debate Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I am not certain as to whether the Hon. Robert Borsak had finished his contribution before question time. We may have to deal with that later as the member is not in the Chamber. The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (20:04): I will be brief in my contribution to debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. The issues have been well canvassed and it has been made clear there is no opposition to the substantive aspects of the bill. I wish to address the issues and concerns relating to iVoting, which have been alluded to in the second reading speech and by previous speakers in this debate. There are a couple of points I wish to make. Firstly, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I point out that this is a committee where the Government has the majority but most of the recommendations go through without dissent. The issue of iVote has been raised consistently and on many occasions. I refer to the first finding in relation to an examination of the last State election, finding 4: iVote should not be expanded beyond its existing role but should continue to be available to the groups to whom it is currently available— that is a specific finding— Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 46

Notwithstanding the above security, reliability and accessibility concerns with iVote, in acknowledging these problems many stakeholders argued for its retention for voters who may otherwise be disenfranchised e.g. voters with disability and voters living in remote area. … The Committee agrees that it is important to retain iVote for those who are unable to access other forms of voting … Therefore, it finds that iVote should be retained for those groups who are currently eligible to use it. However, steps must be taken to address the security, reliability and accessibility concerns that are consistently being raised. These concerns were reflected in the joint standing committee's recommendations. I raise these because although I am talking about an inquiry into State elections, we are now talking about extending this same system to local government elections. Therefore, it is worthwhile looking at the concerns that have been expressed by an all-party committee. I refer to recommendation 20, which states: That in future the verification system that iVoters can use to confirm that their vote has been recorded correctly be delivered by a provider other than the provider with whom iVoters have cast their vote. The Government accepted that in principle, but I am not aware of any action that has been taken so far to implement it. Recommendation 21states: That all voters who use the iVote system be provided with a hyperlink to each party's registered How-To-Vote. Again the Government accepted that in principle but there is no indication that that has occurred for State polling and certainly no indication that that will happen for local government. However, the Government did not accept one particular recommendation, which is: That the NSW Government consider amending the Electoral Act 2017 to make the iVote development process for the 2023 NSW State election subject to independent oversight by a panel of technology experts, that has power to publicly recommend against the system's use if it fails to meet pre-determined security and reliability requirements. The panel of technology experts would report directly to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In much the same way as the oversight committee of ICAC has a similar responsibility, the Government said no to that recommendation and it has not occurred. That, I suspect, would lead all members of the committee to express concerns about moving this system into another level of government. We are not simply talking here about a uniform level of government. As of today, there are 73 days before polling day for local councils. Two weeks before that is when pre-polling starts, so we are talking about a very limited time. The actions that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters unanimously recommended have not occurred, which leads me to express concerns. However, we are not only talking about a system that would operate like one of the 93 State electorates. Many of those council areas also have wards or ridings, which is yet another added level of concern. They are also often being run by council officers who are not experienced. I am not implying anything about their professionalism but we will be saying to them, "Okay, off you go. Here is something you have no experience of and you have to implement this—and by the way, polling day is 73 days away from today." By the time the regulation goes through—I do not know when it is proposed—we are talking about a very short time. I also raise the fact that not all councils are run by the NSW Electoral Commission. Because of an amendment that was put through by the Government and opposed by me and by other members of the Opposition, some are actually run by a private company. Councils are now able to go to a private company and say, "Okay, you run the election for us." That adds another level of complexity, bearing in mind the short time. Last time Fairfield, Gunnedah, Kempsey, Lake Macquarie, Penrith, Maitland and from memory Newcastle councils did not have their elections run by the NSW Electoral Commission—as they are perfectly entitled under the legislation. They can go to a private polling company that proposes and is legitimately able to do that, and it operates and runs their elections for them. My simple concerns are for all of those reasons as well as the short time. I certainly support the amendment being proposed by Mr David Shoebridge but I do not oppose the legislation, and I have heard no-one argue that. But matters of real concern raised consistently by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and expressed unanimously by that committee include asking council officers to implement this in a new environment that they are simply not used to in such an incredibly short time. In addition to wards and ridings, they have the added concerns of having a private company involved in running this and saying, "You have to get this together." I suspect they hope—and it is only a hope—that despite all the concerns that have been expressed, this will all somehow lead to people being able to express their democratic rights at local council elections. All I can do is urge incredible caution. I suspect that when the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters eventually gets around to reviewing the outcome of the 4 September election from this year, one of the big issues that we will be looking at is the total stuff-up that was caused by the imposition of iVote. I think iVote has everything going for it in the group that it was set up for. I know that because I was the Minister who introduced it. It was meant very specifically to work for people who had disabilities or were otherwise disadvantaged but now it has expanded dramatically. I believe the concerns around care and attention that have consistently been raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have not been adequately taken into account by the Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 47

Electoral Commission as a whole. If the Government, for all the right reasons, proceeds to impose it on local government in such a rush, it will lead to massive problems. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (20:14): I speak in support of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 and I do so reasonably enthusiastically. The two reforms in the bill are sound, particularly the one regarding agents, which has long been called for by many people in the political sphere. The bill proposes to amend the Electoral Funding Act 2018 and the Local Government Act 1993 ahead of the 2021 local government election, which as members know is on 4 September—not that far away. The amendment to the Electoral Funding Act 2018 provides an additional option for party agents to deem themselves responsible for the disclosures of political donations and electoral expenditure for their endorsed candidates. Certainly I know as a former councillor—and I know the previous speaker in this debate was a former councillor as well—that I was subject to election to— Mr David Shoebridge: I think it is called "recovering councillor". The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: Yes, recovering councillors. I am in fact one of those former councillors who does not comment negatively about local government, which is quite an interesting trait of a person coming into this place after being in local government. I have huge respect for local government and huge respect for members of Parliament who go back into local government when they retire. It is a great level of government that is very much in the communities. The Hon. John Graham: It is good to know you are planning ahead. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: That is not a suggestion that I might be planning an exit strategy. I was elected in 2000, 2004 and 2008 to South Sydney and City of Sydney councils. Every one of those elections was a struggle to find the right qualified person, the right character and a person with a lack of in-depth knowledge who would not run away from the opportunity to be the agent for our elections. In terms of the party, my local government background goes back to the late 1980s. At each of those elections—I am sure that members would acknowledge this—the rules around fundraising, prohibited donors and, in later years, caps became so complicated and so onerous. Individuals, who were usually a local accountant in the party, ran a million miles away from the job of being the agent looking after the finances of our local government election campaigns because it was an onerous responsibility. Balanced with that side of the equation was that the community increasingly looked at the party overall as being responsible for the activities of councillors with its endorsement in terms of their fundraising activities and their compliance with the rules, unaware that by and large the party did not have a lot of authority nor oversight of that activity. Transparency is the most important thing. It is quite pleasing to see that this proposal, which is not compulsory, will allow any political party—whether it be the Labor Party, The Greens, the , the Liberal Party or The Nationals—that endorses candidates to make the party the agent, effectively without the consent of the candidate, which is appropriate. That option allows the party to deem itself responsible for the disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure for its endorsed candidates. I have already touched on the complexity of political donation laws now and prohibited donors. The political parties have a hard enough time being certain that a donor is not prohibited. A lot of resources are put into monitoring donors to check that they are not on the prohibited list. Sometimes they slip through, owing to dishonesty by donors, and sometimes they do not, but it is a big job for the political parties. It would seem that individual council candidates have an even harder task to make sure that people who turn up to their fundraisers are not prohibited donors. Secondly, in recent years we have introduced—which I think is a good thing—caps on expenditure, which means that every dollar expended on an election needs to be accounted for against the caps. It is a complex formula for caps for local government because, as we heard from a previous speaker, virtually no two local government areas are the same in terms of numbers of electors, wards, candidates and so forth. Therefore, the expenditure caps apply differently to different areas. If a candidate or councillor falls foul of a donation rule by accident or by design, or if they exceed the expenditure rule, currently it is not the candidate or the agent who is blamed for it—it is the political party, and the political party has no ability to oversight what is going on. This brings it under the umbrella of the computerised mechanisms that parties have developed—and I can only talk on behalf of my party—to monitor donations in real time: who they are from on the electoral roll; if they are prohibited; if they have exceeded their cap as a donor; or if they have exceeded their cap in terms of donations to the campaign. Parties are also able to monitor expenditure in real time, which gives integrity and assurance to the system of local government. In the 1980s—Minister Harwin may correct me but I think it was the late 1980s—my party made a decision to endorse Liberals for local government. Historically, the Liberal Party did not do so. Robert Menzies did not agree to endorsing political candidates in local government. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 48

The Hon. John Graham: You still have a big future in local government. Your best years are ahead of you in local government. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: It is the greatest shame that Gough Whitlam was never elected as a councillor in the Sutherland shire, which went all the way out to Werriwa in those days. The Victorian Liberal Party still has in its constitution a prohibition on running for local government. I certainly remember as a Young Liberals president taking part in the campaign to encourage our party to enter the fray of local government because our opponents were there. The Greens were just emerging but the Labor Party was very dominant in local government, particularly where I was from in Penrith. It produced a number of State MPs and Ministers. The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Name them. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: You can go to the history books. The Hon. John Graham is your party historian. Peter Anderson comes to mind. Faye Lo Po' was the mayor of Penrith and Ron Mulock became the Deputy Premier. So plenty of Labor MPs came out of Penrith council and that area. I was certainly keen to make sure that my party was in that battle of ideas at local government level, and we did join that contest in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We put our toes in the water and now we have got ourselves in the water quite deeply. Mr David Shoebridge: Hot water. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: Up to our neck. No, it has been a great success by and large. We have members working with the community. Returning to the amendment, I heard Labor members say they were not going to do it at this election. I am sure they have similar concerns to the ones I just expressed in regard to the quality of adherence to all the complicated electoral funding and disclosure rules when it is dispersed without a great deal of oversight throughout the State. Bringing it under the centralised system, which is the State and Federal system that is already in place with our party, should bring a lot more confidence, oversight and integrity to the local government fundraising and expenditure reporting mechanisms. The reason for this proposal is that it recognises candidates who nominate for civic office are not expected to be experts in running their campaigns or managing their financial disclosures. Parties who run candidates may be more comfortable that the party agent be given greater authority to handle these requirements on behalf of their candidates. I think that is true. I think candidates, as I alluded to, would be very happy to have this handed over to head office. Reverend the Hon. : Hear, hear! The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: Thank you, Reverend Nile. In doing so, it protects inexperienced candidates from accidental breaches of the Electoral Funding Act by transferring responsibility and their liability to the party agent, the head office. Heaven forbid—and I have seen it happen before—that a genuine error is made by an inexperienced candidate. It could be enough to frighten them away or to damage them to the extent that they do not pursue a career in government. We could lose good people because of that. We are experienced and it is with trepidation that we deal with our fundraising, but inexperienced candidates could easily make a mistake. This legislation will give young men and women who enter local government confidence and they may ultimately sit in this place in the future. They will have confidence that the oversight of the party machine is there to protect their reputations if they make any mistakes. The proposal also recognises the administrative inefficiency and possible confusion with parties managing the disclosures of some of their candidates through mutual agreements but not others. A council team can make the head office the agent but it is a voluntary and ad hoc arrangement that creates a lot of confusion between candidates and, more importantly, in the community about who is responsible for the disclosure. This important integrity measure will ensure that those with the ability and experience are able to run campaigns for their candidates that are compliant with the Electoral Funding Act. It also mitigates against potential risk to a party's reputation, which is equally important. It means that parties will be able to run local government election campaigns in exactly the same way as they run State election campaigns. This allows for consistency of practice. I assure members that software mechanisms have been developed to enable a donor's name to be entered into a database. It is identified, it is on the electoral roll and it is flagged if it has been identified previously as an illegal or prohibited donor and it is immediately blocked. Those systems are live and are constantly being updated to ensure that the electoral funding laws are adhered to. Lastly, it should be emphasised that this amendment is just an option. Parties who still want their candidates to be the ones responsible for their own disclosure requirements—Labor announced that it would leave its candidates out in the cold—are still able to do so. Mutual agreements will also be retained. The Local Government Act 1993 will also be amended. The proposal is to confirm the validity of arrangements between the Electoral Commissioner and councils for local government elections. That is to ensure Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 49

that no legally binding resolutions of councils are invalidated by COVID arrangements and it enables the Electoral Commissioner to make rules to facilitate COVID-safe elections. We thought we were getting on top of COVID— there has been a recent re-emergence—so we need to be prepared for such inevitabilities until we reach a higher level of vaccination and there is confidence in our community. Some members referred earlier to the iVote system. There was fear of new technology when changes were made to the proposed electoral system. It really is a matter of just ironing out the wrinkles and testing it to make sure that it works. It is a very valid system for future elections. In the past, we had great difficulty getting people with disabilities or mobility problems to the polling booths. The iVote system changed that dramatically. I commend the former Government for introducing it for that purpose, but I do not see why it cannot be expanded. I am pleased to support the amendments, in particular those that relate to agents, as it is a good reform. I expect that Labor will embrace it more in time, but it has brought things into alignment for the Liberal-Nationals Government and such transparency will result in a better outcome for us. I commend the amendments to the House. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (20:29): I make a contribution to debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. I acknowledge the work of the shadow Minister. As he has outlined, the Opposition will not be opposing the bill. We have concerns with some aspects, which I will get to later, but in large part we are not opposing the bill. A number of speakers have noted that we are only weeks away from the local government elections, so it is somewhat late in the game to be introducing this bill. However, better late than never; we are nearly there. Labor will be supporting those parts of the bill that seek to enable the conduct of COVID-safe elections. There is no doubt we want these elections, especially in light of the latest outbreak that is occurring, which highlights the risk of COVID. It is important that our electoral system has the flexibility and the malleability to deliver elections in a safe way. The other major aspect of the bill goes to the question of how party agents can interact. Obviously that is something that we support, given that it is an option for parties to step in. It would be quite onerous if it were to compel parties to do it, but I understand that we are giving parties the option to step in. I think that is appropriate. Obviously there are a lot of candidates at a local government level. This gives a party that flexibility if they need to step in. Mr David Shoebridge will move an amendment in relation to banning property developers that will give effect to the Labor Party's position, which is that property developers do not belong on local councils. It is very simple and a fairly straightforward question for us. The Hon. Walt Secord and others in our party have done considerable policy work around this to try to put that into action. It is only appropriate, so we will support it. The main issue that I will address is the expansion of the iVote and technology-assisted voting. I understand that this will come through the regulations, so I understand that my comments, while relevant to the bill, are probably more relevant to the regulations that will follow. I make this contribution as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which, like the Hon. Robert Borsak, I have been a member since coming into this place six years ago. My colleague the Hon. Ben Franklin is also a member of that committee. We have seen the emergence of iVote. I pay tribute to the Hon. Peter Primrose. I am glad he is in the House tonight. As the Minister for Disability Services, he introduced this remarkable electoral innovation that enabled people with disability to vote independently for the first time. It is very significant to enfranchise someone by enabling them to do that. I commend him for that. I have the utmost respect for his ability to implement such a big change. I acknowledge that the Hon. Peter Primrose is also a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. We have seen the expansion of iVote far beyond its original remit, which was to enfranchise people with disability. It has become a pseudo online voting system. I do not agree with that expansion. That is clearly the position of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is also the position of the Federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which has concerns about online voting. For me, those concerns only continue to grow. In an adjournment speech in August last year I outlined why we should not embrace electronic voting. We have the best electoral system in the world. We have total confidence in its results. The fundamental reason for that confidence is the level of scrutiny, whereby anybody can check that with pen and paper a vote has been allocated to a certain candidate. They can check any result. However, that fundamental principle is not in iVote; nor is it in online voting. We have received assurances from the NSW Electoral Commissioner about reports and audits conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the auditing capacity of which I absolutely respect. In its audit, PricewaterhouseCoopers says, "We are not evaluating the technology. We are not giving any guarantees that the result is actually what was inputted at the beginning. We are simply auditors." This goes to the fundamental problem that if you are to scrutinise an online ballot, you need to be a computer engineer. The reality is that it is not in my skill set, and it is not in a lot of people's skill sets who generally turn up to scrutinise elections. That is a fundamental weakness in our system. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 50

I pay tribute to Professor Rajeev Gore from the Australian National University, Associate Professor Vanessa Teague from the University of Melbourne, Dr Aleksander Essex from the University of Melbourne, Professor Richard Buckland from the University of New South Wales and Dr Roland Wen also from the University of New South Wales, who have given compelling evidence. I particularly pay tribute to Associate Professor Vanessa Teague, who has come back to the electoral matters committee to raise these concerns and talk to people who do not have the high level of skill and knowledge of computer systems that she has. They have explained the concerns that they have with the iVote system. Those concerns have not been addressed. It has been raised with me that we do our banking as well as a lot of other things online, so why can we not do our voting in elections online? The reality is that banking systems have a certain amount of error built in, but we do not have that luxury with our online voting systems. We do not have that luxury when it comes to our elections. We cannot have a margin for error. The result must be the result every single time. The level of security and confidence that is required is the same level of confidence that we need in our defence systems. That requires a huge investment of public money, and I do not support that level of investment in our electoral system when we have a fail-safe option already. It might seem old fashioned and it might seem traditional, but the pencil and paper and the counting of that means that we get the result that people voted for every single time. That confidence in our electoral system is fundamental to the democracy that puts us all in this place. We have seen some issues with our iVote system. It was down for a couple of days during a previous election, we have seen candidates left off, and there are some real concerns about the lack of consultation with disability groups, which we saw in the lead-up to the last election. That is concerning given this technology was introduced in the first place to enfranchise those people. I was really concerned by that. I hope the Electoral Commissioner will be able to address that. We have to be very clear that the role of iVote is important in giving people with a disability, people who are overseas and people who have not received their postal vote the ability to vote, but we should not embrace widescale online voting. We should not do it at this point, we should not do it with this system, and we certainly should not do it in a big rush only weeks before our local government elections. The Hon. Robert Borsak indicated that he would move to disallow regulations that went further than that. That is obviously something that would be a question. We would want to watch that very closely to ensure that the regulations were not too broad and not too narrowly focused to enfranchise a specific group of people. I commend the bill to the House. I note that Labor will not oppose it, and I note my concerns on the iVote system very strongly. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (20:38): I was not going to speak on this bill, but I was moved to do so by the entreaties of many in this House. I do it with a full heart. It allows me to put a few things on the record that I think are important. I note the contributions made by the Hon. Peter Primrose, the Hon. Robert Borsak and the Hon. Courtney Houssos. I start with the genesis and the construction of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I have had the privilege of serving on the committee for six years alongside the Hon. Courtney Houssos, the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Robert Borsak. It is an excellent committee because on the whole, probably more than any other committee that I have sat on, it puts aside partisan politics. We genuinely work together to find the sensible solutions and advancements that can be made when looking at electoral law reform. That is really important. My friend and colleague the Hon. Courtney Houssos declared that in Australia we have the best electoral system in the world. It is so important that that sense of bipartisanship and confidence is maintained from all political players and all persuasions across all sides of politics because we do not want that space to become contested. We want to ensure that there is always absolute confidence and certainty in the independent umpire or arbiter and in the outcomes of elections, which is exactly what we have at the moment. We have seen examples around the world where that is not the case and we have seen the extraordinary damage that that leads to in terms of undermining institutions as well as undermining the confidence in and support for not just the electoral system but also for a range of the structures upon which the foundations of those societies are based. We do not want that here, which is why debates and discussions like these are critically important. I will go into specifics on three elements of the bill. I will touch on the first two relatively fleetingly and I will go into more depth on the third. The first is the idea of making it more likely and appropriate for party agents to be the agents for local government campaigns and candidates. In a previous life I was the State Director of The Nationals for seven years—which Mr Deputy President, the Hon. Trevor Khan, well knows. Electoral law reforms such as donation and expenditure caps as well as prohibited donors came in at that time. Those were extraordinary and important reforms, but in the beginning they did lead to some confusion because individual members were allowed to determine whether they wanted the party agent to be their agent or whether they would be their own agent. To digress for a moment, we found that of all the candidates in the Legislative Assembly all of them determined that they would have the party agent as their agent—except for one. And there was only one who Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 51

made mistakes and who made the newspapers. It was not deliberate. He was not trying to take money from enormous Aldi bags filled with cash. Anyway, I will continue in the spirit of bipartisanship. It was not deliberate but it shows that mistakes can be made. That is exactly why it is appropriate to make the party agents the agents for those campaigns and the default setting for those candidates. It makes it easier for the candidates, it makes it easier for the campaigns and, frankly, it makes it easier for the parties because they have a level of certainty. They know that what is happening is correct. I am not suggesting that people act nefariously, but I am suggesting that mistakes are made and that mistakes will be lessened because of that excellent and important provision. The second point is the new world in which we live, the new COVID-19 world, and the importance of new section 296C, which inserts a range of provisions to empower the NSW Electoral Commissioner to make appropriate arrangements throughout COVID-19 or other pandemics. That is appropriate. Obviously last year during the pandemic a decision needed to be made and local government elections were delayed by 12 months. That was an appropriate decision. I think it was important in retaining the confidence of the community. It was broadly accepted across all sides of politics. It is important for the commissioner to have the power to do what in current circumstances he thinks it is appropriate and necessary to do to ensure elections are run in a safe, appropriate and secure way. Of course, we want to continue to do what we have done so well in this State, which is protect the lives of our citizens, and we will do so in the circumstances of holding elections as well. The most important issue upon which I wanted to reflect is the one that my friend the Hon. Peter Primrose spoke about in some depth, as did a number of other members, which is iVote. The Hon. Peter Primrose is right: Significant concerns have been expressed in a bipartisan manner in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters about iVote. Do we disagree with it philosophically? Absolutely not. Do we disagree with it in practice and fulfilling some extremely important obligations to provide access to those who otherwise may not be able to vote and enfranchise more people? Of course we do not disagree with that. Every member of this Parliament agrees with that and it is extremely important. But the critical issue of course is that there needs to be confidence in it. My colleague the Hon. Courtney Houssos referred to every single step of the electoral process being able to be observed by all players within the political system. I support registered scrutineers in the political system, except for this one. I acknowledge the contribution made by the Hon. Peter Primrose to the introduction of this very important technology. We must balance the benefit, which is significant, provided by enfranchising those who, by dint of geographic distance— Mr David Shoebridge: What other sort of distance is there? The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: There can be social distance. Mr David Shoebridge: That is geographical distance. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: In all seriousness, some people are not physically isolated but they are, for example, housebound in a city and are not able to get to a polling booth. The polling booth may be 150 metres away from their home but they may not be physically capable of getting to it. Mr David Shoebridge: The point is well made. I accept it. Well said! The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: I thank Mr David Shoebridge. I do not think I need to speak for too much longer. Substantial concerns about security have been expressed. We do not want to enlarge or expand electronic voting unless we need to and unless there is absolute confidence. We should examine whether the program can be made open source so that everybody can look at it to see if there are any issues that need to be resolved. That is appropriate. In conclusion, I commend this excellent legislation. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to speak in the debate. I strongly support the wonderful work of my friend and colleague the Special Minister of State. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (20:48): In reply: I thank members who contributed to debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021. Those contributions include speeches made by Opposition members, such as the excellent contributions of the Hon. John Graham and the Hon. Peter Primrose, who, as he reminded the House, played an important role as a former Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services in the final Labor Government—one of the better Ministers in the final years of the former Labor Government. The measures he led and what Parliament did to assist visually impaired people to vote was a very fine thing indeed. I also thank the Hon. Courtney Houssos for her excellent contribution to the debate, which was well argued. I will return to comment on it in more detail later in my speech. I thank Mr David Shoebridge for his remarks— Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 52

and the Hon. Robert Borsak. Although the Hon. Robert Borsak made some reflections upon me, I regard them as some of the mildest reflections on me that he has made in some time, so I must be making progress. Mr David Shoebridge: He was cut off by question time. The Hon. DON HARWIN: Mr David Shoebridge may well be right; I might be misreading the situation. I certainly thought he had well and truly dealt with that particular part of his remarks before question time. I should not fail to mention the Hon. Shayne Mallard and the Hon. Ben Franklin, who in the fine tradition of Whips assisted the House with the orderly conduct of debate in a way they can both be very proud of. I thank them very sincerely. I will briefly address some of the points that were made during the debate, but first I make one general point at the outset: A number of the remarks honourable members made were about the fact that particularly the electoral legislation provisions are coming quite late and there has not been the opportunity to put them to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters first. That is an important point, which I take very seriously. I have expressed in other forums some regret that it was not possible. In my maiden speech a very long time ago—back in 1999—I called for the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Even though the motion was in fact moved by the Hon. Duncan Gay— because he wanted to take the credit—in his effecting speech establishing the committee he very generously said that I was a co-founder, or co-sponsor effectively. I am proud of the work it did. I spent a long time as a member of that committee before I became President of this House, and it did some good work. It certainly did not always act in a bipartisan way under the previous Government. It has generally done so—but not always—under this Government. But, as a number of members have said, it is a committee that has a Government majority. I said in my maiden speech that it was my very strong preference that matters to do with electoral processes should not be matters where one seeks to gain partisan advantage. Members should remember what the voting system is all about. Those of us who are democrats should be united in wanting, as far as possible, good electoral processes. That imposes a responsibility on parties represented in this House to try to use the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to do good. That was not the case with this legislation; this is a concern that has arisen more recently. I wish it had been possible to do it that way, and in debate tonight I expressed my sincere regret that it was not. When I have carriage of new legislation in this House I have generally shown that I am perfectly prepared to take controversial legislation to committees. As Special Minister of State, I feel I should do that with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as well. I will make every endeavour to do that. First, on what we might refer to as the step-in power, the proposed amendments to section 14 of the Electoral Funding Act are only intended to make a minor adjustment to the current disclosure requirements in that section. I note that during the debate the Hon. John Graham read onto the record some material that my office provided to him to make our intentions clear. I thank him for doing that and I will largely cover the same material now to make it absolutely clear to all members of the House. Section 14 currently describes the relevant electoral participants responsible for making disclosures of information. That section does not currently define or describe the responsibilities of members, candidates or groups by reference to endorsement by a political party; however, the section does specify the disclosure responsibilities of candidates and members who are members of a registered party. The existing mutual agreement mechanism at section 14 (3) and (4) allows the party agent to be responsible for the disclosures of a candidate who is a member of the registered party with their agreement. The proposed amendments to section 14 are similarly drafted. The amendments will allow the party agent to choose to be responsible for the disclosures of a candidate in a local government election who is a member of the registered party, except this time without their agreement. The drafting ensures that the amendments are consistent with the current disclosure responsibility framework and will result in only minimal changes being made to the Act. Technically, the effect of the amendment could be—as I think was referred to in the contributions from the Hon. John Graham and Mr David Shoebridge—that the party agent deems themselves to be responsible for the disclosures of any party member who is a candidate, and therefore it is not strictly limited to the party's endorsed candidates. However, the amendment has been drafted to align with comparable language under section 14 of the Electoral Funding Act. The bill as drafted provides for the most minimal change to that provision. Any new provision that refers to "endorsed candidates" would require more comprehensive drafting and more extensive changes to the Act, including about what constitutes "endorsed". That could be quite complex given the different endorsement processes of each political party. I certainly would not contemplate doing that without the full involvement of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters [JSCEM]. The intention of the provision is that it will only be exercised in relation to candidates that political parties expect to endorse. That is the intention the Government has in bringing that provision to the Chamber. That was what the Liberal Party requested and that is what the Government is doing. We are not bringing the bill to the House with the intention of bringing in a provision that allows registered parties to take over the responsibilities Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 53

of Independents. That is not the intention behind what the Government is doing, but we accept that that is a theoretical possibility because of the way it is drafted. That is obviously something we will need the JSCEM to turn its mind to after the local government elections so that we have a provision that can serve us well into the future. Obviously we are trying to reflect the State arrangements where it would be expected that one would contest all available seats. We are trying to do that but we are trying to do it in as minimal a way as possible given that this is being done quite close to the election. The way the amendment has been drafted will also allow party agents to notify the Electoral Commissioner of candidates they intend to endorse without needing to have done so in the first place. That is worth knowing as well. That will make it more administratively efficient for parties and allow them to assume responsibilities for their candidates' campaign disclosures sooner. That is a provision we were happy to put in as well because, at the end of the day, the bill is all about increasing integrity in disclosure of donations and electoral spending functions. The bill was requested so that all registered parties would have the ability to protect their party name from reputational damage. That is why it is being done. It is being done to facilitate registered parties doing the right thing in making arrangements encompassing their endorsed candidates. Secondly, I will address some points raised by Mr David Shoebridge with respect to the making of COVID-safe rules. Some of them were also raised by the Hon. John Graham. I am advised by the office of the Minister for Local Government that an amendment regulation will be made which will expand the eligibility for postal voting on only COVID-related grounds. Electors who are self-isolating due to COVID or who reasonably believe that attending a polling place on election day will pose a risk to their or someone else's health or safety because of COVID will be eligible to vote by post. Because residents of hospitals, nursing homes and retirement villages are particularly vulnerable if infected by COVID, the amendments will also allow temporary and permanent residents of hospitals, nursing homes and retirement villages or similar facilities to vote by post. It is certainly not our intention, I am advised, to bring in a substantially increased scope by regulation for postal voting. The local government Minister's office advised me that that is not what is planned, which Mr David Shoebridge might have apprehended to be the case. Further, in terms of COVID-safe rules I am also advised from the Minister for Local Government that new section 296C will allow the Electoral Commission to publish COVID-19-safe election rules. In determining those rules, the Electoral Commissioner must have regard to applicable public health orders concerning COVID and relevant health recommendations made by NSW Health. An example of the rules likely to be published by the commissioner are those published recently with respect to the Upper Hunter by-election, which I am happy to table for the benefit of the House if honourable members would like that. I table a report of the NSW Electoral Commission entitled Upper Hunter State By-election: COVID-19 Action Plan for NSW Electoral Commission. Document tabled. The Hon. DON HARWIN: It is likely that COVID-safe election rules will apply uniformly to all council elections administered by the commissioner, but there would be nothing under the provision to prevent the commissioner from publishing rules specific to a local government area [LGA] where the provisions of a public health order concerning public gatherings require it. COVID-safe election rules published by the commissioner under section 296C cannot override the existing rules governing eligibility to vote using pre-poll, postal or technology-assisted voting. These will have to be prescribed by the regulation and, as honourable members know, would require an accompanying regulation amendment, which would be disallowable by the Parliament. The third issue I wish to speak to is iVote. An amendment is proposed to section 296 of the Local Government Act to clarify that a provision of an election arrangement entered into between a council and the Electoral Commissioner that is inconsistent with or would prevent a person from casting a vote in a way provided by the regulations has no effect. That includes where the regulation is made after the election arrangement is entered into. The amendment would not operate to expand the availability of technology-assisted voting. Rather, the amendment is being proposed in anticipation of the proposed amendments to the Local Government (General) Regulation to make technology-assisting voting available at local government elections for the first time. The proposed amendments to the Local Government (General) Regulation are consistent with the current arrangements for technology-assisted voting under the Electoral Act and will not expand iVote beyond its existing role other than in one minor respect. Electors who are eligible to vote by post and who have applied to vote by post but have not received their postal ballot papers will be able to vote instead using technology-assisted voting. That is the only minor change. The amendment to section 296 of the Local Government Act will simply ensure that electoral arrangements entered into under that section will continue to operate effectively, even if they did not contemplate the availability of technology-assisted voting when they were drafted. In the debate, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised matters about the Government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters [JSCEM] report with regard to iVote. I note that that was also Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 54

done by the Hon. Peter Primrose, the Hon. Courtney Houssos, the Hon. Ben Franklin, Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Robert Borsak. The Government has supported a number of the JSCEM's recommendations with regard to optimising the security, reliability and accessibility of iVote. The Government notes, however, that a great number of recommendations were directed to the Electoral Commission and it is a matter for its implementation. The Electoral Commission is, of course, independent of the Government. However, it was the Electoral Commissioner's expressed preference to work with the Government on responding to the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Of course, we respected his wishes in a number of matters. The Government recognises the utility of iVote in making voting more accessible to certain categories of voters. That having been said, the Government is cognisant that iVote has its limitations and should not be extended beyond its current franchise. The Government is attentive to those concerns, both from members of this place and matters raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In his detailed remarks Mr David Shoebridge made reference to the Electoral Commission not having the same concerns as he did and, for example, a number of the academic papers he raised. I am as proud as other members of our voting system. I hear what honourable members are saying and I will review their well-argued concerns with the Electoral Commissioner before the State election. I give that assurance. In brief conclusion, I advise the House that I will move an instruction to the Committee of the Whole to divide the bill. Most of the concerns raised are about those changes to the local government bill. That will give honourable members an opportunity to make the amendments they feel need to be made—including, if necessary, amendments consistent with the concerns raised—without impeding the orderly debate and passage of what I believe are urgent changes to electoral funding legislation. With those remarks, 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. Instruction to Committee of the Whole The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:07): According to sessional order, I move: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that: (a) the Committee have power to divide the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 into two bills so as to incorporate in a separate bill the amendments relating to the Local Government Act 1993; and (b) that the Committee report the bills separately. I refer to the remarks I made at the end of my speech in reply and ask honourable members to take them into consideration. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:08): The Greens do not support splitting the bill. We see genuine merit in having the two parts dealt with together as a package to deal with upcoming local council elections. There is a concern that if the bill is split, because the Government is so keen on being able to rope in its rogue local council candidates and bring them into the fold and run the ruler over their accounts, it may proceed in the other place with only that and drop the changes—some of which we think are important—in relation to COVID-safety protocols and other matters in the amendments to the Local Government Act. We will move amendments to the local government legislation during the Committee stage that we think are far more critical to the integrity of council elections, that being the prohibition on property developers running for council. We think that is a far more important integrity measure and of a far higher value to the community than the modest changes the Government is proposing in its reforms to the Electoral Funding Act. The Greens believe that there is a strong political reason to keep the two parts together and not have the bill split because the danger is that if that happens, the other place will agree to the amendments to the Electoral Funding Act that the Government wants but will leave orphaned and unaddressed the far more important integrity measures prohibiting property developers from standing for council. If we asked the people of New South Wales, the ordinary mum and dad in the street, if they thought it was more important for the integrity of local councils to get property developers off councils or some abstruse change to the accounting rules for the election, I reckon they would say, almost to a person—except, of course, property developers who want to run on a Liberal ticket— The Hon. Wes Fang: They wouldn't care, David. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note that the Hon. Wes Fang thinks the people of New South Wales do not care about property developers running for council. That may be his position, but he should get out more and Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 55

talk to people on the street because people are very concerned about property developers corrupting local councils. We know there is an inherent conflict of interest in that. For those reasons, The Greens do not support splitting the bill. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (21:11): I indicate the Opposition's point of view. In my second reading debate contribution I spoke about the principles that we had applied to the bill. We share the concerns of Mr David Shoebridge. In fact, as I said, our members have moved bills in this House to the same effect as the amendment he has just foreshadowed. That is one of the principles that we assert. The second is that, where possible, this electoral legislation should not be the subject of partisan backwards and forwards movements. The Minister in his contribution articulated that principle well, including some of the discussion about how the joint standing committee has worked at its best. Those are the two principles we are seeking to balance. I have agreed with a lot of what the Hon. Wes Fang has said this week; however, I do not agree with the suggestion that people do not care about this matter. We are seeking to take a principled and balanced approach because these are important issues. As a result, we are happy to support the Government attempting to split the bill and let it carry on down into the other place if that is successful. We will be arguing the case for both of those measures. We will be arguing strongly for the provisions that the Government says are integrity measures and we will be arguing equally strongly—in fact, probably more strongly—for the argument about property developments. I accept that is a more important measure and I think it will be a problem for the Government to put the case that the Minister has put today about the importance of these COVID-safe measures and take the path that Mr David Shoebridge has said he is concerned about. That would leave the Electoral Commission in a difficult position and we will argue the case for those COVID-safe measures and any anti-developer measures that are put forward and successfully amended in Committee, should both be dealt with seriously in the other place. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:14): In reply: I hear what both honourable members say, but I make one important point that the proposed amendment is effectively relitigating a debate that both Houses have had. At this stage the position of the Government has not changed. Nevertheless, to facilitate the orderly consideration of all the provisions in the legislation, the Government strongly suggests to the House that the best way to proceed at this point is to split the legislation into two bills. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his comments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Instruction to Committee of the Whole Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:15): According to sessional order, I move: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has power to consider an amendment to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 relating to prohibiting property developers from civic office. This is probably not necessary, given that the long title as currently drafted clearly encompasses the amendment that The Greens intend to move in Committee. We move the motion for the avoidance of doubt so there can be no argument and no surprise during the Committee stage. Often the person chairing the Committee can be unpredictable in their rulings. We want to ensure that it is locked in in advance so that we do not get caught by that sort of unpredictability of the Chair. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:16): I will not detain the House further in what has been a long debate. The Government will oppose the instruction, consistent with the position it has had on this issue in the past. But I see what the will of the House is and I accept that we will be debating the proposed amendment shortly. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (21:17): I simply indicate that the Opposition will be supporting the instruction. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Division called for. Call for a division, by leave, withdrawn. Motion agreed to. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 56

In Committee The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:20): According to the instructions of the House, I move: That the bill be divided into two bills, and that schedule 2 on pages 5 and 6 be incorporated in a separate Bill (the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021) with the following long title and provisions— A Bill for an Act to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to provide for matters in relation to the postponement of local government elections; and for related purposes. The Legislature of New South Wales enacts— 1 Name of Act This Act is the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2021. 2 Commencement This Act commences on 1 July 2021. Schedule 1 Amendment of Local Government Act 1993 No 30 [1] Section 296 How elections are to be administered Insert after section 296(2)— (2A) To avoid doubt— (a) a provision of an election arrangement that is inconsistent with, or would prevent a person from casting a vote in a way provided by, the regulations has no effect, and (b) the Electoral Commissioner does not contravene subsection (2) by doing, or omitting to do, something for the purpose of complying with provisions of the regulations concerning the conduct of an election to which the arrangement relates. (2B) Subsection (2A) extends to regulations made after the election arrangement is entered into with the Electoral Commissioner. [2] Section 296C Insert after section 296B— 296C Conduct of COVID-19 safe elections by Electoral Commissioner (1) This section applies to an election administered by the Electoral Commissioner. (2) The Electoral Commissioner may, by a written order published on the NSW Electoral Commission website, specify rules (COVID-19 safe election rules) for the safe conduct of elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. (3) In determining COVID-19 safe election rules, the Electoral Commissioner must have regard to— (a) applicable public health orders concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) relevant health recommendations made by NSW Health concerning the holding of public events during the COVID-19 pandemic. (4) The Electoral Commissioner does not contravene section 296(2) in relation to an election arrangement mentioned in the subsection for something done, or not done, for the purpose of complying with COVID-19 safe election rules. (5) This section is repealed on— (a) 1 January 2022, or (b) a later day, not later than 26 March 2022, prescribed by the regulations. (6) In this section— public health order means an order made under the Public Health Act 2010, sections 7 or 8. [3] Section 318B Postponement of elections Insert after section 318B(4)— (4A) To avoid doubt, subsection (4)(c) does not affect the validity or operation of resolutions passed, or arrangements entered into, by a council under Part 6, Division 1. [4] Schedule 8 Savings, transitional and other provisions consequent on the enactment of other Acts Insert after Part 41— Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 57

Part 42 Provision consequent on enactment of Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2021 134 Postponement of elections Section 318B(4A) extends to resolutions passed, and arrangements entered into, before the commencement of that subsection in relation to an election postponed under section 318B before the commencement. The reasons for this amendment were canvassed in my speech in reply and in a short debate that we had before we came into Committee. I rely on the remarks I previously made and hope that there is support from members for them. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (21:21): I will similarly refer to my previous comments but make it clear that the Opposition will be supporting this instruction as moved. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:21): I will not repeat what I said in the debate, but for those reasons given The Greens oppose the splitting of the bill. I will move an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Government. I move: That the motion of the Hon. Don Harwin be amended as follows: No. 1 Long Title Long title. Insert "prohibiting property developers from being councillors" before "and for related purposes". No. 2 Insert after the words "Schedule 1 Amendment of Local Government Act 1993": [1A] Section 275 Who is disqualified from holding civic office? Insert at the end of section 275(1)(h)— , or (i) if the person is a property developer. [1B] Section 275(8) Insert after section 275(7) (before the note)— (8) If, on the commencement of this subsection, a property developer holds a civic office, the person is not disqualified from holding the civic office because of subsection (1)(i) for the balance of the person's term of office or for the period of 6 months, whichever is the shorter period. [1C] Section 275(9) Insert at the end of section 275 (after the note)— (9) In this section— property developer has the same meaning as in the Electoral Funding Act 2018, Part 3, Division 7. For more than two decades The Greens have been calling for property developers to cease making contributions to local, State and Federal elections and for property developers' influence to be removed from local councils. I give credit to Ms Lee Rhiannon, one of my colleagues and a former member of this place, for the work she did to clearly articulate the need to get rid of corrupting donations from local, State and Federal elections. The Democracy for Sale website that Ms Rhiannon developed, which was the authoritative place to find the kind of corrupting donations that undermined democracy in New South Wales at both local and State levels, was one of the most important political reform moves that we have seen in New South Wales. I note also the work of Ms Sylvia Hale, in particular the way she tracked the donations that went to the Labor Party in relation to the proposed development at Killalea State Park. She tracked the developments and then the planning gifts that were given by the then Minister for Planning at the time, which really brought to the public's attention just how corrupting property developer donations were. I also give credit to my former colleague Dr John Kaye and the work he did not just on property developer donations but also on gambling and tobacco and other interests. This has been longstanding reform for The Greens, but it is incomplete. At the moment, yes, property developers are prohibited from donating to local council campaigns—and that is due to that long history of work—but they can avoid that whole constraint just by getting themselves elected to local council. Earlier tonight I shared the fact that we were proposing this amendment on social media and a whole bunch of people responded, "But I thought property developers were already banned from being on local councils." Most people in New South Wales just assume we have got on and fixed this. But, unfortunately, the Liberal Party seems committed to ensuring that property developers can actually get themselves elected to councils. I do not know if there is an internal rule within the Liberal Party to prevent property developers being endorsed candidates; probably not. It might knock out half the Liberal candidates in north-west Sydney if the party did that, let alone Parramatta. But when you talk to people in the street about this, they know that there is an Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 58

inherent conflict in having property developers on local councils. They know that property developers should not be on local councils. The largest conflict of interest for property developers sitting on local councils is not dealing with individual development applications. Although outside of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong property developers in the rest of the State can actually decide development applications if they are councillors. They will actually decide the development applications, whether it is a block of flats in Tamworth or Dubbo or down on the South Coast or up on the North Coast. Under the Liberals' proposed model for New South Wales, property developers on councils can decide development applications. The real money to be made in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong for property developers on council is not actually in deciding, or having a role in deciding, development applications. The really big money is getting advance notice of proposed rezonings. Because if you have six months' advance notice of proposed rezonings and you are a property developer and ethics are not a problem for you, then you can purchase that land in advance, or you can get a mate or friend to purchase it, or have a quid pro quo arrangement with a property developer on another council and exchange the information. You can purchase the land at its current zoning and then six months later, when it is rezoned to upsize the development potential, millions and millions of dollars can be made by property developers on councils. That is where the big money is made. That is where the $10 million and $20 million is made by property developers. It is in the rezoning. Having property developers on council means that they can have six months' or 12 months' advance notice of proposed rezonings in their local council area and they can move ahead of the market and reap windfall benefits from those prior owners. That is, if for no other, the reason the Liberal Party should be joining with us and saying that of course property developers should not be on local council. The conflict of interest is so obvious. Yet this is the hill the Liberal Party is willing to die on nine weeks out from the start of local council elections. They are going to die in a ditch and say that they are 100 per cent ideologically committed to putting property developers on council, with a big Liberal endorsement sticker on their backs. Why would Liberal members do that? What is so precious about property developers that they are willing to put their interests ahead of the public of New South Wales? Why are they so committed to getting property developers elected onto council? The Greens not only endorse and support this amendment but also cannot comprehend why anyone who is interested in removing corruption risks from local government would not join in this and celebrate it. I wait to see what possible arguments the Liberal Party can put to oppose this amendment. The Hon. MARK LATHAM (21:31): One Nation opposes the amendment on the principle that people should not be rubbed out of our democratic system other than the obvious—those who are in jail. You can run through a long list of people who technically might not be suitable to local government service and say, "We're here to rub them out." But in a democracy people have the basic, fundamental freedom and right to run for elected office. That is the most sacred of all democratic principles. It is likely that under the Australian Constitution and implied rights this would be rubbed out in the High Court. The idea that certain classes of people are not eligible runs against the implied right of freedom in a democratic system to be elected to serve your community. You could make an argument, for instance, that people who sneak up in the dark of night to deface municipal statues are not suitable and should not run for local government because they cannot be trusted with municipal property. You could make an argument that people who have been convicted rapists, paedophiles and murderers and have served their time and go into the community as free citizens are not suited to run for elected office of any form. You could make the argument that political parties that are committed to creating mass unemployment in coal-based regions and causing untold human hardship are not suited to run for any form of elected office—local, State or Federal. We could stand here all night rubbing people out but there is a fundamental truth. I reach back to my own experience in local government where there were property developers and people trying to make a quick dollar. The best way of dealing with them is the declaration of pecuniary interests. I reject the idea that somehow if you are on the council you have got an idea of where the zoning maps are going. They are determined by the State Government. They are publicly displayed. It also cuts both ways. I remember on Liverpool council, where we had the majority, there were a couple of Liberal real estate agents. I must confess all these years later that we did go out of our way to make their development interests so much harder at the council. I dare say by running for council they lost money because we gave them such a hard time. But I was truthful and still am today against urban sprawl and overdevelopment. I did not like the idea of real estate agents making a quick dollar, and we stopped them doing that. They had to declare pecuniary interests. In many respects, those who had property interests on a council were known, obviously. Everyone was watching them like a hawk. There were even moves within the factional machinations of the Labor Party in Liverpool at that time to rub out a Labor councillor who had property interests. I still think to this day that that might have even been internal. I know the Hon. John Graham is shocked that the Labor Party could have been like that back in the day. It has cleaned up its act. There are no internal machinations in 2021. But back in the day there used to be. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 59

Property owners on a council are very exposed. Everyone knows their interests; everyone sweats on what sort of pecuniary interests they declare. But the basic rule is that if you have got the property interest, you cannot vote on it. Mr David Shoebridge: The Liberal mayor of Strathfield forgot five separate times. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: What is The Greens' point? Mr David Shoebridge: The Liberal mayor of Strathfield forgot to tell people on five separate occasions. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: One of your staffers was defacing municipal property late at night and you had no problem with that. Are you moving a motion that your staff who defaced municipal property are suitable or unsuitable as municipal candidates? The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The member will resume his seat. It is 9.30 p.m. Mr David Shoebridge is not helping, nor is Ms . The Hon. Mark Latham will complete his contribution without encouraging those two members. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I am just speaking in favour of the ratepayers of Sydney, who do not want their municipal property attacked by sewer rats coming out late at night with spray paint cans to deface it. I do not think people like that should run for municipal office. If you cannot respect municipal property, how can you be a municipal candidate? These are ridiculous arguments that essentially— Mr David Shoebridge: Attacking young women—that is typical of you. Always punching down, aren't you, Mark? The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Well, punching down is the only way to ever find you, pal—way down in the gutter with your staff. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I love The Greens' interjections because they always argue against themselves. Who we can ban from municipal office is unlimited. The whole point is about anti-corruption. The best way, of course, is to have systems of pecuniary interest declaration in local government, have it all transparent and have these people known. They certainly are. Apparently there is a problem with some Liberal bloke at Strathfield Council. Well, he has apparently been caught out in the system and there will be repercussions. Then people will vote on him in September if he is allowed to run again. If you have done the wrong thing and you have committed illegalities and reached these convictions, then you are not allowed to run automatically under the law as it stands. That is right and proper. But for The Greens to decide that property developers are some kind of disease and that they have the right to rub them out is just plain wrong. We can all stand in the Chamber all night rubbing out certain categories of people when under our democracy the basic right is the freedom to run and be judged by your peers in the community. I have to say that, yes, there have been some dreadful people in local government. Some are property developers; some are not. Some property developers have also served with some distinction and put a hell of a lot of money back into the community. Some of them still get bad press in the media. But we cannot say that because someone invests in property and development they are automatically a dishonest person. The illogical position of The Greens is to say that because someone has certain business interests they are automatically a person who cannot be trusted. Well, I do not think we have the right to say that. We have not got that knowledge about every single aspirant to elected office. People investing to create jobs and economic opportunity in our communities is not such a bad thing. I know in the world of The Greens any form of private business activity is automatically bad, but that is certainly not a community standard and value shared across New South Wales. We need to be realistic. It would probably be knocked out in the High Court if the Chamber was so foolish as to carry this position. The Hon. Don Harwin: Quite right. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: The Leader of the Government agrees with my bush lawyer assessment. You are nodding as well, Chair, so I know I am on very strong ground here. I have the bush lawyers and traffic lawyers on my side. So we are marching down to Canberra, to the High Court, confident that we have Mr David Shoebridge, QC, covered on the constitutional legality. We have got him covered on the basic democratic principle and the absurdity of trying to rub people out when we do not have that capacity. No-one ever runs for elected office without sin and without fault. All we can do is put in place logical anti-corruption measures: declarations of pecuniary interest, transparency. We have a corruption commission in New South Wales. Public service is an imperfect business. Not everyone does it properly, and for those who do it improperly we find out and we deal with them. We do not need this resolution from The Greens. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 60

The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:39): I do not want to re-litigate the whole debate, which was held in this Chamber not so long ago. The Government has legislated several integrity measures to improve standards for councillors, including the changes we made in relation to Sydney metropolitan councils, Central Coast Council and Wollongong City Council deciding development applications. Those decisions are now made by independent panels. We also implemented a new Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW in 2018 to strengthen the ethical, accountable and transparent operation of local government across the State. Both of those have been important measures, so to say that the Government has not done anything in this area would be a mistake. I focus, however, on one particular reason why we think it is foolhardy to go down this path. It is exactly the point that the Hon. Mark Latham just made. A number of members, including the Hon. John Graham and Mr David Shoebridge, have said that this is a "far more significant integrity measure", in their words, than what we have proposed for the electoral legislation. Without making any observations regarding the merit of their comments, at face value that is in fact true: It would be a far more significant change. We have brought in a relatively minor change; the honourable members are suggesting a major change. For it to go ahead, in my view, it should first go through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters [JSCEM] as well. It is a major change and in order to be consistent with the remarks that members were making about partisanship, the JSCEM should have considered it before the House considered the bills either on this occasion or on the previous occasion. I will not draw the obvious conclusion on how one should therefore regard the previous bill or these amendment because it is getting late and we need to get on with business, But I make the very practical point that our election funding legislation has been in the High Court on several occasions in the past few years. The most recent case was about changes we made to the expenditure limit for third-party actors in elections. The Government passed that amendment without it having been looked at by the JSCEM and without some of the tests that have been put down in previous High Court cases having been met. I submit, as the Hon. Mark Latham said, that this provision, which is a constraint on the capacity for someone to contest an election equally, is in jeopardy from the High Court should it be passed. The reasoning of previous judgements has not been gone through. I know that will be contended, but there is a school of thought that has that view. In any case I go back to the previous point I made: This is a very significant point that should have gone to the JSCEM first. I will not re-litigate the rest of the argument that I have previously made other than the few brief points I have made as to why the Government will not be supporting the amendment. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (21:44): I thank members for their comments. Firstly, I indicate that the Opposition will be supporting the amendment of Mr David Shoebridge. I am glad that the Hon. Walt Secord is in the Chamber for this debate. He was referred to in the second reading debate earlier and he may recognise some of the work that is in the amendment because he introduced into this place a bill that had a very similar effect. Certainly the Hon. Walt Secord, the Hon. and the Hon. Peter Primrose all spoke strongly in support of that measure at one point or another. They did so because this is the policy of the Opposition. We believe this measure should be adopted by the Government and we have taken steps to bring it to a head. Mr David Shoebridge ran through the history, in his view, of some of the changes that have occurred to the way property developers are dealt with by the electoral system. Certainly I do not seek to diminish any of what he has put on the record. However, I indicate that the donations changes that went through, which took developers out of the system, were not just supported by those members he named but by a majority of members of this House. A significant number of other members of this Chamber and of the other place drove those changes through to law in New South Wales to make sure that developers could not donate in New South Wales. Particularly I mention the Hon. Peter Primrose. He has been a long-term campaigner for those measures, as I have seen myself over decades. When those changes came through, the Government was told that it could not introduce them because it would not be possible to define those developers in that way to take them out of the donation system. The Government was given advice that there would be a High Court exposure and that this would not survive a court case. A significant number of years down the track that has not proven to be the case. It is in that tradition and for similar reasons that we support the amendment moved by Mr David Shoebridge today. It is why the Opposition has brought this measure before the House previously. We do not do so lightly. People should be able to run for public office wherever possible but it is not an absolute right. The freedom to run for political office is in some ways less of a right than freedom of speech. Given the history of Sydney and the troubled history of these issues in New South Wales—particularly in relation to development, local government and developers—we do feel that there is a special case here. But it is not taken lightly and I think that is important. It should not be the case that this is about taking classes of people and saying, "You cannot serve in public office." However, we do have a particular problem in New South Wales. That is why the Independent Commission Against Corruption was required and why it has been so important in modern times: to deal with issues that are hard to Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 61

spot in government and in political parties. Corruption is something that has to be tracked down and rooted out. It is not always obvious at the time. For those reasons, we say this is a special case. I encourage the Government to adopt these measures. If the Government will not adopt them tonight—and that is the view of the Leader of the Government—I encourage the Government to reconsider its view in the other place. If these measures are passed in Committee, I call on the Government to consider supporting this amendment in the lower House. There have been changes driven by the Government but in the view of the Opposition they are not enough. They do not go far enough. They do not tackle these measures to the extent that the community expects. Should this matter have gone to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? Certainly we would welcome its consideration there. However, I place on the record that this is not a sneak attack; this issue has been coming for some time. We would welcome consideration by that committee but we are not going to hold up consideration of this bill to have an inquiry 73 days out from a local government election. The Opposition encourages the Government to change its view in the Legislative Assembly on this measure. I refer again to the comments made by Liberal Ministers in the media. Do not put Dracula in charge of the blood bank on this one. We support the view of Minister Kean. This should be about the community interest, not what someone is getting out of some development interest. We will be raising those issues on the campaign trail. We will be looking at the funding of candidates who are running in these elections in 73 days' time and we will be looking for those sorts of conflicts of interest, which are not always declared. So there will be ongoing scrutiny of this over the next period. For all those reasons, the Government should consider its view about the position it takes on this bill if it is successful in passing this Chamber tonight. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (21:50): I will not go through the many remarks that the Hon. John Graham made except for one, which was encouraging the Government to consider its position should this motion succeed. I certainly will be raising that issue with my colleagues tomorrow. One other thing I should have said is this: The definition of "property developer" in its current form was put in place as a result of a Government bill for the purposes of ensuring that there was a workable definition of what a property developer was. It casts the net very widely, if I might put it that way, to try to respect the spirit of what has not been challenged for some time in this House, that is, that property developers should not be able to donate. The term "property developer" is very broad. It can go from Lendlease to a family who might put in— The Hon. Shayne Mallard: Two. The Hon. DON HARWIN: How many did the honourable member say? The Hon. Shayne Mallard: Two DAs. The Hon. DON HARWIN: Two development applications [DAs] in how long? The Hon. Shayne Mallard: One year. The Hon. DON HARWIN: In one year, which is not a lot. The definition is very broad. A DA can be put in to deal with a very small matter. For example, if someone owns an investment property—let us say a beach house—and they put in two DAs to renovate the beach house in one year they are defined as a property developer. Mr David Shoebridge: Carrying on a business. The Hon. DON HARWIN: With great respect, if the beach house is for holiday rental, it is a business. So it is a very broad definition. It is a very broad definition. To then say that all of those people should not be able to run for council is, with respect, I think grossly unfair. The Government did the right thing in casting the net widely in regard to the definition as it related to donations. But to use what the Government did in a bipartisan fashion to respect the wishes of the House to then exclude someone from their right to run for council would, in my submission, be manifestly unjust. I accept—and indeed as the Hon. John Graham adverted to—there is a divergence of views within political parties, just like there is on any number of issues in public policy. But the Liberal Party's position is that it is completely wrong to use the definition of a "property developer", which is very broad for good reason, to exclude people from running for public office. If we are going to do it—and that is one of the reasons I suggested that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters look at it—it should be a narrower definition because in my view it catches a large number of people who are not the sort of people that Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. John Graham or other members refer to in this debate, and that is wrong. The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (21:54): In my short contribution I place on record my support and thank my colleague Mr David Shoebridge for moving this very important amendment. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions tonight, the amendment deals with the crux of the matter. I am not downplaying or discounting the importance of the Government's bill but, let's face it, the bill was largely designed to deal with the Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 62

Strathfield mayor, if I am correct. It basically infers that we do not trust our candidates to make appropriate declarations— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! We are dealing with an amendment that relates to property developers. This is not an opportunity for you to make a second reading speech. I invite you to address the amendment moved by Mr David Shoebridge rather than speak in a broader sense. The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (21:55): My point relates to the relativity between— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I have made that observation. The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Effectively the honourable member is making an imputation about me, even though I was not named, and why I brought the bill into this Chamber. He is absolutely wrong. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Mark Buttigieg has heard the point of order. I encourage him to come to the point of the issue. The Minister has also made a fair point. The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (21:55): The reason The Greens amendment is so important is because the current system is patently not working. The idea that we can have a code of conduct and declarations such as, "Trust me, I have declared it. Therefore there is no problem", does not necessarily remove a person's ability to manipulate the system. A person can declare whatever he or she wants on a form. They can excuse themselves from meetings but they can still have access to information and decision-making that other people do not have and, by virtue of the conflict that is still inherent, they can favour themselves. That is what is occurring. If we remember the case involving the mayor of Strathfield, in 2013 he was fined $43,000 for a development without a consent and was subsequently elected to Strathfield Council. He did not fill out a form properly and presided as mayor over local environmental plans on planning decisions that had significant effect on the area he represented. He was then subsequently found to be a member of several companies—I think it was 13 entities—that were involved in property development. If the Liberal Party were serious about this matter, it would have changed its own rules. I am not for a moment pretending that this does not happen across party lines. We have had problems in our show as well, as everyone well knows. But in or around 2015 we changed our rules to ban property developers becoming candidates in local government elections. As far as I understand it, the Liberal-Nationals Government has not done that. It is high time that the public of New South Wales had a system that has no ambiguity in relation to this matter, there is no fudging it, there is no filling out forms and then pretending it is all okay and subsequently benefitting from it. The amendment puts up-front that if a person has a clear conflict, which occurs in these situations, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers in this debate, he or she is not allowed to become a candidate. It is a very simple proposition. The amendment will put a proactive system in place so all those loopholes are foreclosed up-front rather than relying on a reactive approach whereby someone makes a declaration but it is later found to have a conflict of interest which is then exposed publicly. For example, in the case involving the Strathfield mayor the Office of Local Government was notified in 2019 that he was involved in development and presided as mayor over local environmental plans— Mr David Shoebridge: Surprise, surprise, it did nothing. The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: And nothing was done. The investigation then took two years. The matter was referred to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and, finally, my most recent understanding is that the mayor will not run again in the council elections. In the meantime, the public has lost faith and trust in the system. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The Committee is dealing with an amendment. The honourable member is recounting something that is not in respect of the amendment. I encourage the member to address the amendment rather than the history of a particular mayor, however grievous the case is. The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: I will go back to the point. The proposed amendment would remove all that angst, all that delay in flushing out those conflicts of interest. I am using that example because it is the latest example of the issue. All members know we are debating this amendment because of that. I urge the Committee to support the amendment. Let us ban property developers from being candidates for local government because it is the right thing to do. As my colleague Mr David Shoebridge pointed out, the public expects and deserves it. They would be horrified to know that we continue to debate whether property developers can be candidates for or sit on local councils. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): According to sessional order, it being 10.00 p.m., does the Minister require that I report progress to allow the motion for the adjournment to be moved? Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 63

The Hon. DON HARWIN: No. The Committee continued to sit. The Hon. WALT SECORD (22:00): I make a brief contribution. Many members have pointed out, including the Hon. John Graham and the Hon. Courtney Houssos, that over the past 10 years I have spoken about banning property developers from standing for local government. I have done so as the shadow Special Minister of State and in various capacities. For a long time it has been Labor Party policy that property developers should not be able to stand. I waited to hear the contribution of Mr David Shoebridge before making mine. I accept his praise for and acknowledgement of the hard work of the late Dr John Kaye. However, I think Mr David Shoebridge has rose-coloured glasses when it comes to the contributions in this Chamber of Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (22:01): I am pleased to make a contribution to debate on the amendment. I have spoken on similar proposals in this Chamber on a number of occasions. Along with others in my party, I campaigned for a Labor Party policy that developers not be permitted to seek public office as council candidates. That was not always an easy road to hoe in the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. It got me into some hot water from time to time, but it appears I am no stranger to that. Turning back to the amendment and taking squarely the point raised by the Leader of the Government, this is not a proposition that members should feel would be exposed to attack in the High Court of Australia. In fact, it is the missing bookend of existing prohibitions on developer donations in the legislation. Those provisions were squarely challenged by the then Lord Mayor of Newcastle, Jeff McCloy, in the 2015 High Court case of McCloy v New South Wales. Mr McCloy felt that his democratic right to donate to his own campaign had been infringed by the legislation. Mr David Shoebridge: He is also a walking ATM for the Liberals. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. The High Court said this: There is an implied freedom of political activity but those freedoms can be burdened by legislation if the point of the burden is to maintain the integrity of the system of representative government—in this case, in the council context. Unlike in the United States of America, for example, the implied right that was found to exist by the High Court is not a personal right of a citizen but a system right—a right that exists to protect the integrity of the electoral process and the system of elections and representative democracy either in councils or in Parliament. That being the case, it was accepted by the High Court that in the case of developers there was a live risk to the integrity of the process and to the integrity of important decisions made by elected bodies that could be undermined by developer donations. To the extent that the legislation prevented those donations and inhibited those democratic rights, it was accepted as being both reasonable and proportionate and directed to addressing an evil in the system. So let us fast-forward to this provision; this is the missing bit. It may be that developers cannot donate money to political campaigns, but they can still run for office. They can still hold office apparently as the Mayor of Strathfield. I will not go into that matter because it has been well canvassed, including in calls for papers, but the point is that there is a democratic deficit. People can bypass the legislative prohibition on making donations, get elected to council and make planning decisions such as what shape local environmental plans should be— which of course frame all of the individual planning decisions made in a local government area. This is the missing piece of the jigsaw that is both reasonable and necessary to complete this aspect of reform and protect the integrity of decision-making at a local government level. It is not anti-democratic. It does inhibit some people's rights to run for election, but it does not do so because we do not like them or people do not like them or because they are deemed as being in some way undesirable. It is to protect the integrity of those elections and, importantly, to protect the integrity of the decisions made by elected councils. I wholeheartedly support this provision. We can take comfort that this counterpart provision in terms of donations has already withstood attack in the High Court. Although you can never predict which way the High Court will go on any matter, I would be astounded if it reached a different view to the one it reached unanimously in the McCloy case, given this is directed to addressing the same evil and a loophole that exists in the current legislation. So members should take heart from the McCloy case and should have no hesitation in embracing this proposition on the basis that it might be subject to legal challenge. I accept that there are philosophical issues here of the kind raised by the Hon. Mark Latham and I understand the principled view of the Liberal Party in allowing developers to run their councils and fill their coffers. The point is that it has to be stamped out. So let us vote for this and let us send it to the other place. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:07): I thank members for their contributions to consideration of this amendment. I will address a couple of points to respond to some of the contributions that were made. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 64

The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I make the observation that this is not a speech in reply. However, Mr David Shoebridge is entitled to speak. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I am just providing some context to what I am saying. First, the Leader of the Government suggested that the definition of "property developer" that is incorporated in this amendment, being the definition that is found in the Electoral Funding Act, is somehow very broad and would catch somebody who owns a coastal getaway property who did two development applications for it— The Hon. Don Harwin: Three in seven years. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Three in seven years I think is the test. Then you would be trapped, according to the Leader of the Government. I urge the Leader of the Government to read the law before making those kinds of contributions. The definition that is incorporated is the definition that is found in the Electoral Funding Act. He seems to have accidently forgotten the first key part of that definition, which I will read onto the record. Section 53 states: ... a "property developer" for the purposes of this Division— (a) an individual or a corporation if: (i) the individual or a corporation carries on a business mainly concerned with the residential or commercial development of land, with the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit ... I stress there are multiple elements to that. The business must be "mainly concerned with the residential or commercial development of land". [Government members interjected.] I hear some nattering from a bunch of Libs. They may not like the law but— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I have previously called Mr David Shoebridge to order for unnecessary interjections. The Government Whip, Parliamentary Secretary Taylor Martin and the Hon. Wes Fang are all interjecting. Next time they interject they will be called to order. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To make it easier I will break it down into sub-clauses. One part of the test states that "the individual must carry on a business mainly concerned with the residential or commercial development of land." It is not about a business renting out properties, it has to be "concerned with the residential or commercial development of land". That is the first point. In addition, it must have "with the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit". It is not just about leasing out a house; you have to be in the business of property development. Then, "in the course of that business— The Hon. Don Harwin: No, a "property developer" is defined as someone who has made three development applications in seven years. That is the point. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: If the Leader of the Government has a different view, having read the Act, he can make a contribution rather than interject. The Act then states: (ii) in the course of that business— (A) 1 relevant planning application has been made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation— and a planning application is a rezoning application. As I said before, that is where the real money is made— (B) 3 or more relevant planning applications made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation within the preceding 7 years … So it is cumulative. You need to have a business, the business has to be mainly concerned with residential or commercial property development, it has to be for the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit and you have to have made multiple planning applications. It is cumulative. The idea from the Government that somehow it is a very broad definition is a deliberate misreading of the definition of "property developer". On one view it may well be too narrow because there are people who engage in large-scale property development who could probably be excluded from that definition. But, anyhow, that is the definition. It is narrow and focused. The Government's arguments have no merit. The idea that somehow the provision will breach the implied limitation on legislative action that may trespass upon political communication in this country also has no merit. I endorse the arguments put by the Hon. Adam Searle but I point out what the High Court found in the McCloy case because the argument against this amendment is that somehow they will be struck down as constitutionally invalid. The joint judgement of the High Court found that the laws that prohibited donations from property developers were not invalid because those capping provisions were "aimed at the legitimate end of preventing corruption and undue influence, and reduced the risk of corruption and undue influence by preventing the payments of large sums of money through political Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 65

donations". That was the legitimate end. If the High Court judges were concerned about property developers donating to councils because of that creating undue influence, I do not think it is a big stretch to say they may have a concern about property developers actually being on councils. One would almost say that that is a far bigger risk. To determine whether or not the constitutional implied freedom of political communication is breached— and let us be clear that it is not an absolute freedom but a qualified freedom; it is a limitation on what governments can do to restrict communication but it is not actually a right—there is now a three-part test following the McCloy test. There used to be a two-part test in Lange but now it has been extended to a three-part test. The first test states, "Does the law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, operation or effect?" Arguably it does not burden political communication because it is not about political communication, it is about standing for office. But assume it does have some minor limitation because you cannot be both a property developer and a councillor. The second test states, "Are the purposes of the law and the means adopted to achieve that purpose legitimate, in the sense that they are compatible with the maintenance of a constitutionally prescribed system of representative government?" Yes, it clearly is. Some 99.99 per cent of people can still run for council, and if a property developer wants to run for council they can cease being a property developer. Thirdly, "Is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate object?" The Greens would argue it clearly is. It is interesting hearing the constitutional arguments put by the leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in this place. The Greens do not adopt those arguments. We do not think they are well founded. We believe that it is not only legitimate and focused but also essential. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Don Harwin has moved a motion, to which Mr David Shoebridge has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Committee divided. Ayes ...... 23 Noes ...... 18 Majority ...... 5

AYES Banasiak Graham Pearson Borsak Houssos Primrose Boyd Hurst Searle Buttigieg (teller) Jackson Secord D'Adam (teller) Mookhey Sharpe Donnelly Moriarty Shoebridge Faehrmann Moselmane Veitch Field Nile

NOES Amato Harwin Mitchell Cusack Latham Poulos Fang Maclaren-Jones Roberts Farlow Mallard (teller) Taylor Farraway (teller) Martin Tudehope Franklin Mason-Cox Ward

Amendment agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the motion of the Hon. Don Harwin as amended be agreed to. Motion as amended agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 and the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021 be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 66

(1) That the Chair do now leave the chair and report that the Committee has considered the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 and, according to the instruction given by the House, has divided the bill into two bills, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 and the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021. (2) That the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 be reported without amendment. (3) That the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021 be reported without amendment. Motion agreed to. ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS) BILL 2021 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL 2021 Adoption of Report The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That the report on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 be adopted. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That the report on the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021 be adopted. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Local Government Elections) Bill 2021 be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (22:29): I move: That the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021 be now read a third time. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (22:30): I speak briefly on the third reading of the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021, given the process we have just undergone. The bills have now been split. They will both travel down to the Legislative Assembly. I thank the Leader of the Government firstly for the tenor of the discussion that has occurred. There are strong feelings in the House about these issues, but I thank the Leader of the Government for the way in which he has conducted the debate. He was very persuasive about some of the issues he presented, including the provisions of this bill. If carried by the other place, it will put in place important COVID measures for aged-care institutions that have been requested by the Electoral Commissioner. The bill also contains measures that this House has asked for to restrict property developers from running. Those things travel together now to the Legislative Assembly. I again put to the Government my invitation to change its position in that place. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:31): I reiterate our concerns, which are that the Government may not pass the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021. The Greens are committed to powers being given to the Electoral Commissioner to ensure that the elections can be COVID safe. Those powers need to be given well in advance of the local council elections. They cannot be delayed in the other House this week, for the reasons the Minister gave in the second reading speech in adopting it. He pointed out how important it was to have these powers, particularly to protect voters in vulnerable situations, such as being in nursing homes and hospitals. The thought that those protections would not become law because the Liberal-Nationals are so committed to having property developers on council would be an appalling outcome. We urge the Government to move both of these bills swiftly through the other House. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2021 be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES AND DISABILITY SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Second Reading Speech The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (22:33): On behalf of the Hon. Natalie Ward: I move: Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 67

That this bill be now read a second time. The Government is pleased to introduce the Families, Communities and Disability Services Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2021, which introduces a number of miscellaneous amendments to address emerging issues, support procedural amendments and clarify uncertainty in legislation. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Some of the ways that these amendments will strengthen our community include improving information sharing under the Adoption Act 2000, improving protections for older people and people with disability, clarifying the representation of children in Children's Court proceedings and improving child protection processes for children in out-of-home care through the reportable conduct scheme. I now turn to the detail of the bill. I start with amendments to the Adoption Act 2000. Schedule 1 [1] to the bill will insert section 133AA into the Adoption Act 2000 to clarify that a person is entitled to receive adoption information to which they are otherwise entitled, even if that information is also contained in a record of court proceedings concerning the person. The Department of Communities and Justice holds prescribed information that adopted persons and other persons are entitled to access under chapter 8 of the Adoption Act, including non‑ identifying background information about an adopted person's birth parents and other relatives, birth details about the adopted person, the social and medical history of the adopted person, and the reason an adoption decision was made by the birth parents. Some of this information may also be contained in the records of proceedings of the court relating to the person's adoption. Section 143 of the Adoption Act provides that a person is not entitled to receive prescribed information from the records of proceedings in the court relating to the adoption of a person unless they make an application directly to the court under section 143. The introduction of section 133AA will not expand the kinds of information a person is entitled to access under chapter 8 but will make abundantly clear that prescribed information that may also be contained in records of proceedings in the court may be released to a person who is already entitled to that information under chapter 8 of the Adoption Act, without that person having to make an additional application to the court under section 143. The same item of the bill also introduces section 133AB to make it easier for adopted persons to access relevant information. Currently, the Adoption Act grants adopted people the right to access information about their history and the circumstances of their adoption, as prescribed by the Adoption Regulation 2015. Sections 168 and 169 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, referred to as the care Act, give persons who have been placed in out-of-home care the right to access information about their history and the records of their time in out-of-home care. Many adopted people are placed in out-of-home care under the care Act before they are adopted. Currently, an adopted person who was formerly in out-of-home care must lodge two separate applications to access information related to their adoption and their out-of-home care experience. Section 133AB will streamline the application process for those adopted people so that a single application can be made to access both adoption information and information available under sections 168 and 169 of the care Act. These two new sections will reduce unnecessary duplication for adopted persons in applying for information and make it easier to access their information. This is consistent with the objects of the Adoption Act to allow access to information relating to adoptions. Schedule 1 [2] of the bill's amendments to the Adoption Act amends section 194 to clarify that the prohibition on access to records under that section does not prevent records being produced to a court or other authority in response to a subpoena or other compulsory process. Section 194 of the Adoption Act provides that records made in connection with the administration or execution of the Act or previous adoption legislation are not to be open to inspection by, or made available to, any person, except as provided by the Act or the regulations. There is no express exception to this prohibition in cases where documents are required to be produced under compulsory process, such as a subpoena or notice to produce. This has caused uncertainty about whether section 194 is intended to prevent production of documents in response to compulsory processes. The amendment will clarify that records made in connection with the administration or execution of the current Adoption Act or previous adoption legislation may be produced to a court or other authority in response to a subpoena or other compulsory process. I now move to schedule 2 to the bill, which introduces sections to improve protections for older people and people with a disability. Schedule 2 [1] to [3] to the bill will amend the Ageing and Disability Commissioner Act 2019, referred to as the ADC Act, to make it an offence for an employer to take detrimental action in relation to an employee or a contractor who provides assistance to the Ageing and Disability Commission with respect to reports about abuse, neglect or exploitation of an adult with a disability or an older person. The ADC receives and responds to reports about adults with disability and older people in New South Wales who are subject to, or at risk of, abuse, neglect and exploitation in their family, home and community. Anyone can make a report to the ADC, but reporting is not mandatory. To encourage reporting, the ADC Act provides certain protections for reporters, including that the identity of reporters can only be disclosed with their consent or for law enforcement purposes, in section 15, and a person who makes a report to the ADC in good faith is not liable to any civil, criminal or disciplinary action for making the report, under section 13 (4). However, there are a range of other people who are asked to provide information to, or assist, the ADC. These include staff of services who provide supports for adults with disability or older people. Currently there are no protections in the ADC Act for other people who provide assistance to the ADC. Staff working with adults with disability and older people play a vital role in their day-to-day support. They also can help to raise and address concerns about abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is critical that staff members are able to assist the ADC in relation to a report without facing detrimental action for doing so. Item [4] of schedule 2 introduces section 31A of the ADC Act to allow the ADC to provide information about the outcome of a report to the reporter and other people concerned for the welfare of the adult with a disability or older person if the ADC considers that disclosure of the information is consistent with the objects and principles of the ADC Act. In certain cases, the ADC needs to be able to provide relevant information about the outcome of a report to the reporter or other key parties to enable appropriate safeguarding of the adult with disability or older person. These circumstances might include advising an individual's NDIS support coordinator, GP or other key supporters. Information about the outcome of a report would not be provided in every case. It may often be inappropriate for the ADC to provide information back to the reporter or to disclose information to other parties. This amendment Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 68

simply allows the ADC to be able to disclose information about the outcome of a report when necessary, primarily to protect the adult from abuse, neglect and exploitation, and to promote their rights. Turning now to schedule 3 to the bill, which amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, referred to as the care Act, I am pleased to note that schedule 3 contains a number of important measures that will clarify the powers and processes of the Children's Court and promote the continued safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people in statutory out-of- home care. Schedule 3 [7] to the bill amends section 82 of the care Act to extend the period that a court may require a report to be provided about the suitability of arrangements for a child's care and protection from 12 months to 24 months. This amendment is consistent with the changes made to the care Act in 2019 to allow short-term court orders to be made for up to 24 months. The amendment will give the court greater flexibility to determine when it requires a progress report to be provided, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. It will also give the court greater oversight of the progress of a child or young person's permanency plan under a short-term care order. The amendment will not prevent the court from requiring a report to be provided earlier than 24 months, nor will it prevent the Department of Communities and Justice from applying to vary or revoke a care order if necessary. Schedule 3 [3] to the bill will amend section 76 of the care Act to allow the Children's Court to make a new supervision order for a child or young person if it is reasonable in the circumstances and in the best interests of the child or young person, notwithstanding the late filing of a report about the progress of a supervision order made under section 76 (1) of the care Act. Similarly, schedule 3 [8] to the bill will introduce new section 82 (2A) to the care Act to allow the Children's Court to consider and act on the contents of a section 82 report, even if the report is provided to the court after the legislative deadline, if the court considers it reasonable in the circumstances and in the best interests of the child. The provision of section 76 and section 82 reports is to ensure that the Children's Court obtains information necessary to determine certain relevant issues, such as the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children subject to supervision orders, and the continuing suitability of the parental arrangements made for a child. In some cases, these reports are being filed with the court outside of the legislative deadlines. Under the current provisions, the court does not have the authority to consider and act on the content of these reports. Although it is important that reports are filed within the legislative deadline so that care matters are not unnecessarily prolonged, the court must have capacity to act on the contents of a report received outside of these deadlines where appropriate. It is in the best interests of a child or young person that the court be able to continue dealing with a care proceeding and act in response to reports about the suitability of care arrangements, even if those reports are provided outside of a legislative deadline. This amendment maintains the requirement that reports be provided to the court within 24 months in normal circumstances. This deadline is important to allow action to be taken in relation to the best interests of a child or young person in a timely manner. I turn now to schedule 3 [9] to the bill, which will introduce an important amendment to section 98 (2A) of the care Act to make discretionary, rather than mandatory, the power of the Children's Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for a party the court considers not capable of adequately representing themselves. This amendment must be made as a matter of urgency to avoid significant delays to care proceedings in the Children's Court in circumstances where there are far too few guardians ad litem to meet demand. Section 98 (2A) of the care Act currently requires the Children's Court, if of the opinion that a party to proceedings is incapable of giving proper instructions to a legal representative, to appoint a guardian ad litem to act in the best interests of that person. A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, that of GR v The Department of Communities & Justice and Ors [2020] NSWSC, has determined that a child or young person who is the subject of care proceedings is a party to those proceedings. As such, the court must appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is incapable of giving instructions. This is a departure from previous longstanding practice in which guardians were appointed largely to meet the needs of adults in care proceedings who lacked capacity to instruct. Children were considered adequately represented by an independent legal representative, if the child lacks capacity to instruct, or a direct legal representative, if the child has capacity to instruct. Lawyers who act in these representative roles are familiar with the representation of children in such matters. Following this decision, the demand for guardians ad litem in the Children's Court has significantly exceeded availability. This has resulted in some matters being delayed for several months and affecting care arrangements for children and young people. This is inconsistent with the principle set out in section 94 of the care Act, that Children's Court proceedings are to be carried out as expeditiously as possible and adjournments are to be avoided. The amendment allows the court the discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem in circumstances where it is considered appropriate. It means that a court will not be required to appoint a guardian ad litem in cases where the appointment is not otherwise necessary, noting that in the majority of cases, until the past few months, the court has not considered it necessary. This amendment does not undermine the proper representation of children in care proceedings. It simply reverts to prior practice where children are represented by an independent legal representative or a direct legal representative as required. The Children's Court must be able to function properly and avoid unnecessary delays in care proceedings to ensure the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people. I now turn to schedule 3 [11] to the bill, which will amend section 170 of the care Act to apply certain retention of records requirements to designated agencies in relation to carer records. Section 170 of the care Act requires designated agencies to keep records made about the placement of a child or young person in statutory out‑ of‑ home care for seven years after the agency ceases to be responsible for that person's placement. After those seven years, or within that period if the agency ceases to be a designated agency, it must deliver those records to the secretary. Currently section 170 does not capture records about carers who provide care to children and young people in out-of-home care, such as probity checks, authorisation information, assessments and records concerning reportable conduct allegations. Carer records play a critical role around the care and support for children and young people in care. There is a need to protect such records where a designated agency ceases operating so that they can be retrieved and provided to other designated agencies that may subsequently engage those same care workers' services. This will ensure that any important information or relevant concerns about these carers is not lost. These carer records are already required to be retained by designated agencies whilst in operation, in order to comply with information exchange requirements to allow designated agencies to assess the suitability of individuals who wish to provide statutory out-of-home care for a child or young person. This amendment simply adds the requirement for transfer of such records to the secretary following a closure of a designated agency. I turn now to several amendments in schedule 3 to the bill designed to clarify regulation‑ making powers in the care Act. Changes to contemporary drafting practices in relation to specifying the scope of regulation‑ making powers mean that these amendments are Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 69

required to ensure that when the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 is repealed as part of the staged repeal program and remade as a new regulation within the next 12 months, a regulation-making power will be able to be clearly identified for each of the existing clauses of the regulation. Specific amendments include allowing the regulations to make provision for designated agencies to impose conditions on authorised carers in schedule 3 [10] to the bill; clarifying that regulations may provide a class of persons as a "prescribed body" in schedule 3 [12]; and allowing the regulations to provide that the secretary may approve behaviour management practices for managing the behaviour of children and young people in schedule 3 [10]. The amendments will make clearer the scope of the regulation‑ making power within the care Act. I now turn to schedule 4 to the bill, which will amend section 9A of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987, referred to as the CDC Act. Section 9A provides that persons aged 18 to 21 under subsection (2), or over age 21 under subsection (1), are not to be detained in youth detention centres if they are subject to certain arrest warrants or orders. The amendment will ensure that these same people are not to be detained in youth detention centres if they are subject to a warrant or order for detention of the person on remand. This amendment will ensure that a person over 18 who is brought before a court on an arrest warrant in relation to certain matters set out in section 9A (2) of the CDC Act will not subsequently be detained in a youth detention centre pursuant to any remand warrant or order of the court. The current wording of section 9A does not capture circumstances where an arrest warrant ceases to have effect upon a "warrant or order for the detention of the person on remand" being made authorising the person's detention in relation to the matters outlined in section 9A. In these circumstances there is nothing preventing a court from remanding a person aged over 18 or 21 to a youth justice detention centre pending determination of the allegations relating to those matters, or re‑ sentencing them to a period of control to be served in a detention centre. When this occurs, the commissioner can make an order under section 28 of the CDC Act transferring them immediately to an adult detention facility. This amendment will streamline those processes and prevent this additional step from being necessary whilst ensuring that people are sent to the appropriate facility for their age. I now turn to schedule 5 [1] to the bill, which will amend the Children's Guardian Act 2019 to make it mandatory for a relevant entity to nominate a person or holder of a position to be the head of the relevant entity. If there is no chief executive officer or principal officer of a relevant entity, the entity may nominate a head of that relevant entity who can then be approved by the Children's Guardian under section 66 of the Children's Guardian Act. The reportable conduct scheme imposes obligations on the head of a relevant entity to notify the Children's Guardian of reportable allegations and conduct an investigation into those allegations. There is currently no provision in the Children's Guardian Act to compel a relevant entity to make a nomination for the position of head of the relevant entity. As a result, many entities have not made this nomination or had it approved by the Children's Guardian. This means that technically the entity has no obligations to notify or report to the Children's Guardian under the reportable conduct scheme, as there is no head of the entity upon whom to impose the obligations. This amendment is necessary to close this inadvertent loophole allowing organisations to not comply with the provisions of the reportable conduct scheme. The amendment will better protect children from harm and ensure that their safety, welfare and wellbeing are prioritised by the effective operation of the reportable conduct scheme. Lastly, I turn to schedule 5 [2] to the bill, which will amend the Children's Guardian Act to extend the expiry date of clause 2 of schedule 4 to the Act by 12 months until 1 September 2022. The Children's Guardian Act came into force on 1 March 2020. Powers and functions of the Children's Guardian from the Adoption Act, the care Act, the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 and the Ombudsman Act 1974 were consolidated into the new Act. Regulations under these Acts remain in force until the new regulations are made under the Children's Guardian Act. The transitional regulatory arrangements in schedule 4, clause 2 of the Children's Guardian Act continue regulations made under each of those specified Acts as if they were made under the Children's Guardian Act. This provision currently expires on 1 September 2021 and the regulations will lapse unless they are transferred by that date or the date is extended. A one‑ year extension of the transitional provisions will ensure that there is no lapse in regulations pending the transfer of the provisions to the Children's Guardian regulation. This bill is an important part of the Government's regular legislative review and monitoring program. Many of the amendments in the bill are technical in nature and are important steps in streamlining the day‑ to‑ day work performed by the various agencies working within the Stronger Communities Cluster. They address emerging issues, support procedural improvements, clarify uncertainty and correct errors in legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (22:33): On behalf of the Opposition I speak in favour of the Families, Communities and Disability Services Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2021. I welcome the new Minister to this place for the debate on his first piece of legislation. The bill makes amendments to a number of Acts to clarify uncertainty, support procedural amendments and address emerging issues within the law that looks after children in this State. Firstly, in amending the Adoption Act 2000, the bill will increase access for people who have been adopted to information about themselves that they are entitled to receive. The information held by the Government about a person who has been adopted can go a great way to filling the gaps and answering questions about their identity. At the moment, if that information is contained within a record of court proceedings, an adopted person will sometimes come up against bureaucratic barriers and requirements to apply to the court when trying to access that information. I am pleased the bill will seek to resolve that issue. Adopted people who were previously in out-of-home care are currently required to lodge multiple requests to access information about both their adoption and care experience. The bill seeks to resolve that issue as well, making it easier for adopted people with a care experience to access information about both parts of their lives with one request. That will be very welcome. Significantly, the bill amends the Ageing and Disability Commissioner Act to make it an offence for an employer to take adverse action against an employee or contractor for providing assistance to the Ageing and Disability Commission with respect to reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of an adult with a disability or an older person. That is an extremely important step. A person who sees the kind of abuse, neglect or exploitation that should be reported to the Ageing and Disability Commissioner Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 70

should not fear they will lose their job or be treated poorly because they assisted with an investigation into those reports. This is an important protection that needs legal recognition. The bill amends also the Ageing and Disability Commissioner Act to allow the commission to provide information about the outcome of a report to the reporter and others concerned about the welfare of an adult with disability or older person if the commission considers that disclosure to be consistent with the objects and principles of the Act. An adult with disability or an older person often has a range of people in their life whom they see and work with on a regular basis, whether that is people providing care and personal services, their GP or other key people supporting that person. It is important to facilitate information sharing to prevent future neglect, abuse or exploitation. In circumstances like this, it is appropriate this kind of information sharing is permitted. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act and clarifies the powers and processes of the Children's Court. The bill extends the time period in which the court can require a progress report regarding the suitability of the care arrangements for a child in out-of-home care from 12 months to 24 months. Every family is different and every child in care has different needs. A lot can change in a year and it is appropriate for the court to have the flexibility to extend its oversight over a child's care arrangements when orders have been made to ensure they are still appropriate up to 24 months later. The bill also seeks to allow the Children's Court to obtain necessary information to determine relevant issues for children who are subject to supervision orders, regardless of whether the reports about those children were submitted by the statutory deadlines. If reports are late, the court is currently unable to act on the information within them. While we hope that reporting is provided within statutory deadlines as much as possible—I note there are significant issues with this—there is a clear problem if bureaucratic barriers are preventing reports from being considered because they are late. The Opposition is supportive of the amendment to resolve this issue. The bill also amends the care Act to make it a discretionary rather than mandatory power for the Children's Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for a party who the court considers incapable of adequately representing themselves. The Opposition has been told by stakeholders that this is an urgent amendment following the decision in GR v The Department of Communities & Justice and Ors that children and young people are to be considered a party to proceedings. We are told that the outcome of this judgement would be a substantial backlog of matters in the Children's Court as it struggles to appoint a guardian ad litem from the small number of available guardians. We are told also that the amendment will not result in the lack of representation for children and young people and that they are adequately represented by lawyers and other advocates in their lives. The amendment preserves the court's discretionary power to appoint a guardian when a child or young person has limited capacity. Amendments in the bill will also seek to extend retention of records requirements to designated agencies in relation to carer records. Those requirements currently only extend to records made about the placement of a child or young person in out-of-home care, requiring agencies to retain those records for seven years and then deliver them to the secretary after that period or after the agency ceases to be a designated agency. The amendment will extend the requirement of the delivery of records to the secretary to cover carer records as well, including probity checks, authorisation information, assessments and records regarding reportable conduct allegations. That will ensure that crucial records are not lost after the regulated periods. A series of amendments in schedule 3 to the bill have been designed to clarify regulation-making powers in the care Act. The intent of the regulation-making power is supported by the Opposition. However, I understand the shadow Minister for Family and Community Services in the other place, my colleague the member for Port Stephens, has raised concerns with the Minister on behalf of some stakeholders regarding that part of the schedule. Those stakeholders expressed concerns that schedule 3 [16], which provides for "the circumstances in which an authorised carer or a person residing with an authorised carer may be required to undergo a medical examination", may extend beyond the intent of this power, especially with respect to individuals residing in a carer's home who are not carers. The shadow Minister has sought assurances from the Minister that the power would be limited to circumstances where a health concern is having, or is likely to have, an impact on the care of the child. In other words, a housemate of a carer should not be subject to an arbitrary medical examination under those powers. My understanding is that the Minister agreed and addressed the issue in his reply and the Opposition is satisfied with that response. I thank the Minister for that. For the remaining aspects of the bill, I invite members to review the detailed second reading speech provided by the Minister in the other place. The changes are supported by the Opposition. This is not a controversial bill but it is important for tidying up many of the administrative procedures and providing important protections within the various Acts. In conclusion, I echo the thanks of the shadow Minister for Family and Community Services in the other place to the stakeholder groups and peak bodies who have engaged with the Opposition regarding the bill, including the Australian Services Union, the Physical Disability Council of NSW, Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 71

the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, the NSW Council of Social Service, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:41): On behalf of The Greens, I indicate our support for the Families, Communities and Disability Services Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2021. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister in the Chamber and congratulate him. I indicate that it has been a cooperative exchange with the Minister in explaining some elements of the bill. The objects of the bill are to: (a) amend the Adoption Act 2000 to clarify that rights to obtain information about a person's adoption are not lost due to the relevant information also being contained in a court record, and (b) amend the Ageing and Disability Commissioner Act 2019— which it does in a number of ways. The first is to: (i) make it an offence for a person to take detrimental action against an employee or contractor who assists the Ageing and Disability Commissioner with a report about abuse, neglect or exploitation of an adult with disability or an older adult … The Greens are on record as wanting to toughen up our whistleblower laws across the board. We believe this is a necessary provision, particularly if we think about some of the information that has come out about nursing homes. Much of that has come from brave whistleblowers who have put their jobs on the line and potentially exposed themselves to civil claims from their employers. That has been essential for finding the truth about some of those appalling conditions we have seen in nursing homes. Adults with a disability are also too often tragically not in a position to communicate what is happening to them to a trusted individual or somebody who can take on their complaint; it often relies upon an employee or a contractor blowing the whistle and telling the truth about it. They need to be protected and the bill does that. Secondly, the bill amends the Act to: (ii) authorise the Commissioner to disclose information about the outcome of a report to a person who made the report or another person concerned with the welfare of the person the subject of the report provided the disclosure is consistent with the objects and principles of the Act … That kind of closing of the loop is also critical, particularly if someone has made a complaint about a loved one, a family member or someone close to them and it has been acted upon by the Ageing and Disability Commissioner. There must be the ability to report back to say what has happened, consistent with protecting the privacy and other interests of the person who is the subject of the complaint. There must be the ability to close the loop and to provide comfort that action has been taken or to alert people to the fact that action has not been able to be taken. We support those provisions. The bill also amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to clarify that the Children's Court has a discretion, rather than an obligation, "to appoint a guardian ad litem in care proceedings". Again, we support that. It is apparently quite a mess at the moment in the Children's Court. An interpretation of the law says that even if the parents or the carer who are present at court—often with an interest that is contrary to the department—do not need a guardian appointed, the court has an obligation to appoint a guardian regardless. Only a dozen or less than a dozen suitably qualified guardians are currently available for the court proceedings and that has meant a dreadful backlog and an inability to get cases on. It has also meant an inappropriate use of resources, because in many of those cases not only is it not necessary for a guardian to be appointed but also appointing a guardian makes the proceedings more complicated. It adds a third wheel, or a fourth wheel sometimes in litigation, when it is not fruitful and detrimental to dealing with proceedings. It is an urgent amendment. That is the reason we are here at 10.45 p.m. to ensure the legislation is passed today because we want to make those changes and sort out what is happening in the court as soon as possible. The second amendment is to allow the Children's Court to consider reports, including supervision reports, that are provided late if the court can be satisfied it is both appropriate and in the best interests of the child or young person to do so. That is where The Greens have a minor disagreement with the Government. The proposed amendment is very broad and does not require the department to provide a compelling reason to the court why the reports are late. The law currently allows up to 12 months for the department to provide those reports to the court. The department is notoriously late with providing those reports. Some of that may be, in a small subset, because the court is requesting additional addendums and additional reports, and we can understand that there needs to be some lenience and some expansion. But the department is notoriously slow in getting those reports together. That means children have been taken from their families, parents have been separated, siblings are often separated and there has not been a full merits determination by the court about whether that was right or wrong. The delay of those reports can delay the hearing coming on. The more the reports are delayed, the longer that separation is happening without a full judicial determination as to whether that separation was right or wrong. We are very concerned that the proposed amendment will be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the department to a further and, indeed, entrenched delay in the provision of those reports in breach of the statutory time frame. That is why Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 72

The Greens will be seeking a modest amendment to toughen it up and to require the department to provide the court with a compelling reason for the lateness of the reports. We will address that very briefly in Committee. The amendments in the bill also make provisions for the preservation of records about authorised carers who cared for a child or young person in out-of-home care, much of which is currently being done by NGOs. The Greens are on record as saying that that should be the job primarily of government and not NGOs but, putting that to one side, if an NGO ceases to be authorised under the Act it must be ensured that those records are protected and returned back to the department and held in public hands. We support those amendments. My office has worked with many members of the Stolen Generation and in many cases the records of their so-called care, often abuse and neglect, are held by non-government organisations—Christian charities in the large part. Many of those organisations have not had adequate record keeping or, if they do have the records, they are still refusing to hand them over to members of the Stolen Generation, who often require repeated interventions from lawyers in order to get the records provided. Sometimes those records have been lost, poorly stored and damaged. The Greens think the amendments are important and we will be backing them. The bill also amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to provide that the persons who are aged 18 or over, as it is described, "are not inadvertently detained in a detention centre under a warrant or order for the detention of the person on remand". The Greens initially had concerns about this because it appeared to provide an inappropriate obligation on the court to send a potentially vulnerable person aged between 18 and 21 to an adult detention centre and not allow that person to be held in a juvenile detention centre even if the court thought it to be appropriate. Indeed, there is reporting today in a case where lawyers were trying to make the argument that an 18-year- old is particularly vulnerable if that 18-year-old is put in an adult prison. One can see how some subset of 18-year-olds—The Greens would say, arguably, many 18-year-olds—would be particularly vulnerable in an adult prison. But after further consultation with the Minister, after further discussion with his staff and information from the department, we understand that where warrants are issued for a subset of serious offences for somebody over 18 the current provisions provide that those persons cannot be held in a juvenile detention centre and that all the bill is seeking to do is to extend that pattern to where the detention is made following the court hearing. We understand the rationale for that. We may at a different point have a principle debate about whether that regime should be in place, but it is consistent with the current regime; it is not extending it and, indeed, it is trying to prevent unnecessary administrative provisions happening, which currently happen through the transfer being effected by the Commissioner for Corrective Services issuing a transfer order moving the individual from a juvenile detention centre to an adult detention centre. That is happening currently and we do not see a reason for that to be happening in the way it does. We do not oppose the amendment. With those contributions, I can indicate that we support the bill and we will have that minor discussion in Committee. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:51): I indicate the support of the Christian Democratic Party for this important bill, the Families, Communities and Disability Services Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2021. The bill will make amendments to various Acts within the Stronger Communities cluster to address emerging issues, support procedural improvements, clarify uncertainty and, most importantly, correct errors in legislation across the Families, Communities and Disability Services portfolio. We are pleased to support this legislation. The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (22:51): On behalf of the Hon. Natalie Ward: In reply: I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. In Committee The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): There being no objection, I will deal with the bill as a whole. I have one amendment, being The Greens amendment No. 1 appearing on sheet c2021-079A. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:53): I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2021-079A: No. 1 Consideration of late report on suitability of arrangements concerning parental responsibility Page 7, Schedule 3[8], proposed section 82(2A), lines 5–8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (2A) A report may be provided to the Children's Court after the time required by subsection (2)(a) if the Court considers— (a) it is reasonable in the circumstances, and (b) it is in the best interests of the child or young person, and Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 73

(c) there are compelling reasons to justify the delay in providing the report. I dealt with the substance of this amendment in my contribution to the second reading debate, and I refer to that. Currently the Government is proposing to provide a discretion in the court to allow the receipt of reports about care and protection matters outside of the maximum 12-month time frame that is provided in the legislation. It is notorious that the department regularly breaches that, which of course provides delay, uncertainty and quite significant disruption for the parties in the proceedings. Remember that the parties in the proceedings here are children and parents and carers. There is already notorious delay in the care and protection system. The Government is proposing to allow an extension of time if the court considers it both, first, reasonable in the circumstances; and, secondly, in the best interests of the child or young person to have the report admitted, even though the department has breached the time frame. That is a very low bar—"reasonable in the circumstances" and then "in the best interests of the child or young person". Almost invariably the court will find the receipt of a report providing further information about the child and the family is in the best interests of the child or young person. That test is almost satisfied simply by saying, "I have a report." Whether it is reasonable in the circumstances is, again, such a low test. It does not direct the court or the department about having to explain the delay. There should be an obligation on the department to explain why it was delayed. It is for that reason that The Greens seek to put a third element in the test to provide that the court can only extend the time if—this is subsection (c) proposed in our amendment—"there are compelling reasons to justify the delay in providing the report." If we do not do that then the current notorious delays will just become worse. It is like giving jelly babies to a toddler: They will just want more. There needs to be some obligation on the department to explain why the delay happened and to persuade the court that there were compelling reasons for the delay. Otherwise all we are doing is reinforcing bad behaviour in the department, which will ultimately be a price paid by vulnerable young people and by their parents and carers in yet more delay in a notoriously delayed child protection system. The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (22:56): The Government opposes The Greens amendment. The proposal to add an additional paragraph to new section 82 (2A) to include a requirement that a court can only consider a late report on the suitability of parental responsibility arrangements if there are "compelling reasons to justify the delay in providing the report" will disadvantage children in out-of-home care. Reports can be filed late for a range of reasons. Sometimes they are compelling, so in those circumstances the additional test proposed would not be problematic. For example, sometimes a report is late because there have been unforeseen circumstances that have arisen such as the illness of a parent, carer or child. Sometimes other issues arise that are complex and require further investigation, work or consideration. Sometimes an issue may arise immediately or shortly before the report is due to be filed, so a report that is otherwise timely needs to be revised to accurately reflect current circumstances and a filing date is missed. However, it is a regrettable reality that sometimes there are not compelling reasons for the late filing of a report. For example, a deadline could have been missed because a caseworker has been ill or administrative steps could produce delays as the process of working with non-governmental organisations providing out-of-home care can mean that it takes time to settle and file reports. The Act makes paramount the child's best interests above all other considerations in the administration of the Act. This requires that a court have the discretion to consider a report as to the suitability of the child's care arrangements even if it is filed late and even if there are not compelling reasons for that lateness, otherwise the child's welfare is sacrificed to a desire to punish caseworkers for missed deadlines. I am advised the department has been working internally with the relevant non-governmental organisations and with the Children's Court to enhance and improve compliance with court deadlines for filing reports. A number of enhancements have been made. The Children's Court registry now writes to the department when a report is late. If a report is not filed within two weeks of that letter, the matter is relisted before a children's magistrate. This operational improvement was introduced from 1 July 2020. The Children's Court now sends the department a reminder of all reports due within two months. This operational improvement was introduced in the latter half of 2020. The record system used by the department now flags when a section 82 report is due so that the caseworker is better able to manage and prepare for this deadline, whether the out-of-home care placement is managed by the department or an NGO. This operational improvement was introduced in the last quarter of 2020. While work to improve the system is, of course, ongoing to reduce the number of late reports and to shorten the period by which they are late, this work does not guarantee that a report on the suitability of parental arrangements will never be late. In such a situation, if the reasons for the lateness were not judged by the court to be compelling, the court would have no discretion to accept the report, to review it or to act on it. That is because section 82 (3) of the care Act only allows the court to conduct a progress review and relist the matter if it has considered the report. The court currently has no power to extend this period in which a report can be received. Therefore, the matter cannot be relisted, as the court's jurisdiction will have expired. That has been made clear in the case of DFaCS v Amber. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 74

This case leaves the court without appropriate oversight and the child or young person in an out-of-home care arrangement without court review of the suitability of that arrangement or progress made in the implementation of the child's care plan. That is not in the best interests of the child. Section 9 (1) of the care Act makes clear that the Act is to be administered under the principle that, in any action or decision concerning a particular child or young person, the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person are paramount. The bill was originally drafted with a more strenuous requirement for the late filing of reports but no constraint on how late the reports could be. Stakeholder feedback noted that this would be problematic. Pressure on the department to file reports by the deadline is maintained by the reasonableness requirement. It is appropriate to leave the matter to the discretion of the court. The test in new section 82 (2A) already includes the safeguard that the court must consider it both reasonable in the circumstances and in the best interests of the child or young person to consider the report, and that test is consistent with the overarching principle of the Act reflected in section 9. It is due to the points I have outlined that the Government does not support The Greens amendment. The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (23:01): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that very extensive response. Labor is actually pretty sympathetic to what The Greens are getting at here. We need to understand that there are unreasonable delays in the way in which the department is reporting to the Children's Court and that has a negative impact on kids, families and carers who are before the court. We have to understand that there is massive turnover in terms of caseworkers, that we do not have enough caseworkers and that these significant delays are a problem. However, the solution that is being put forward by The Greens is not something that we in Labor support. We believe the reasonable test, the discretion of the court and the best interests of the child are the right thing. I flag that it might be something that during estimates over the next couple of years we will be asking questions about, because we do not want to see slippage in relation to further and longer delays in these very important reports that come before the court. I make one final comment: I was a bit concerned with the Parliamentary Secretary's outlining of how we have been improving the system. It points to the very problem that The Greens have articulated, which is that it is now causing the Children's Court to remind caseworkers when these reports are due. These caseworkers are the people with the primary responsibility for managing the care and protection of those children who are coming before the court. How is it possible that caseworkers do not know when their reports are due and are being forced to be reminded by the Children's Court that these are coming? They should already know that. That, to me, points to a real problem in the system, which is about under-resourcing and the fact that caseworkers do not have a clear line of sight of the very children whose care and protection they are in charge of who are coming before the courts. However, we accept that the changes in the bill are fine. We do not accept this amendment, but we greatly share the concerns with The Greens in relation to the delays in the court, and the resourcing of caseworkers and their ability to make sure that every child who comes before the court has the reports when they need them, on time, so that their best interests can be dealt with in a timely manner. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (23:04): I thank both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition for their contributions. I credit the Parliamentary Secretary for giving a frank explanation on the record. I think it is always best, particularly when we are talking about care and protection matters, to be honest about what is happening. So I appreciate the frank concessions about what is a series of quite entrenched administrative failings inside the department. Like the Leader of the Opposition, we are concerned that the court is basically now doing the administrative work of the department. The court is already overburdened. It does not have sufficient resources and it is now also having to mark the homework of the department and ensure that it gets its section 82 reports in on time. That is not sustainable. The system should not be operating that way. The primary responsibility is meant to be with the department and the caseworkers. I know that they are overworked. I know that their caseloads are too high. Nevertheless, that is where the primary duty lies—not with the court. We are deeply troubled that the department can effectively submit a late report without even having to give an explanation. We think that will just aggravate the situation. With this amendment, we are in fact giving them a get-out-of-jail-free card with a very low bar. We would prefer The Greens amendment to succeed. We can see it is not going to have the numbers and support tonight but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we will be closely following this matter in estimates. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Mr David Shoebridge has moved The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2021-079A. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 75

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN: I move: That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House without amendment. Motion agreed to. Adoption of Report The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN: On behalf of the Hon. Natalie Ward: I move: That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN: On behalf of the Hon. Natalie Ward: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That this House do now adjourn. DISABILITY INCLUSION ACT The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (23:07): I speak in the adjournment debate on the Disability Inclusion Act. Before I get into the substance, I thank my intern from the University of Sydney, Jackson Streeter, for the preparation of this adjournment speech. He has done a lot of work for me during the past few weeks. This is a culmination of that work and I thank him. The Department of Premier and Cabinet [DPC] Disability Inclusion Action Plan, or DIAP, says it aims: To use the objectives of the Disability Inclusion Act to explore how to influence and plan how to use DPC's oversight of Cabinet committees to influence policy development and projects. That is an official target of the plan—a plan to look at planning a plan. The Disability Inclusion Act passed this House seven years ago and was supposed to tear down the barriers excluding people with disability in New South Wales. It was to make New South Wales public services accessible to all on an equal basis. However, this word salad—like too many strategies across the DIAP system—commits to doing so little while using so many words. The word salads inherent in so many of the DIAPs paint a disappointing landscape of the past seven years. Too many commitments have no measurable targets, no time frames and no way to review whether people with disability are being meaningfully included. "Trust us," they say, "we have a plan for that." The reality is that the employment of people with disability across the New South Wales public sector has fallen since 2014. People with disability make up over 18 per cent of the New South Wales population but only 2.4 per cent of the New South Wales public sector workforce, a reduction from 3 per cent when the Act was passed. One of the Premier's Priorities is a target of 5.6 per cent by 2025—a target to more than double the number of employees with disability in only four years—and so far we are only going backwards. To use the same approach we are currently using to meet this ambitious target is squeezing blood from a stone. Thousands of New South Wales public servants are passionate about having an inclusive and accessible New South Wales. They work tirelessly with what they have available to them to try to achieve this goal. The Opposition wants the New South Wales Government to reflect on that commitment in the investment it is prepared to make to ensure that this work can actually come to fruition. This is not to say that the New South Wales DIAP system has failed people with disability. Valuable improvements to public infrastructure have made some services more accessible in New South Wales. The shift in language and the emphasis on advocacy and raising awareness are valuable beginnings. No matter how flashy the welcome mat or how inviting the shopfront, it does not make the old door any less hard to open. A plan is only worth as much as it delivers. The 2019 Sax Institute review of the DIAP system concluded that: Reporting was widely recognised as problematic. Much reporting was anecdotal with little sense of impact or outcomes. More shockingly, it also stated: Most agencies were not actively monitoring or collecting data that could demonstrate meaningful outcomes. Disparate monitoring and data collection made it difficult to quantify the tangible impacts of the DIAP. The only way we achieve true inclusion is with clear and measurable targets, the resources to back them and meaningful oversight to keep them on track. Disability advocacy organisations knew this was coming when the Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 76

Disability Inclusion Bill came to this place seven years ago. They told us it would happen and it has happened. Labor also echoed those concerns. We maintain now what we argued then: We want the Act to succeed. In some important ways it has, but in too many ways it has not. Carers NSW, the Physical Disability Council of NSW and the Intellectual Disability Rights Service—to name a few—all warned in 2014 about the lack of measurable targets, formal reporting systems and complaints mechanisms. The Government's own Sax Institute review made exactly those findings five years later. Despite all the findings and the urgent need for inclusion in New South Wales, the review of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 has been slow and has lacked ambition. The New South Wales Government report from the review dismisses the vast majority of the valid, widely held and expressed concerns about the Act without adequate justification and proposes very limited practical change in our approach. People with disability must be confident that their voices are heard by government, that the plans affecting their lives deliver the commitments that are set and that inclusion is not just performative but is actually facilitated. How can a system designed to include people with disability oversee an erosion of their presence in our public sector? How can the system deliver when it cannot be held to a measurable standard? There is too much word salad in the DIAPs that are being done across government. I again thank Jackson Streeter for the work that he has done for me in looking across government at where we can do better. The Disability Inclusion Action Plan is the key lever that New South Wales has for the inclusion of people with disability in all of our mainstream services and in all of our government delivery. It is failing people with disability. We cannot say that people with disability just get thrown into the NDIS system and that is the end of it. If we want a truly inclusive New South Wales, the DIAP system and the Disability Inclusion Act need a lot of work and they need it now. REGIONAL COUNTRY SHOWS AND RESILIENT AUSTRALIA AWARDS The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (23:12): This evening I celebrate the incredible work of our regional communities across the State who have continued to showcase their country shows despite roadblocks over the past year. I also acknowledge the New South Wales 2021 Resilient Australia Awards finalists and winner. Our country shows are synonymous with rural and regional New South Wales. They are iconic events that showcase a region and its industries whilst also providing an opportunity to connect suburban and metropolitan residents to those in the country. New South Wales is the economic engine of Australia, driving industry and technological advancements, as well as a key player in the agricultural sector. We have a proud and rich history in agriculture, with approximately 81 per cent of New South Wales classified as agricultural land, producing one- third of the country's sheep, one-fifth of its cattle and one-third of its pigs. Farming and agriculture contribute $13 billion to the State's economy. From Tweed down to Bega and from the Hunter to Broken Hill, agriculture plays an integral part in our local communities. Over the past 18 months fires, floods and COVID-19 have attempted to strip the community spirit from our regional towns. But instead, many regional communities have banded together to reinvent the beloved tradition of country shows. The Woodstock community is a perfect example. Woodstock Memorial Show, an annual event since 1946, is held on the first Sunday in September. With the 2020 show not able to go ahead, the Woodstock community got creative and figured out ways for the close-knit community to continue to celebrate their town. On its website the Woodstock Memorial Show created the Market Laneway, a virtual marketplace for its great local finds, from Woodstock Paddock Eggs to locally made cookies. The Market Laneway connects the buyer to the local vendors in the area who missed out on selling their products at last year's show. In place of the 2020 Woodstock Memorial Show the community also created an opportunity for locals to get creative and still be able to enjoy a fun day out. Woodstock's Scarecrow Challenge saw entries from across the region, with individuals, families, schools and community groups submitting their scarecrow creations. The entries created a trail in the town that the community could visit and then vote for their favourite scarecrow online. The Agricultural Societies Council of NSW heard about the challenge and created an initiative for all regional communities to participate in. The No Show Scarecrow initiative was created to spread some joy across the State after the shows were cancelled due to COVID. Some communities had scarecrows in their front yards while others had scarecrow villages in the town centre. Thanks to the inspiration for this idea from the Woodstock community, the scarecrow initiative brought a lot of joy and happiness across the State. It is no surprise that the work of the Woodstock Memorial Show saw it win the Agricultural Societies Council of NSW 2021 Resilience Award last week to acknowledge its adaptability and hardiness during the pandemic. Goulburn Show—one of my local shows—was also one of the finalists for the Resilience Award. Not only did it succeed in its 2020 show despite fires, floods and the possibility of it being cancelled due to the looming pandemic but its 2021 show was a great success. It saw record crowds of over 10,000 people attending the Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 77

weekend-long show. The 2021 show saw the regular, crowd-favourite events as well as many new additions, including a sheep show competition and dog shows. I congratulate Woodstock Memorial Show on its win as well as Goulburn Show and the other finalists for their incredible work to ensure the cherished traditions of country shows continue to thrive. Despite the recent difficulties for agricultural shows, the Agricultural Societies Council of NSW has continued to be a supportive group for New South Wales country shows. Now in its ninety-second year and operating since 1929, the council continues to promote and protect pastoral, agricultural and horticultural societies across the State, helping them to grow their membership and also host agricultural shows. Just last week the council hosted the Agricultural Societies Council of NSW State conference, the theme of which was "Adapt, Sustain, Grow". The conference presented four awards, including the Resilience Award to Woodstock, while also providing shows across the State with insightful advice, such as tips and tricks for COVID-safe shows and engaging volunteers. The conference was also an opportunity to highlight the success of the Sydney Royal Easter Show. This year 800,000 people attended the show in a COVID-safe way thanks to the hard work of the Royal Agricultural Society of NSW, which this year celebrates its 199th anniversary. I acknowledge the work of many agricultural and commercial exhibitors, staff and volunteers who made the show a success. The show has been a great tradition, engaging children through rides and show bags but also through showcasing country life. Little Hands on the Land, an interactive small-scale working farm, provided children and adults the opportunity to experience and learn about regional life. This year over 40,000 children visited the farm. Tonight I close by thanking the organisers of our regional shows across the State. Seeing shows cancelled due to the pandemic was tough, but nonetheless those organisations persevered and created great shows for their communities. WHITEHAVEN COAL Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (23:17): Just a few months ago Whitehaven Coal pleaded guilty to stealing one billion litres of water during the drought. Court documents released by Lock the Gate revealed how Whitehaven used dams and water storages at its Maules Creek mine to illegally capture water over three years, from 2016 to 2019. In response, Boggabri farmer Sally Hunter stated: It is outrageous Whitehaven had been stealing so much water at the height of one of the worst droughts to have ever hit the region. There is so much anger in the community at Whitehaven because it took so much water at a time when farmers, rivers, and the land needed it the most. This sorry case demonstrates how little care Whitehaven has for the communities it operates in. Whitehaven has been operating a number of coalmines in the north-west of the State for many years but its dodgy track record in terms of compliance has many locals wanting it gone. In March 2012 Whitehaven Coal was issued four penalty notices for polluting waters and breaching its environment protection licences at the Narrabri underground and Tarrawonga mines. In December 2014 the company was issued a penalty notice for disturbing an Aboriginal artefact at its Narrabri underground mine and separately another notice for mining more coal than its licence allowed. From 2015 to 2019 it received many cautions, penalties and a court conviction for noise, dust and road truck movements from its various mines in the State's north-west, including in April 2019 when it dumped combustible canisters improperly, resulting in fires breaking out. In 2020 Whitehaven pleaded guilty to 90 charges, facing over $20 million in fines, for illegally drilling water bore holes, failing to rehabilitate drill sites and bulldozing land to build unauthorised roads at its Narrabri coalmine. Whitehaven also has failed to provide appropriate offsets for its approved clearing of 1,665 hectares of native vegetation in the Leard State Forest for the Maules Creek coalmine, including 544 hectares of the critically endangered ecological community of white box-yellow box-Blakely's red gum grassy woodland. Legal action was taken against Whitehaven by the Environmental Defenders Office and the South East Forest Alliance, resulting in the company having to acquire additional properties to offset its clearing. It has been given until March 2024 to register legally binding conservation agreements over all its offset sites, 11 years after it was obliged to do so. Whitehaven is under investigation by the Environment Protection Authority for illegally burying tyres at its Maules Creek coalmine site, despite having explicitly been refused permission to do so by the EPA. The company has also been burying tyres at its Tarrawonga mine since 2015, despite having only gained approval to do so by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in May this year. Now, with the approval of the Independent Planning Commission, the proposed extension of its existing Vickery mine near Boggabri will see another 33 million tonnes of coal mined, producing 100 million tonnes of carbon pollution. That is why a group of eight young Australians recently applied for an injunction to stop Federal environment Minister Sussan Ley approving it. The judge agreed that the Minister had a duty of care to protect young people from climate change and that climate change would cause catastrophic and "startling" harm to young people. Specifically, more than one million of today's children would require acute care from heat stress at some point in their lives because of global warming, and the mine would increase the chance of that harm. Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 78

Just yesterday former leader of the National Party Mark Vaile and chair of Whitehaven Coal was forced to quit his role as chancellor of the University of Newcastle, before his appointment had even begun. His impending chancellorship saw two members of the university council resign, student protests and university donors taking out a front-page advertisement in The Newcastle Herald stating that they "would not support a university who would choose as their leader someone who is determined to build new coalmines when most of the world is determined to reduce fossil fuel use". What is Whitehaven's response to all of this? It says it will continue to have a role because high-quality coal contributes to global CO2 emissions reduction efforts while simultaneously supporting economic development in our near region. That is not how the people of New South Wales see it. It is time we said goodbye to Whitehaven Coal in New South Wales. STATE BUDGET AND REGIONAL NEW SOUTH WALES The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (23:22): The New South Wales budget was handed down today and what a great budget it is for the people of rural and regional New South Wales. Once again the Berejiklian-Barilaro Government has delivered and continues to deliver for the citizens of this great State. We are continuing to see record amounts of funding and investment being spent in the bush, and so it should be because the regions are the powerhouse of the New South Wales economy and will be for decades to come. I will highlight some of the fantastic announcements for the bush coming out of this year's budget. Just in the past day or so we have seen the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women announce a $12 million boost for mums and bubs in the bush, with this important funding going towards six new regional family care centres and five Tresillian mobile vans. The Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning announced free preschool is here to stay. This is a massive win for mothers, fathers and carers right across New South Wales but particularly in the regions. This $150 million investment will save families $4,000 per year per child in preschool fees. This is the Liberals and Nationals in government backing our families and supporting the future of our great State. It is not just the families and carers who are the winners from the Treasurer's fantastic budget today. The regional seniors travel card, an election commitment from the NSW Nationals at the 2019 election, has been such an overwhelming success that the Government has not only extended the program for another two years but also expanded it, with additional seniors now eligible for the card. They include seniors who hold a valid pensioner concession card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a disability pension or a careers payment from Services Australia, a service pension issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, a disability pension through the Department of Veterans' Affairs or a war widow pension issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That fantastic program is really delivering in the regions. Developed and delivered by the NSW Nationals in government, the program will inject more than $108 million into the regional New South Wales economy. I acknowledge New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro and Treasurer Dom Perrottet, who have put the bush at the forefront of the budget because they know who keeps the lights on in this great State: It is the regions. It could be the coal industry in the Hunter Valley, farming on the Liverpool Plains, health care and education in the Central West or manufacturing in Narrabri in the north-west. As a former small business owner, I know that small businesses are the engine room of any economy. I know that governments do not employ a lot of people; it is the small, medium and large businesses that employ people. Governments need to achieve the framework and environment for businesses to back themselves and thrive, employ more people, and invest and create confidence in the economy. Our Treasurer Dom Perrottet has done exactly that and the numbers are impressive and speak for themselves. The Government has created 75,000 jobs in one month to take our unemployment under 5 per cent. That is an economy on the rise and an economy with confidence rising. Regional racetracks are at the heart of so many communities right across New South Wales. That is why the New South Wales Government will invest a record $67 million in regional racetracks, as announced in today's budget. It will ensure that towns such as Scone, Tamworth, Warren and Gunnedah continue to see and experience the tourism dollar that is generated from these country racing carnivals. I thank and acknowledge Deputy Premier John Barilaro and Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation Kevin Anderson for their ongoing support for those communities and the backing of the wonderful industry that is thoroughbred racing and the significant contribution it makes to rural and regional communities. Towns, villages and communities across rural and regional New South Wales have done it tough over the past year or so dealing with drought, bushfires, COVID-19, floods and now a mice plague. The budget backs the regions and invests in funding programs, initiatives and infrastructure that is critical for advancing the regions, building on the recovery after the drought, bushfires and, hopefully, COVID. The budget backs rural and regional New South Wales. I also highlight some fantastic announcements, the details of which I will not outline now. They include the $150 million that has been put together by The Nationals in government for a mouse control package; $75 million, an increased pot of money, for Resources for Regions program round eight; $64 million for Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 79

the Future Ready Regions strategy for farmers to prepare for drought; and $100 million for the Regional Job Creation Fund. The people of rural and regional New South Wales are the winners out of today's budget. STATE BUDGET The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (23:27): Did you know that William Shakespeare wrote King Lear whilst in isolation in 1606? The plague was ravaging London, the Globe was closed and Shakespeare, holed up at home, penned one of the greatest plays in the English language. So when I became aware that the New South Wales Treasurer was in self-isolation as a close contact of a COVID case a mere month before the New South Wales budget, I will admit to being nervous. What an incredible opportunity for the Treasurer to use his period of isolation and reflection to create a budget that truly delivered a vision for a post-pandemic future for New South Wales; a story of a more equal society, ready to tackle the challenges of our future, like climate change and housing affordability; a story of economic growth based not just on handouts from Canberra and sky-rocketing stamp duty, but new industries, new jobs and new opportunities. So I had high hopes. I thought this is the chance the Treasurer needs, away from the theatrics of Parliament, to come up with something truly inspired. And, well, what can I say? This budget ain't no King Lear. It appears the Treasurer spent most of his time in lockdown playing with Lego and talking to a volleyball because he certainly was not spending the time developing innovative and future-focused ideas for the New South Wales economy. Disappointed as I am in the budget and that the Treasurer failed to come up with much more than a media plan, I acknowledge two programs in particular that I was pleased to see included. The first is the Dubbo drug court, which is a life-saving initiative that will help people beat addiction, keep families together and reduce crime. It would be great if the Government could get on with the job of implementing the recommendations of the ice inquiry. I note there does not appear to be an allocation for that in the budget, which is very disappointing, but at least it funded the drug court. The second is the funding allocated for Parkinson's disease, which is a growing problem in our ageing society. My friend and former Deputy Premier John Watkins has spoken powerfully about the impact of that disease on his life. As some members may know, in 2018 I lost my mother to Parkinson's disease after years of her slipping from my family's grasp. This funding is important and necessary. I thank the Treasurer for including it in the budget. Because I am being nice, maybe it is unfair to compare the Treasurer to the greatest playwright in the English canon. Maybe something a little more relevant and contemporary is a more reasonable place to start. I cannot help but feel that our New South Wales Treasurer has taken some inspiration from probably the most famous Treasury secretary in contemporary pop culture, Alexander Hamilton, because I feel that for every New South Wales budget the Treasurer channels Hamilton when he explains to the people of New South Wales, "There's a million things I haven't done, but just you wait." Doing something about housing affordability, "just you wait"; fringe benefits tax reform, "just you wait"—which is interesting because that is not even a State tax so we will be waiting a long time for reform on that one—and fixing the GST, "just you wait". How many times have those opposite promised that one? I was pleased to see the Treasurer not announcing another review, inquest, inquiry, working group on Federal-State financial relations. We have had that in literally every budget since 2017. Maybe the Government finally realised that it is meant to actually do something about the recommendations from its blue-ribbon commissions. So we did not see that this year. Reforming stamp duty, "just you wait". I noted the Treasurer's one sheepish reference to "progressing his property tax proposal" in his Budget Speech today. That was it—one half sentence! No, the Treasurer is not progressing it; it is going nowhere. This was the centrepiece of the last budget, which members might recall was delivered in November last year. That was the big-picture reform for New South Wales. In June 2021 it is obvious that this proposal has been abandoned. It did not even make it a year. What a humiliating backdown. This speaks to the big missing piece in the budget—any real action on housing affordability. Is the Government serious? Housing affordability is the issue in New South Wales right now. Instead of doing something, the Government is not reforming stamp duty; it is rolling in it. At the core of this budget is revenue from stamp duty, tolls, speeding fines, taxes and charges. The core revenue in this budget comes out of the pockets of working families. So no more "just you wait". Families in New South Wales are sick of waiting. We want the Government to act. ANIMALS AND COSMETIC TESTING The Hon. (23:32): The beauty industry is hiding an ugly secret: Animals are still being used for cosmetic testing. Right now rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats and mice are all having chemicals forced down their throats, dripped into their eyes and smeared into their bare skin. Pushed to their bodies' limits, they will be denied pain relief as they endure archaic chemical poisoning tests devised more than half a century ago. Then they will be killed callously once testing is complete. There is simply no excuse for that cruelty, yet it is Tuesday, 22 June 2021 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 80

estimated that around the world approximately 200,000 animals suffer and die from cosmetic testing each year. In Australia, while we may have taken steps to stop that abuse, our laws do not go far enough. Legislation banning the testing of cosmetics on animals came into effect in July of last year. The Federal Government recently announced a new voluntary code of practice to support the ban. However, disappointingly, Australia's ban on animal testing extends only to ingredients used exclusively for cosmetics, despite very few cosmetics being made with sole-purpose cosmetic ingredients. Essentially, the Australian legislation came in when no sole focus cosmetic ingredient testing was occurring in Australia and had not for some time. Therefore, the Federal legislation makes no real change to animal testing in this country but rather creates confusion while we still test some cosmetic ingredients, and continue to import and sell cosmetics tested on animals overseas. RSPCA data tells us that 85 per cent of Australians oppose testing cosmetics on animals, but what many consumers searching for non-animal tested beauty products do not know is that we do not ban or properly regulate the claims made by companies that willingly test on animals overseas. Our current laws allow popular brands such as Bobbi Brown, MAC and Clinique to promote themselves as being cruelty free in Australia despite their items being tested on animals overseas. China is known not only as the world's second biggest cosmetics market but also as the world's biggest proponent of animal testing. It is the only country worldwide where, in many cases, animal testing for cosmetics is a requirement by law. While China is slowly moving away from this extreme cruelty by lifting its mandatory animal testing for domestically manufactured cosmetics in 2014 and announcing an end to similar testing for imported cosmetics in March this year, many cosmetic items are still legally required to undergo animal testing, including hair dyes, whitening products, sunscreens and anti-hair loss products. Animals will continue to be tortured for cosmetic testing as long as international brands continue to sell these products in China. If we are serious about stopping cosmetic testing on animals, we cannot allow these same brands to sell their products here, especially under the guise of bring cruelty free. With modern, non-animal tests that better predict human reactions now available for the majority of cosmetic safety issues, animal testing should be a thing of the past. It is a conscious choice to engage in this cruelty. Our laws should properly reflect the values of the community and protect them from inadvertently supporting animal cruelty. The precedent has been set. The European Union has already cemented itself as the world's largest animal testing free cosmetic market and is being closely followed by countries including India, Turkey, Switzerland and Chile. We need to do more than pass token legislation in an effort to join the international movement to protect animals. It is time for us to catch up properly. We have the support of the Australian public behind us, and with the right legislation we can create real change for the hundreds of thousands of animals who are still trapped in the cosmetic testing industry. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 23:37 until Wednesday 23 June 2021 at 10:00.