New South Wales

Legislative Council

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Fifty-Seventh Parliament First Session

Tuesday, 15 September 2020

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bills ...... 3889 Casino Control Amendment (Inquiries) Bill 2020 ...... 3889 Assent ...... 3889 Announcements ...... 3889 Death of the Hon. John Joseph Fahey, AC, Former Premier and Former Member for Southern Highlands and for Camden ...... 3889 California Bushfires ...... 3889 Committees ...... 3889 Procedure Committee ...... 3889 Reports ...... 3889 Documents ...... 3889 SafeWork NSW ...... 3889 Production of Documents: Order ...... 3889 Motions ...... 3890 Varuna ...... 3890 Blackheath Rhododendron Gardens ...... 3890 Documents ...... 3891 Tabled Papers not Ordered to be Printed ...... 3891 Committees ...... 3891 Legislation Review Committee ...... 3891 Reports ...... 3891 Committees ...... 3891 Selection of Bills Committee ...... 3891 Reports ...... 3891 Documents ...... 3891 Auditor-General ...... 3891 Reports ...... 3891 Committees ...... 3891 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 3891 Report: Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 ...... 3891 Business of the House ...... 3892 Restoration of Business ...... 3892 Committees ...... 3892 Standing Committee on State Development ...... 3892 Government Response: Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 3892 Documents ...... 3892 Dam Infrastructure ...... 3892 Return to Order ...... 3892 Claim of Privilege ...... 3892 Koala Populations and Habitat ...... 3892 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Return to Order ...... 3892 Claim of Privilege ...... 3893 Driver Mobile Phone Offences ...... 3893 Return to Order ...... 3893 Claim of Privilege ...... 3893 Covid-19 and Ruby Princess ...... 3893 Return to Order ...... 3893 Claim of Privilege ...... 3893 Correspondence ...... 3893 Icare ...... 3893 Return to Order ...... 3893 Claim of Privilege ...... 3893 Community Funds and Grants ...... 3893 Return to Order ...... 3893 Claim of Privilege ...... 3893 NSW Bushfire Inquiry ...... 3894 Return to Order ...... 3894 Claim of Privilege ...... 3894 Stronger Country Communities Fund ...... 3894 Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 3894 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 3894 Payroll Tax ...... 3894 Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 3894 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 3894 Tallawarra Power Station ...... 3894 Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 3894 Floodplain Harvesting ...... 3894 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 3894 Environmental Water ...... 3895 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 3895 Petitions ...... 3895 Responses to Petitions ...... 3895 Notices ...... 3895 Presentation ...... 3895 Business of the House ...... 3895 Withdrawal of Business ...... 3895 Notices ...... 3895 Presentation ...... 3895 Business of the House ...... 3896 Postponement of Business ...... 3896 Rulings ...... 3896 Wages Policy Taskforce ...... 3896 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Committees ...... 3898 Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health ...... 3898 Reference ...... 3898 Bills ...... 3898 Adoption Legislation Amendment (Integrated Birth Certificates) Bill 2020 ...... 3898 First Reading ...... 3898 Questions Without Notice ...... 3899 The Hon. ...... 3899 Regional Arts and Culture ...... 3899 The Hon. John Barilaro ...... 3899 Student Behaviour Strategy ...... 3901 Covid-19 and Schools ...... 3902 Commercial Fishing Industry ...... 3903 Bullying ...... 3903 Regional Youth Taskforce ...... 3904 Commercial Fishing Industry ...... 3904 The Nationals ...... 3904 Sydney Night-Time Economy ...... 3905 Wildlife Carer Mental Health ...... 3906 The Hon. John Barilaro ...... 3906 Bushfires and Aboriginal Communities ...... 3906 Koala Populations and Habitat ...... 3907 Central West Mental Health Services ...... 3907 Regional Student Leaders ...... 3908 Puppy Farms ...... 3908 Covid-19 and Education ...... 3909 Questions Without Notice: Take Note ...... 3909 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 3909 The Hon. John Barilaro ...... 3909 Sydney Night-Time Economy ...... 3910 The Hon. John Barilaro ...... 3910 Bushfires and Aboriginal Communities ...... 3911 The Hon. John Barilaro ...... 3911 Covid-19 and Schools ...... 3912 Koala Populations and Habitat ...... 3913 The Nationals ...... 3913 Covid-19 and Schools ...... 3913 The Nationals ...... 3914 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 3914 Deferred Answers ...... 3914 Companion Animals ...... 3914 Kangaroo Culling ...... 3915 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Ministerial Secondments ...... 3915 Covid-19 and Ruby Princess ...... 3915 Written Answers to Supplementary Questions ...... 3915 Small Business Recovery Grant ...... 3915 Committees ...... 3916 Standing Committee on Social Issues ...... 3916 Report: Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019 ...... 3916 Joint Select Committee on Sydney's Night Time Economy ...... 3916 Report: Sydney's Night Time Economy ...... 3916 Documents ...... 3920 Environmental Water ...... 3920 Return to Order ...... 3920 Stronger Country Communities Fund ...... 3920 Return to Order ...... 3920 Claim of Privilege ...... 3920 Lachlan Valley ...... 3920 Return to Order ...... 3920 Claim of Privilege ...... 3920 Business of the House ...... 3920 Postponement of Business ...... 3920 Committees ...... 3920 Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry ...... 3920 Report: Right to Farm Bill 2019 ...... 3920 Rulings ...... 3923 Notices of Motions ...... 3923 Committees ...... 3924 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 3924 Report: Mining Amendment (Compensation for Cancellation of Exploration Licence) Bill 20193924 Bills ...... 3924 Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 ...... 3924 Second Reading Speech ...... 3924 Second Reading Debate ...... 3928 Adjournment Debate ...... 3933 Adjournment ...... 3933 Firearms Permits ...... 3933 Koala Populations and Habitat ...... 3933 Anti-Semitism ...... 3934 Virtual Meetings ...... 3934 Energy Policy ...... 3935 Covid-19 and Victoria ...... 3936 Cooma Community ...... 3937 Qantas Workers ...... 3938 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3889

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 15 September 2020

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. John George Ajaka) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land. Bills CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT (INQUIRIES) BILL 2020 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of a message from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bill. Announcements DEATH OF THE HON. JOHN JOSEPH FAHEY, AC, FORMER PREMIER AND FORMER MEMBER FOR SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS AND FOR CAMDEN The PRESIDENT (14:32:06): I announce the death on 12 September 2020 of the Hon. John Joseph Fahey, aged 75 years, a member of the Legislative Assembly from 1984 to 1996 and former Premier of the State. I understand a condolence motion will be moved in due course. Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect. CALIFORNIA BUSHFIRES The PRESIDENT (14:33:51): I inform the House that on behalf of the members of the Legislative Council and the people of New South Wales I have sent a message of condolence to the President of the California State Senate, our sister State in the United States of America, expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of the people who have been killed, injured or made homeless by the current bushfires. Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect. Committees PROCEDURE COMMITTEE Reports The PRESIDENT: I table report No. 12 of the Procedure Committee entitled Consultation on highly contentious bills and committee access to external experts, dated September 2020, together with submissions and correspondence relating to the inquiry. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Documents SAFEWORK NSW Production of Documents: Order The Hon. (14:35:38): I seek leave to amend private members' business item No. 668 outside the order of precedence as follows: (1) Insert "Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation or the" after "custody or control of the" (2) Omit paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert instead: "(b) all documents or correspondence, including emails, texts or other communication, between the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation or the office of the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation and SafeWork NSW officials regarding the investigation of asbestos related matters in the Blue Mountains City Council local government area between April 2017 and July 2018; Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3890

(c) all correspondence, including emails, between the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman's Office and any other person regarding the preparation of any, and all, drafts of the special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Investigation into actions taken by SafeWork NSW Inspectors in relation to Blue Mountains City Council workplaces", dated 21 August 2020 investigation; and". Leave granted. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: Accordingly, I move: That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents, in electronic format if possible, created since 18 January 2018 in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation or the Ombudsman's Office relating to the Ombudsman's investigation into SafeWork NSW: (a) all drafts of the special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Investigation into actions taken by SafeWork NSW Inspectors in relation to Blue Mountains City Council workplaces", dated 21 August 2020; (b) all documents or correspondence, including emails, texts or other communication, between the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation or the office of the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation and SafeWork NSW officials regarding the investigation of asbestos related matters in the Blue Mountains City Council local government area between April 2017 and July 2018; (c) all correspondence, including emails, between the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s Office and any other person regarding the preparation of any, and all, drafts of the special report of the Ombudsman entitled "Investigation into actions taken by SafeWork NSW Inspectors in relation to Blue Mountains City Council workplaces", dated 21 August 2020 investigation; and (d) any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the House. Motion agreed to. Motions VARUNA The Hon. (14:37:12): I move: (1) That this House notes that: (a) Varuna, the National Writers' House, is Australia's national residential writers' house in the former home of writers Eleanor Dark and Dr Eric Dark in Katoomba; (b) Varuna is recognised as Australia's pre-eminent institution for writing development, and is central to a thriving community and alumni association; (c) Varuna's unique mission is to inspire the creation of Australian writing that enriches and shapes our culture, and to facilitate writing that is celebrated nationally and internationally; (d) each year, over 150 writers participate in residencies and professional development programs at Varuna, and many hundreds more readers and writers participate in their workshop programs and literary events; and (e) Varuna has secured $740,000 in funding over the next four years as part of the 2020-2021 Independent Arts and Cultural Organisation (Multi-year Funding) program announced in August by the Hon. Shayne Mallard, MLC, and the Hon. , MLC, Minister for the Arts. (2) That this House congratulates Ms Jennifer Scott, Chair of the Board of Varuna and Veechi Stuart, Executive Director for their long-term dedication to writers and literature in New South Wales. (3) That this House acknowledges the importance of cultural organisations such as Varuna that enrich and shape our culture. Motion agreed to. BLACKHEATH RHODODENDRON GARDENS The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (14:37:22): I move: (1) That this House notes that: (a) the Blue Mountains is the second most visited destination in New South Wales; (b) the Blackheath Rhododendron Gardens was established in 1970 and is one of the Blue Mountains most favourite venues where azalea and rhododendrons are planted amongst the native eucalypts and bushland; (c) the Rhododendron Gardens attract significant international tourists especially the Rhododendron Festival in November; (d) the Rhododendron Gardens are managed and maintained by the Blue Mountains Rhododendron Society of NSW Incorporated, a community organisation of tireless volunteers, with members throughout Australia; (e) the Rhododendron Society raises all of its own funds via donations when visitors and tourists attend the gardens; (f) earlier this year the gardens were severely damaged by the bushfires; and Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3891

(g) the Rhododendron Gardens received a grant of $20,000 from the Government made available through the Hon. , MP, Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney and Destination NSW, for the restoration of the gardens. (2) That this House acknowledges the dedicated Blackheath Rhododendron Garden Chair, Deborah Wells, and volunteers for their tireless work over many years. (3) That this House notes the important role that local volunteer run attractions play in the local visitor economy around the State. Motion agreed to. Documents TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: According to standing order, I table a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed. Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. : I table a report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled Legislation Review Digest No. 19/57, dated 15 September 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Committees SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I table report No. 36 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 15 September 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: According to paragraph 4 (1) of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee, I move: That the Public Health Amendment (Registered Nurses in Nursing Homes) Bill 2020 not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report, this day. Motion agreed to. Documents AUDITOR-GENERAL Reports The CLERK: According to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of a Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled Credit card management in Local Government, dated 3 September 2020, received out of session and authorised to printed on 3 September 2020. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Report: Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No. 74 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020, dated September 2020, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice, and supplementary questions, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 11 September 2020. The Hon. (14:41:15): I move: Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3892

That the House take note of the report. The inquiry was established to examine the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020, which seeks to amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to authorise NSW Health to provide information to the work health and safety regulators, SafeWork NSW and the New South Wales Resources Regulator, relating to occupational diseases such as silicosis. During the short inquiry, two key issues emerged from the committee's consideration: privacy concerns relating to the information-sharing power in the bill, and concerns that the bill does not offer further policy action on dust diseases such as the establishment of a broader dust diseases register. The committee acknowledges the stakeholder concerns and notes that some of them were not confined to the purview of the bill. The committee recommends that the Legislative Council proceed with debate on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020. The committee also recommends that the New South Wales Government address the committee's comments and concerns identified by stakeholders raised in the inquiry during debate in the House. I thank all participants for their contributions to the inquiry, particularly with such a short time frame. I extend my thanks to fellow committee members for their participation. I thank the committee secretariat for providing support to the committee. Debate adjourned. Business of the House RESTORATION OF BUSINESS The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: According to resolution of the House of 4 August 2020, I move: That the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and that the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Government Response: Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government response to report No. 46 of the Standing Committee on State Development entitled Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019, tabled on 24 March 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 7 September 2020. The Hon. (14:45:14): I move: That the House take note of the Government response. Debate adjourned. Documents DAM INFRASTRUCTURE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding dam infrastructure projects, received on Wednesday 2 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 August 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding koala habitat and population, received on Wednesday 2 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3893

Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. DRIVER MOBILE PHONE OFFENCES Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 6 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding mobile phone offences by drivers, received on Thursday 3 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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 AND RUBY PRINCESS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding the Ruby Princess cruise ship, received on Thursday 3 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. Correspondence The CLERK: I table correspondence received on Tuesday 8 September 2020 from the Department of Premier and Cabinet on behalf of NSW Health, requesting that a document holding personal information which had inadvertently been placed in the non-privileged documents be removed and placed with the privileged documents, together with a redacted version of the document and a new privileged index. The document has been placed with the privileged documents. I table a redacted version of the document and a new privileged index. ICARE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 26 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding administration of Insurance and Care NSW, received on Wednesday 9 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. COMMUNITY FUNDS AND GRANTS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 5 August 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding community funds and grants, received on Wednesday 9 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3894

NSW BUSHFIRE INQUIRY Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 26 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding the NSW Bushfire Inquiry, received on Wednesday 9 September 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying those of the documents 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. STRONGER COUNTRY COMMUNITIES FUND Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, on 2 September 2020, the Clerk received from Mr written correspondence disputing the validity of the claim of privilege on certain documents lodged with the Clerk on Wednesday 26 August 2020 relating to Stronger Country Communities applications. According to standing order, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, was appointed as an Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed documents to Mr Mason. Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The CLERK: I announce the receipt of a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 11 September 2020 on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents relating to Stronger Country Communities applications. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. PAYROLL TAX Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, on 3 September 2020, the Clerk received from Mr written correspondence disputing the validity of the claim of privilege on certain documents lodged with the Clerk on Friday 31 July 2020 relating to payroll tax compliance, further order. According to standing order, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, was appointed as an Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed documents to Mr Mason. Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The CLERK: I announce the receipt of a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 9 September 2020 on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents relating to payroll tax compliance. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. TALLAWARRA POWER STATION Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, on 8 September 2020, the Clerk received from Ms written correspondence disputing the validity of the claim of privilege on certain documents lodged with the Clerk on Thursday 19 September 2019 relating to the contamination at power station associated sites. According to standing order, the Hon. Joseph Campbell, QC, was appointed as an Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed documents to Mr Campbell. FLOODPLAIN HARVESTING Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The CLERK: I announce the receipt of a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 1 September 2020 on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents relating to floodplain harvesting. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3895

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The CLERK: I announce the receipt of a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 1 September 2020 on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents relating to rules based environmental water. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Petitions RESPONSES TO PETITIONS The CLERK: According to sessional order, I announce receipt of the following responses to petitions signed by more than 500 persons: (1) Government response from the Hon. , MLC, Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, to a petition presented by the Hon. on 4 August 2020 concerning the public school at Edmondson Park, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 8 September 2020. (2) Government response from the Hon. , MP, Attorney General, to a petition presented by Mr David Shoebridge on 6 August 2020 concerning the death of Mr David Dungay Jr in custody, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 10 September 2020. Notices PRESENTATION [During the giving of notices of motions] The Hon. Trevor Khan: Point of order: I have three points of order relating to the notice of motion given by the Hon. . The first is on a relatively minor matter but it goes to form. There were repeated references to the Hon. Niall Blair in a shortened form, there were repeated references to , MP, in a shortened form and there may well have been others. I ask whether it is appropriate for a notice of motion to improperly describe a former member of this House and a member of the other place and I ask that you rule on that in due course. My second point of order relates to the length of a notice of motion. I accept that it is customary for some notices of motion to be quite lengthy but that was a cracker of the first order. It was certainly the longest that I have heard in 14 years in this place and it was more like a speech than a notice of motion, so I ask that you give that some consideration. The final matter relates to what is essentially the final paragraph of the notice of motion, which relates essentially to this House inviting or instructing the other place to undertake some action which, I submit, may offend the comity of the Houses and should therefore be struck out. Those are the three matters that I raise. The PRESIDENT: I will reserve my ruling in relation to all three matters raised in the one point of order. I indicate to the Clerk that the motion is not to go on the Notice Paper until I make that ruling. If I do not get the opportunity to make a ruling this evening I will do so first thing tomorrow morning. Business of the House WITHDRAWAL OF BUSINESS The Hon. : I withdraw private member's business item No. 408 inside the order of precedence relating to the Restart NSW Amendment (Rural and Regional Infrastructure Funding) Bill 2019. Notices PRESENTATION [During the giving of notices of motions] The PRESIDENT: Noting that seven minutes remain before question time, I remind members that it is open to them to indicate that a motion is lengthy and that a copy is available with the Clerk at the table. Proceeding in that way may assist all members to give their notices of motion before 4.00 p.m. The Hon. John Graham: Point of order: I would like to clarify whether the Hon. is, in fact, a Government member. The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Graham to order for the first time. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3896

Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr : I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name be postponed until 22 September 2020. Motion agreed to. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name be postponed until 22 September 2020. Motion agreed to. Rulings WAGES POLICY TASKFORCE The PRESIDENT (15:43:06): On 27 August 2020 the Hon. Adam Searle moved a motion for an order for papers calling for: … all correspondence, including emails, since 1 January 2019 sent from or received by the Treasury and the Wages Policy Taskforce regarding bargaining parameters … A point of order was taken by the Leader of the House that the relevant documents should more appropriately be sought by way of an address to the Governor as they related to the administration of justice. After a brief debate on the point of order, I reserved my ruling and indicated to the Leader of the House that he should provide a submission to me and the Hon. Adam Searle within seven days, and that the Leader of the Opposition should also provide a submission to me within the following seven days. I would like to thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for providing these submissions, which have greatly assisted my deliberations on this matter. The submissions were quite extensive and—I should indicate—so is this ruling. The validity of orders for papers under Standing Order 52 have been the subject of two previous rulings by me earlier this year on 24 March and 3 June 2020. I will not go over those rulings in detail. However, they are instructive in this matter today. In those rulings, I noted the distinction between the application of Standing Order 53 and Standing Order 52 was that Standing Order 53 applies to matters that fall within the purview of the Crown and the courts, notably the administration of justice, whereas Standing Order 52 applies to matters that fall within the purview of the Executive Government. In my ruling of 3 June 2020 I addressed two questions which are relevant to the present matter. The first is whether the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] is involved in "the administration of justice" and the second is the purpose for which the documents sought were created. I will also make some general comments regarding the scope of Standing Order 53 and my role as President when adjudicating on procedural matters. The first issue goes to whether the IRC is a judicial tribunal that relates to the administration of justice. The Government contends that IRC proceedings are "judicial" in nature and thus concern the administration of justice. The Government cites two authorities in support of this conclusion. In Queen v Rogerson [1992] 174 CLR 268, Chief Justice Mason said: The course of justice relevantly includes the proceedings of judicial tribunals, that is, tribunals having authority to determine the rights and obligations of parties and having a duty to act judicially. Justice Brennan and Justice Toohey, who with Chief Justice Mason constituted the majority, similarly said: The course of justice consists in the due exercise by a court or competent judicial authority of its jurisdiction to enforce, adjust or declare the rights and liabilities of persons subject to the law in accordance with the law and the actual circumstances of the case. The second High Court case cited by the Government in support of its argument that the IRC is a judicial tribunal is Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated of NSW v Director of Public Employment [2012] HCA 58; [2012] 250 CLR 343. I will not discuss the relevant passages from this case. Suffice to say, the Opposition and the Government have very different interpretations of it. Indeed, the Hon. Adam Searle contends that the decision in this case is the definitive authority for proceedings in the IRC not being judicial in nature. Clearly the Government and Opposition hold opposite views as to whether the IRC is involved in the administration of justice. The status of the IRC was addressed in my ruling on 3 June 2020, but I was not required to make a definitive ruling. This is because I was able to make my ruling on a different ground, which was that the Government had only just announced its intention to commence proceedings in relation to public sector wages in the commission the previous day and therefore the documents did not fall within the "administration of justice". It is worth noting Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3897

that, notwithstanding its assertions that the case law supports the view that the IRC is concerned with the administration of justice, in its submission at page 3 the Government acknowledges: On the basis of relevant authorities, there remains a live question as to whether the IRC proceedings are judicial in nature … Thus the question as to whether the IRC is involved in the administration of justice is far from settled at law. I will now turn to the purpose for which the documents being sought under Standing Order 52 were created and about which the Government and Opposition also have opposing views. In a nutshell the Government argues that documents about public sector wage bargaining parameters are directly related to current proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission because, if the relevant parties are unable to reach agreement about wage increases via negotiation, the matter will proceed to arbitration in the IRC, "which determines the matter in accordance with the law." Thus, according to the Government, even the contemplation of prospective proceedings in relation to bargaining parameters is enough to bring the relevant documents into the scope of the "administration of justice". As the Leader of the House suggested on 27 August 2020, the fact that proceedings are in train in the commission brings them clearly into the scope of Standing Order 53. He said: "… the documents referred to are so closely associated with a current case before the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] that they are in fact documents in relation to the administration of justice and thus can only be sought under Standing Order 53". However, the Hon. Adam Searle argues that this view is misconceived for several reasons. Firstly, the motion seeks documents created since 1 January 2019, which were brought into existence to assist decision-making with regard to public policy on public sector wages. The mere contemplation that proceedings in the IRC may occur should not be enough to substantiate the claim that the documents were created for the purpose of the proceedings. Secondly, an earlier ruling by me on 24 March 2020 supports the authority in Queen v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 that: The course of justice begins with the filing or issue of process invoking the jurisdiction of a court or judicial tribunal or the taking of a step that marks the commencement of criminal proceedings. I note that the order seeks documents created since 1 January 2019, well before the current case was a matter before the IRC. Consequently, it cannot be said that the documents were specifically created for the purpose of the proceedings in the IRC. This brings me to the final issue I will address, which is the scope of Standing Order 53. The Government and Opposition agree that the policy underpinning Standing Order 53 is to maintain the independence of the courts and the judiciary as a separate arm of government. However, there is less consensus on the scope of Standing Order 53, which is a fact acknowledged by both parties, the Crown Solicitor and in the Annotated Standing Orders of the New South Wales Legislative Council. The Hon. Adam Searle argues that in the absence of agreement as to what precisely falls within the definition of "administration of justice", well-established parliamentary practice provides important guidance on the scope of Standing Order 53. For instance, rulings by former President Burgmann and former President Primrose have held that papers that fall within the term "the administration of justice" include documents that make reference to actual court proceedings; touch on or concern court proceedings; concern or relate to the administration of a sentence on conviction and the orders made; concern conditions of custody that could be seen as giving effect to or being closely connected with a court-imposed sentence; and documents relating to legal action. As the Hon. Adam Searle notes, none of the documents sought by the motion under discussion fall into any of those categories. Furthermore, he pointed to the fact that Standing Order 19, the precursor to Standing Order 53, included the phrase "having reference" to the administration of justice, whereas the present standing order provides that a paper must be one "concerning" the administration of justice. In the Hon. Adam Searle's view, "having reference to" is a far wider term than "concerning" and that in accordance with the usual approach to statutory construction the intention of the House in making the change was to ensure the standing order was not interpreted narrowly. Finally, the Hon. Adam Searle reminded me of my ruling of 3 June 2020 regarding my role as President when interpreting a rule or order, where I stated that I should preserve and strengthen the powers of the House and that if I have any doubt regarding the arguments relied on in the current matter, I should thus lean towards the motion being in order. To summarise the arguments, the Government submits that the IRC proceedings are judicial in nature such that they relate to the administration of justice and that the bargaining parameters are at the heart of the IRC proceedings. Accordingly, the documents should be sought under Standing Order 53. The Opposition argues that the IRC proceedings are not judicial, nor do the documents relate to the administration of justice. In addition, the Hon. Adam Searle submits that Standing Order 53 represents a significant restriction by the House on the range of State papers that can be compelled to be produced, and is therefore a limitation on the power of the House, and that its terms must be carefully construed to have no wider application than is properly warranted. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3898

The relatively few rulings of the President on the scope of Standing Order 52 provide some guidance in this matter and these have tended to take a broader view of the standing order. However, it is my role to uphold the rights of this House to scrutinise the Government action and decision according to law. In the absence of any clear authority as to whether the IRC is a judicial tribunal involved in the administration of justice, I do not intend to definitively rule on that matter. However, in relation to the specific documents being sought it is my view that they are not sufficiently related to the current proceedings in the IRC to fall within the definition of administration of justice. To rule otherwise would suggest that any documents that could at some point in the future be part of proceedings in a court are sufficiently related to the administration of justice to be outside the scope of Standing Order 52. Accordingly, I do not uphold the point of order. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 2 - HEALTH Reference The Hon. : According to paragraph 6 of the resolution establishing the portfolio committees, I inform the House that on Thursday 27 August 2020 Portfolio Committee No. 2 – Health resolved to adopt the following terms of reference: That Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health inquire into and report on health outcomes and access to health and hospital services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales, and in particular: (a) health outcomes for people living in rural, regional and remote New South Wales; (b) a comparison of outcomes for patients living in rural, regional and remote New South Wales compared to other local health districts across metropolitan New South Wales; (c) access to health and hospital services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales including service availability, barriers to access and quality of services; (d) patient experience, wait times and quality of care in rural, regional and remote New South Wales and how it compares to metropolitan New South Wales; (e) an analysis of the planning systems and projections that are used by NSW Health in determining the provision of health services that are to be made available to meet the needs of residents living in rural, regional and remote New South Wales; (f) an analysis of the capital and recurrent health expenditure in rural, regional and remote New South Wales in comparison to population growth and relative to metropolitan New South Wales; (g) an examination of the staffing challenges and allocations that exist in rural, regional and remote New South Wales hospitals and the current strategies and initiatives that NSW Health is undertaking to address them; (h) the current and future provision of ambulance services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales; (i) the access and availability of oncology treatment in rural, regional and remote New South Wales; (j) the access and availability of palliative care and palliative care services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales; (k) an examination of the impact of health and hospital services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales on Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities; and (l) any other related matters. Bills ADOPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTEGRATED BIRTH CERTIFICATES) BILL 2020 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Damien Tudehope, on behalf of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for a future day. Motion agreed to. The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3899

Questions Without Notice THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00:10): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women in her own capacity and representing the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. Given that Deputy Premier John Barilaro has declined to reply to planning Minister ' 21 August letter offering seven concessions on habitat protection in the State environmental planning policy on koalas, why did she sign the document at the Executive Council approving the SEPP? Does she still stand by her support for the Deputy Premier? The Hon. (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:00:44): I thank the honourable member for his question, which has three different parts. I will start with the final part of the question: Of course I support the Deputy Premier. I support the Deputy Premier 100 per cent, as does the entire New South Wales Nationals party room—absolutely and proudly so. It is absolutely the truth and the Deputy Premier has my unequivocal support, as he does from the rest of the New South Wales Nationals. The second part of the member's question was in my capacity representing the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in the other House. If the member's question is indeed for the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, I will take that part of the question on notice and get back to him. The third part of the question went to my role on the Executive Council. Actually, it is the Governor who signs the Executive Council orders. I was present at the meeting with another Minister, that is correct. It has always been the case that Cabinet members support that at Executive Council, with the assurance that we would work through the issues that we face with the SEPP, which we continue to do. I look forward to a very good resolution in that regard. REGIONAL ARTS AND CULTURE The Hon. (16:02:12): My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's support for local government arts and cultural facilities? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:02:45): I thank the Hon. Lou Amato for his question. I am delighted to announce that the local government arts and cultural sector will receive more than $6.6 million in total funding to support the delivery of excellent programming over the next three years. In 2019 the New South Wales Government delivered the most significant reform of the arts and cultural funding program in 10 years. As part of the reform, a separate Local Government Authorities Arts & Cultural Programs funding round was established. It recognised that council museums, galleries and performing arts spaces are the lifeblood of the community, particularly in regional New South Wales. The reform also recognised that local government authorities are primarily responsible for the core funding of their own facilities. Create NSW has focused its funding in this round towards supporting programming at those facilities that demonstrate excellent artistic merit and impact over the next one to three years. Councils from Broken Hill to Bathurst, Lismore to Liverpool and beyond will be supported by Create NSW to deliver incredible cultural offerings. In 2020-21 a total of $3.1 million will support 29 local councils, including 19 in regional New South Wales, eight in western Sydney and two in the balance of metropolitan Sydney. The PRESIDENT: The Minister's time has expired. The Hon. DON HARWIN: There is a fault with the clock. If that is the case, I seek an extension of time. Leave granted. I am delighted that in the first year of the new funding category 50 per cent of the total funding will be distributed to local councils in regional New South Wales. This will include $72,300 to the Coffs Harbour City Council for the community curators program at Coffs Harbour Regional Museum. It will locate and generate stories to diversify the collections and exhibition of the museum through a program of training and community engagement. Funding of $100,000 will be provided to Moree Plains Shire Council for its Dhiiyaan Aboriginal Centre digitisation program, which aims to digitise an invaluable archive collection of materials relating to the history and culture of the Kamilaroi people of northern New South Wales through the creation of a local digital Aboriginal keeping place. Another round will open later this year for programs to be delivered in 2021-22. THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. (16:06:19): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Given police Minister David Elliott's comments that the Deputy Premier's position Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3900

is untenable and that he committed one of the greatest acts of political bastardry in quite some time, is she confident that, as a Minister, she will be able to serve cooperatively and constructively within the Government? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:06:40): I thank the honourable member for her question. As I said before, I fully support the Government and I fully support the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier has been a fantastic leader of the New South Wales Nationals. He has delivered unprecedented funding throughout rural and regional New South Wales. Let us talk with the Opposition about the last election. The Deputy Premier won every booth in the Monaro. It was certainly a victorious day. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I cannot hear the Minister from where I am sitting. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: My objection is similar to that which the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox raised. Notwithstanding the level of excitement that those opposite wish to generate in relation to this issue, members should allow the Minister to be heard. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. I note that the Minister is answering a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, so I assume that Opposition members would allow the Minister the opportunity to answer. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: Before the noise reached extreme levels, I was talking about how the Deputy Premier won every booth in the Monaro electorate at the recent election. Let us talk about all the country mayors who are full of praise— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. The Minister will resume her seat. I will not hear the point of order of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition until I make sure that members in the back of the Chamber have finished everything they want to say. It is incredibly rude that they be interrupted while they are trying to interject. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: My point of order is relevance. This is a very specific question about what the Minister is going to do in working with colleagues who think her leader should be dumped from his position. The Minister is not talking about that; she is only talking about the Deputy Premier. That was not my question. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: The question was very broad in nature. In many respects, it gave the Minister the licence to talk about her support for the Deputy Premier—which she took. In the circumstances of the question, the Minister is being entirely relevant to the question that was asked. The PRESIDENT: It is a very wide question, which talks about the Deputy Premier's position being untenable. The question also makes some other comments and then asks the Minister if she is confident that she can and is able to serve in the Government. I believe the Minister was being directly relevant to all the different aspects of that very general question. The Minister has the call. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr President. It is difficult to understand why the Opposition does not like the answer to the question it has asked, but we must persist. As I have said numerous times, I am very proud to be a member of the NSW Nationals and I am proud to serve under Mr John Barilaro because he is a fantastic leader. As I was trying to say, anyone who visits the regions can talk to the people there. Recently I was in Gilgandra with the Hon. Sam Farraway, and what does the mayor of Gilgandra say? The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: That is definitely not relevant to the question that has been asked. The PRESIDENT: I believe now the Minister is drifting from being directly relevant. I do not believe a visit by her and the Deputy Whip comes within the direct relevance of the question, unless the Minister can immediately link it. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: I will immediately link it. In the conversations that we had when we were out in the regions, we heard what a fantastic job the NSW Nationals were doing under the leadership of the Deputy Premier, John Barilaro. There has been unprecedented funding right across rural and regional New South Wales thanks to the Deputy Premier. I say, of course, that I am proud to stand behind him. I am proud to work with him and I look forward to working with him every day that I have the privilege to serve in this place with the NSW Nationals. Our absolute laser focus is on delivering for rural and regional New South Wales, and we have Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3901

done that. For the first time ever, 50 per cent of the Stronger Country Communities funding is going to regional youth. It is interesting, the Opposition does not want to hear about that. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: I am loath to take another point of order but, notwithstanding the heat that is generated by the issue, the Minister is entitled to be heard. The constant interjections do members opposite no credit. The Hon. : To the point of order: I agree with the Minister. I too am having difficulty hearing the Minister's answer. All I can hear is "David Elliott" and "What is David Elliott's view?" Accordingly, it is very difficult for me to hear what the Minister is saying. The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order for the first time. In doing so, I do not need to quote to him some of his previous rulings when he was a former President—they were great rulings as well. The Hon. : To the point of order: I too am very proud that Mr Barilaro leads The Nationals. The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Robert Borsak to order for the first time. I remind all honourable members that there is a reason and a purpose for points of order and it is not to simply have an opportunity to make an unnecessary comment. As much as I am reluctant to take up time during question time, I feel I have no choice. I have indicated previously that continual interjections, in particular loud interjections, make it impossible for Hansard and for me to hear the Minister. If a supplementary question had been asked, I would have real difficulty in being able to determine whether it was appropriate as I have missed probably half the answer of the Minister because of continued interjections. That is the risk members of the Opposition take if they continue to interject: They do not get the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. I remind Opposition members that it was their deputy leader who asked the Minister a question. I would have assumed that they would have wanted to hear the answer just as I am certain the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to hear the answer. The Minister has the call. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: Let us talk about some other reasons that I am so proud to serve under the leadership of John Barilaro, the Deputy Premier and leader of the NSW Nationals. Let us look at the COVID response and the fantastic cross-border agreements that Mr John Barilaro has negotiated recently. Let us talk about the National Rugby League. Shall we talk about the football coming back to our screens or is that something that those opposite do not want to talk about? I am absolutely looking forward to continuously serving under the fantastic leadership of the Deputy Premier and leader of The Nationals, John Barilaro. [Time expired.] The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16:14:49): I ask a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT: I do not know if I will allow it but I would love to hear it. The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The Minister went there, so she has opened it up. Will the Minister elucidate her answer on the cross-border work that is going on and all of the difficulties that people on the northern border and western border are facing, given that there is no support for small businesses and that people are in real difficulty and are being ignored? The PRESIDENT: I have indicated on a number of occasions that for a supplementary question to be in order, it must satisfy three aspects: it must be actually and accurately related to the original question; it must relate to or arise from the answer; and it must seek to elucidate a part of the answer given. Despite all the interjections, I think the honourable member is correct in the way she described the third aspect, but she was not correct about the first aspect, which is that the supplementary question must be actually and accurately related to the original question. It is not. STUDENT BEHAVIOUR STRATEGY Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:16:04): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister agree to a 14-day extension for submissions to the New South Wales schools draft behaviour policy to allow some much-needed additional time, including to the end of the school holidays, for all submissions to be received? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:16:27): I thank the member for his question in relation to the draft of the behaviour strategy, which the Government released not that long ago. As Mr Shoebridge rightly says, the consultation period is due to close, I think, on 25 September—I do not have the note in front of me—towards the end of the school term. Obviously we have been consulting on the policy and had feedback from a range of stakeholders. Since the draft has been released I have met with our principals organisations and some parent groups to talk about some of their questions and suggestions about the policy. When we get the submissions back, we are also considering whether we need additional consultation around some refinements to the policy. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3902

I am very happy to consider an extension; I think it is important that we let people have their say about what is necessary for the strategy and its implementation. I will take the question about the time frame on notice. I am very happy to come back to the member in a timely fashion—if not by the end of question time today I will endeavour to do it by tomorrow. Extending the consultation period gives people more opportunity to provide feedback. I will seek some advice from the department as to whether an extension is possible and I will come back to the member very soon. COVID-19 AND SCHOOLS The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (16:17:45): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. How is the New South Wales Government supporting communities during COVID- 19 through the Government's record school building program? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:18:08): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am very pleased to advise the House that the New South Wales Government is continuing to support communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are getting on with the task of delivering our record $6.7 billion school building program. Through the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Planning System Acceleration Program, the following projects have received fast-tracked planning approval: Galungara Public School, which is the new primary school at Farmland Drive and Alex Avenue, Schofields; the Young High School library and joint use community facility; and Porters Creek Public School, the new primary school at Warnervale, which I know would be of great interest to the Hon. Taylor Martin. Other projects include schools at the Meadowbank Education and Employment Precinct; a new primary school at Wagga Wagga in Estella, where I saw construction underway when I visited there with the Hon. Wes Fang recently; a new primary school at Marsden Park; a new primary school at Catherine Field—I was out there yesterday with the great local member, Peter Sidgreaves, watching that construction which is underway; an upgrade at Kyeemagh Public School; and a new primary school in Leppington. The planning Minister today announced that the upgrade at Fort Street Public School will be included in tranche six of this program with the determination to be received by 9 October. These projects combined account for over $600 million in investment and with the accelerated approval, construction is able to commence. Today we also saw the first of our school projects included in the Infrastructure and Job Acceleration Fund—a $3 billion acceleration fund to support job-creating projects. The fund will see the Government's commitment to plan a new primary school in Googong transition to delivery. The project will see 33 new teaching spaces built to cater for over 700 students. I know my friend and colleague the Deputy Premier John Barilaro will be excited to see this project delivered because he has fought long and hard to ensure that regional communities receive their fair share. The project will now see finalisation— The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: The Minister is giving an answer to a question that would be of great interest to the Opposition, given the focus on education. But it is impossible to hear the Minister because of the constant interjections. I ask that you call the Opposition to order. The PRESIDENT: The next member who interjects will be called to order. I will not give any more warnings. The Minister has the call. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: The project will now see the finalisation of design and planning works, and procurement of a construction contractor to commence by the end of 2020. The planned upgrade to Carlingford West Public School will also transition to delivery. It will see 40 additional permanent learning spaces built to accommodate up to 1,600 students. I thank the member for Parramatta and my ministerial colleague , MP, for his continued advocacy on behalf of his community. The project will also now see finalisation of design and planning works with tenders to be called for construction by the end of 2020. Today's announcement also included a commitment of $100 million towards a TAFE NSW Asset Renewal Program to improve and enhance facilities across the State. The Government is overseeing a once-in-a-generation transformation of our school infrastructure. This year, we have already delivered 42 new or upgraded school projects equalling our delivery record of last year. This is an unprecedented scale of investment and I am pleased that as a result of the Government's stimulus measures, projects across the State will be delivered sooner, benefiting the thousands of students that will learn in the fantastic new facilities. [Time expired.] Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3903

COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:21:55): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women representing the agriculture Minister, Adam Marshall. The recently released Barclay Report stated that the current study is not a full socio-economic impact [SEI] assessment as a formal SEI process would have required more time and resource-intensive methods than could be fitted within the scope of this project. Given this runs contrary to statements in the March petition debate, when will the Government fulfil its commitment to the industry and deliver a proper socio-economic impact assessment? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:22:28): I thank the Hon. Mark Banasiak for his question. As the question is quite detailed, will require a detailed response and is directed to another member sitting in the other place whom I represent in this Chamber, I will take it on notice and get a detailed answer for the honourable member as soon as possible. BULLYING The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:22:55): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Given the Parliamentary Secretary for the cost of living, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, said that the Deputy Premier's behaviour towards the Premier is "100 per cent bullying" and "beyond contempt" what steps is the Minister taking to combat bullying within the ministry and to protect the mental health of those within the Government? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:23:25): I thank the Hon. Walt Secord for his question regarding bullying. I say to him that I think it is very important that bullying never occurs in any workplace whatsoever. The most important thing about bullying— whether it is in a school, a workplace or a playground—is that it should be called out. If people are bullying on any side of the Chamber at any time, it should be called out. That is one of the most powerful things that anyone can do, but it takes courage to call people out for bullying so I— The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time. I was clear that the next person to interject would be called to order, but I am happy to now hear the point of order. The Hon. Walt Secord: I withdraw my point of order, but I make the point that I was going to agree with the honourable member— The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Walt Secord: I withdraw my point of order. The PRESIDENT: The Minister has the call. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: I say to the honourable member that when I see any bullying in a workplace, in a playground or in a schoolyard, I would call that out. The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: It goes to relevance. The President has a copy of my question and in my handwriting I clarify very clearly—I say "within the ministry and within Government". The Minister has not at any point addressed those matters in her answers. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: To the point of order— The PRESIDENT: I do not need to hear from the Minister. I cannot see how the Minister could have been any clearer that she was being directly relevant. The Minister mentioned in her answer on a number of occasions all of the inclusive areas she was talking about, including that of Government. The Minister was being directly relevant. There is no point of order. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: I thank the honourable member for his question on bullying and I repeat that if I witness any bullying—anywhere, anytime—I will certainly call it out. I encourage all members, on all sides of the Chamber, that if they ever witness that against anyone and it is in front of other people, I would strongly suggest at all times—at all times—that they call it out. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:26:43): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer regarding witnessing and calling out? Has she called out the behaviour of the Deputy Premier in front of the Hon. Catherine Cusack? The PRESIDENT: That is not a supplementary question. It is out of order. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3904

REGIONAL YOUTH TASKFORCE The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (16:27:06): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. How is the Government ensuring future generations in New South Wales have a say in the changes happening in their communities today? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:27:30): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in the Regional Youth Task Force. The landscape of regional New South Wales is changing, and after years of prolonged drought there is rain again. COVID-19 is throwing some real curve balls, but research indicates that city folk plan to soon move out west, before ending up down the coast of New South Wales. This is not surprising because those of us from regional New South Wales know how incredible it is to live there, to work there and to raise a family in the regions. For many 2020 has been a reality check, but regional New South Wales has always adapted to what life has thrown at it, particularly at our young people. What is customary for city kids does not always come as easily for those in the country. The power of our regions in New South Wales means that regional young people are not just the future of their communities, they are the future of our State. So it has never been more important for those of us in Macquarie Street to listen to what these young people have to say. Luckily, this Government puts regional New South Wales first, and last year we created our inaugural Regional Youth Taskforce. It is hard to believe that almost a year has passed since the task force first met. The task force has come together on multiple occasions to provide feedback and already its decisions have created huge change. Earlier this month, I joined the member for Dubbo, Dugald Saunders, and our very own the Hon. Sam Farraway, to announce that applications are now open for the 2021 Regional Youth Taskforce. The 2021 task force will again bring together 18 young people from across New South Wales, who want to help us tackle the big issues facing young people in the changing landscape of regional New South Wales. We know that each region has different challenges, so we are seeking an even representation of two members from each of the nine New South Wales regions. We are looking for applications from everybody, particularly those with firsthand experience and who are solution-focused. I am calling on anyone aged between 12 and 24 who wants to make a difference and who lives outside Greater Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong to apply. Head to www.nsw.gov.au/regional-nsw/regional-youth- taskforce and submit a short video telling us who you are and what the most important issues are impacting young people in your part of the world. Give us a few solutions too. Applications close on Sunday 18 October. During this time of immense change the Government has never shied away from listening to—and fighting for—our regional communities. I look forward to updating the House on our 2021 Regional Youth Taskforce and their ideas on how we can build a better regional New South Wales. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (16:30:47): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales. The recently released Barclay report stated that: A major policy program such as the BAP should have had economic and social impact assessments done before finalising the design and implementation of the policy. Without this assessment it is hard to understand the unintended negative social and economic impacts of a reform and how to avoid them. Does the Minister believe it was wise to embark on significant industry reform without any data not only to justify it but also to measure it? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:31:42): I thank the honourable member for his question directed to the Hon. Adam Marshall, who resides in the other place but who I represent in this House. As the question contained quite an amount of detail I will seek an answer from the Minister. I will get back to the honourable member as soon as possible. THE NATIONALS The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (16:32:10): My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government, Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Given that the Hon. Wes Fang, Mr Christopher Gulaptis and the Hon. Sam Farraway indicated that they were prepared to move to the crossbench, and that the Coalition agreement specifies a set number of ministerial positions for The Nationals, what discussions has the Minister had with the Deputy Premier about relinquishing her ministerial duties? The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The question has absolutely nothing to do with the Minister's portfolio responsibilities and is out of order. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3905

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: It is asked to the Minister in her position as the Deputy Leader of the Government. The way in which ministerial positions are allocated and set out is part of her responsibility. The Hon. Walt Secord: To the point of order: It also goes to asking about whether she has had discussions, which invites a very simple answer. The PRESIDENT: It goes a lot further than that. I point out the very last sentence of the question. I am surprised by the point of order. There is no point of order. I confirm the ruling of past President Burgmann: Questions must relate to the conduct of public affairs within the government's responsibility which could be dealt with by legislative or administrative action. Further: Questions relating to the affairs of a Minister's department or office are in order, however references in a question to the affairs of a political party are not in order. The ruling was confirmed by past President Harwin in 2013 and 2014 and by me in 2018. The question is out of order. SYDNEY NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (16:35:30): My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. How is the New South Wales Government planning to reinforce Sydney's status as a global city through a vibrant and safe 24-hour economy? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:35:57): It is great to get a good question about an issue that is doing something for the people of New South Wales, concentrating on jobs and making sure that we emerge from the COVID crisis as the number one State—the State which is going to lead and drive the economy. The PRESIDENT: The Minister will resume his seat. The Clerk will stop the clock. I remind honourable members that the Hon. John Graham, the Hon. Peter Primrose, the Hon. Robert Borsak and the Hon. Walt Secord have each been called to order once. I remind the Hon. John Graham that I do not want other members to indicate that I am playing favourites with him when I do not call him to order for a second or a third time. If he continues to interject I am not going to be accused of that today. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: It is clear that COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on the night-time economy. Artists and art venues, pubs, small bars and cafes have suffered disproportionately. To support our night-time economy the New South Wales Government has released a 24-hour Economy Strategy directed at creating jobs, fostering arts and culture, and reinforcing Sydney's status as a truly global city. The Government has worked closely with industry and local government representatives to develop the strategy. I acknowledge the significant contribution made to the process by those on the committee so ably chaired by the Hon. Natalie Ward, along with members of this House the Hon. Ben Franklin, Ms , the Hon. Mark Latham and the Hon. John Graham. The five strategic pillars of the strategy are: to support more integrated planning and place making, joining up State, local government and industry collaboration to enable the 24-hour economy to thrive; to encourage the diversification of night-time activities by supporting a wider variety of businesses at night; to nurture industry and cultural development to help entrepreneurs thrive; to enhance mobility between the 24-hour economy hubs through safe, reliable transport; and to change the narrative for Sydney to drive more local consumption and highlight Sydney as a world-class night-time destination. To support the success of the strategy the Government has established a coordinator general, who will be responsible for bringing the strategy to life. The Hon. : John Graham, are you going? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I hope he accepts the position. The Government's goal is now more important than ever. With job losses and businesses hit hard by the pandemic, the goal to revitalise and activate the tourism, hospitality and retail sectors in our city has never been more urgent. The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. John Graham to order for the second time. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: In the other place, my predecessor was wont to sing. Perhaps I will not do that, but I will say this: As we unfold the strategy, the lines from the Peter Allen song will need to be rewritten to include Old Sydney Town as one of those global cities like New York and Rio "that never close down". Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3906

WILDLIFE CARER MENTAL HEALTH Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (16:39:44): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Following the bushfires some wildlife experts have called for more mental health support for wildlife carers after one study found that almost one-third of wildlife carers experienced moderate to severe grief in the ordinary course of their work. According to Beyond Blue, images of animals killed by the fires and the knowledge that millions of hectares of habitat had been lost caused widespread distress in the wider community and in young people in particular. Does the Minister agree that the suffering of Australia's wildlife in the bushfires, including our most loved animal the koala, and the loss of so much habitat impacted on the mental health of many Australians, particularly young people? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:40:37): I thank Ms Cate Faehrmann for her question, which had two parts: support for wildlife carers and support for young people. I will talk about the bushfires and what has happened. The Government has provided mental health support in all areas, and in all shapes and sizes. In particular, her question pertains to mental health and the stress experienced by wildlife carers. I have received a request from the for a meeting to deal with that specific issue and to look at support for wildlife carers. Obviously, the bushfires were an extremely difficult time. I know that from personal experience in my own area. However, a lot of wildlife was preserved on private farmland that had been well looked after by landholders for that purpose. I make clear that services are available for people to access when they need help. Early on in the COVID pandemic the Government invested over $800,000 in the BEING Supported warm line. The number is 1800 151 151. That service is a little different. It is delivered by peer— Ms Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: The question was not about the services provided to wildlife carers. The question asked whether the Minister agreed that the suffering of Australia's wildlife in the bushfires and the extensive loss of habitat have impacted on the mental health of many Australians, including young people. The PRESIDENT: It is difficult for me to rule on the point of order because I do not have a copy of the question and I was speaking to the Clerk on another matter. I remind the Minister to be directly relevant. I have now been provided with a copy of the question. The Minister may resume her answer. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: It is not for me to say what distresses people and impacts their mental health when they are responding to bushfires, to COVID-19 or to anything else. What counts is what is real to them. If wildlife carers are extremely distressed because they saw the destruction of wildlife, that is what matters to me. All that then matters is that they are able to access the available services for help, regardless of the particular mental health issue they are experiencing. The New South Wales Government announced a recovery package that included $14.8 million to recruit 30 additional bushfire recovery mental health clinicians. I say to anyone, whether they are wildlife carers or people who have experienced the bushfires or COVID-19, or even if they have not been affected directly by any of the events of 2020, but nevertheless feel distressed: Services are available and accessible. That is why I mentioned the BEING Supported warm line because it is run by people who have lived experience of mental illness. It has had great success in a short time. [Time expired.] THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. (16:45:06): My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Given the comments of several Ministers, including the Minister for Regional Transport and Roads who said, "Leadership was not what we saw on display last week," and comments of the Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney who said, "Political parties must choose a leader who unites our community, not divides them," does the Minister have full confidence in the ability of the Deputy Premier to work within the Government? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:45:40): Yes. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Supplementary! The PRESIDENT: Had I not laughed as well, I would have called the Hon. Daniel Mookhey to order. BUSHFIRES AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:46:08): My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts. Will the Minister explain how the New South Wales Government is working with the Aboriginal community to support economic recovery during the bushfire clean-up? Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3907

The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:46:27): I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his question. Ensuring that local Aboriginal companies and workers are engaged in suppliers' head contracts is an important priority for the New South Wales Government. The Aboriginal Procurement Policy, launched in May 2018, set targets for New South Wales government agencies to ensure at least 3 per cent of their domestic government contracts were awarded to Aboriginal businesses. I am pleased to advise the House that Indigenous-owned business participation in the clean-up from last season's bushfires have exceeded those targets. Laing O'Rourke, the main bushfire clean-up contractor, has worked with the Government to maximise Aboriginal businesses' participation in that work. Of course, delivering fast and efficient clean-ups to communities affected by the bushfires is the priority for the Government. I am delighted that opportunities are being offered to local businesses employing Indigenous Australians. Some $45.7 million of the total spend to date has been on direct and indirect Aboriginal participation, including in excess of $36 million spent directly on 11 Aboriginal businesses. Aboriginal workers account for 13 per cent of the total workforce employed in the clean-up work, compared to the industry standard target of 1.5 per cent. As these figures demonstrate, the New South Wales Government is setting a new benchmark with the bushfire clean-up when it comes to Aboriginal participation. Aboriginal-owned businesses will often employ a higher proportion of Aboriginal Australians. We are seeing returns by investing in local Aboriginal businesses that employ local community members. The bushfire recovery contracts are an excellent case study in what can be achieved when partnering with the Aboriginal community in a proactive way. In particular, I understand that Laing O'Rourke engaged three Aboriginal contractors who have been integral in achieving these fantastic results. They include Aboriginal Beata Terra in the Riverina, Maliyan Horizon from Tumut and R and C Civil Group in Nowra. The clean-up work shows that the Aboriginal business sector can outperform industry standards and is doing great work through procurement to help close the gap. KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:49:20): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Deputy Premier. Given the Deputy Premier's media statements last week that he expects to "see a thriving koala population in New South Wales, even a doubling of the population", why did the Deputy Premier allow Forestry Corporation to commence logging in high-value koala habitat, including a breeding colony in the Lower Bucca State Forest near Coffs Harbour immediately after the fires and against the advice of the NSW Environment Protection Authority? The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: I represent the Deputy Premier. The PRESIDENT: I indicate that it is a matter for the Deputy Leader of the Government if she wishes to answer the question. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:50:01): I will answer the question. I thank the member for his question. He indicated that the Deputy Premier had made remarks about wanting to see a thriving koala population in New South Wales and, in fact, even a doubling of the population. That is true and I was standing behind him when he made those comments. The member has also asked some specific questions on forestry matters in particular areas of the State. I will take that part of the question on notice and come back to him with a response. CENTRAL WEST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES The Hon. (16:50:33): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Given that the number of escapes from mental health facilities in central western New South Wales has more than doubled from 12 to 28 from 2018-19 to 2019-20, has the Minister investigated why there have been so many escapes and what steps have been taken to guarantee community and patient safety? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:51:03): I thank the honourable member for her question about recent events in western New South Wales. I inform the House that I have asked for a full investigation to take place and that I have spoken to the local health district to make sure it is consulting with the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which is an independent body that sets the leave requirements for any patients who come under the Act. Although cases such as this are rare, I take the Hon. Tara Moriarty's point. It is a good question and it is relevant. Those are the steps I have taken and I look forward to the responses. I put on record that I am happy to share the results with the member. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3908

REGIONAL STUDENT LEADERS The Hon. WES FANG (16:52:20): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is boosting leadership capabilities of young people in regional schools? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:52:39): I thank the Hon. Wes Fang for his question and his keen interest in regional education in New South Wales. It is absolutely critical that we give our regional students the opportunity to get involved and to raise their voice on issues in education that impact them directly, particularly students in regional parts of the State. That is why earlier this month in Armidale I was thrilled to announce the inaugural Rural Youth Ambassador pilot program, which will immerse 28 year 11 students from across the State—from Moree to Merriwa and Byron Bay to Bowral—in a six-month program to develop their leadership, advocacy and learning skills. The Government, with the support of Aurora College, which does a fantastic job supporting regional students, has collaborated with the Country Education Project to introduce the program that will take place throughout the rest of this year and will consist of online forums, discussions and working groups. Rural and regional communities offer a range of opportunities for young people to exercise leadership, which we see in the task force that the Hon. Bronnie Taylor referred to earlier in question time. The rural ambassador program adds to that by offering some of our young leaders the opportunity to share ideas, engage with successful business and thought leaders from their communities, explore opportunities with key decision-makers and energise each other. Each of the 28 rural ambassadors will emerge from this program with enhanced leadership skills and knowledge, and stronger confidence in the future and a network of peers with whom they share interests and aspirations. The students will also have greater engagement in shaping rural and regional education by contributing their feedback and comments about their own education. This will serve as a positive role model for students in the years below them who can follow in their footsteps. When I was recently in Armidale to announce this initiative, I was pleased to be joined by the local member, Adam Marshall. Together we met Cordelia Lloyd, a student from the Guyra Central School, who has been selected as a delegate as part of this program for 2020. She is an amazing young woman who told us that she planned to study medicine after school and hopes to return to the regions to be a doctor, which is what we want to hear. She told us that she and her fellow delegates of the program have explored issues affecting rural education, from teacher retention to the concept of additional learning pathways. She also told us that she was enjoying the program so far: It is an amazing experience with a bunch of students who have a different, unique perspective but have similar goals. It is crucial that we ensure students from across New South Wales, particularly those in regional areas—and being a regional member it is something I feel very strongly about—are empowered to use their voices to become thought leaders in their communities. It is exciting to deliver a program such as this and I look forward to watching it roll out next year. I told Cordelia that I was looking forward to hopefully meeting with her in person and some of the other ambassadors in a post-COVID world to hear directly from them about their experiences in the program and their ideas on education, particularly in regional New South Wales. PUPPY FARMS The Hon. (16:55:44): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales. Murray River Council recently resolved to amend its local environmental plan and development control plan and to prepare an animal breeding policy to deal with the influx of puppy farms from Victoria to the area and the associated community concern. Why is the Minister leaving it to local councils to police puppy farms instead of introducing legislation to ban the operations statewide? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:56:18): I thank the honourable member for her question and I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important issue. This Government knows how important cats and dogs are to families across New South Wales and we are committed to ensuring the best for those important family members. As members are aware, the welfare of all animals in New South Wales are protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and its supporting legislation, including relevant codes and standards. This includes the enforceable welfare codes of practice for animals in pet shops and for breeding dogs and cats. It is an offence to not comply with those codes, with penalties of up to $22,000 for a corporation and $5,500 for an individual. Let me assure the House that the New South Wales Government understands the importance of ensuring that it has stringent laws and requirements in place and penalties for those who do not meet the standards. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3909

In May 2015 the Government established a Joint Select Committee on Companion Animal Breeding Practices in New South Wales. In particular, the inquiry was required to address puppy factories following reports of exploitative puppy factory operations in New South Wales. The inquiry received 344 submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, underscoring the passion of the New South Wales community. The committee released its final report in August 2015 and the recommendations identified opportunities to improve welfare outcomes as well as a renewed culture and respect for dogs and cats. The committee also made some key findings, including that pet shop sales should not be banned because a ban would lead to less scrutiny of animal sales without improving welfare. The joint select committee concluded that the mandatory listing of an animal's microchip number in all advertisements would be an effective way of encouraging compliance with the existing microchipping requirements and would increase traceability of companion animals, especially for online sales. The committee therefore recommended that the Government legislate that all animals advertised for sale must include an identifying number. In 2018 this Government introduced a bill making amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 as a direct response to key elements of the inquiry and its report. The amendments introduced requirements that enabled the tracking of puppies from breeder through to owners. Those changes allow potential pet purchasers to make more informed decisions and allow enforcement agencies to identify problem breeders. This requirement applies to all forms of advertising, including posts on social media, and applies even when an animal is being given away for free. Failure to include or to falsify a number is an offence. This change was supported in late 2018 by the launch of an improved NSW Pet Registry, which allows enforcement agencies to trace registered puppies and kittens throughout their lifetime. The Government remains committed to continue to improve the NSW Pet Registry and to strengthen animal welfare and responsible pet ownership. It is also committed to ensuring pet ownership remains an enjoyable experience, while ensuring that pet owners and breeders take responsibility for the welfare and safety of pets, as the community rightfully expects, because we all love our animals. COVID-19 AND EDUCATION The Hon. (16:59:28): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Given that students are embarking on their important HSC exams in the COVID environment, will the Minister guarantee that her Government's leadership crisis has not distracted her from focusing on students, teachers and parents at this important time? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:59:53): I guarantee that I am completely focused on supporting our students and our school systems throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly our HSC students. Last week we gave out some guidelines—with the New South Wales Education Standards Authority—for all schools around the contingency planning that we have in place for exams and the way that we are going to be working with our school communities to look at things like having additional staff on standby and having alternative locations should there be a case of COVID-19 that impacts a school community. We are continuing to work closely with our school communities to provide them with advice. I will have more to say in the coming days about further support for HSC students. Our Government is focused on its job and my job as education Minister is to support our school system. That includes our HSC students and that remains the case. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The time for questions has expired. If honourable members have further questions, I invite them to place them on notice. Questions Without Notice: Take Note TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I move: That the House take note of answers to questions. THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (17:01:19): I take note of questions asked and answers not really given today relating to the extraordinary events of last Thursday and Friday, and continuing, which saw the stability and cohesion of the Berejiklian Government thrown into turmoil. Several senior Liberal Party Ministers— Minister Constance, Minister Elliott and Minister Ayres, just to name three—are on record as clearly lacking confidence in the Deputy Premier to continue in the office and discharge his high responsibilities effectively within the context of collective government. It is clear from reporting that several further Ministers share these views but so far have expressed them only anonymously. The extraordinary events of last week saw the Deputy Premier push this Government to the very brink of destruction—a fact confirmed by the Premier herself on Sunday Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3910

and again on Monday, when she confirmed that she was prepared and ready to advise the Governor to remove Nationals Ministers and have a Liberal-only administration. Given that the Liberal Party has fewer seats in the Legislative Assembly than the Labor Opposition, the stability of such one-party administration must of course be in doubt, which may be why the Premier did not follow through. Those in The Nationals sought to retain office as Ministers, as Parliamentary Secretaries, as chairs of committees—and the many other benefits that come from being in government—without accepting the collective responsibilities that come with it. One of these of course is to turn up and vote in Parliament in support of government decisions. Some of those in this very Chamber—the Hon. Sam Farraway and the Hon. Wes Fang— are amongst those who threatened to go to the crossbench. But of course it is a matter of record: when the acid was put on them, the issue of high principle that had pitched the Government into complete chaos turned out not to be nearly as important as holding onto the big white car, their offices, the pay and the other benefits of office. What we saw from Nationals members was that serving their constituents on matters of high principle was not as important as holding onto the benefits of office. What was the issue that pitched this Government into complete chaos? We are told that it was the koala State environmental planning policy [SEPP], which is not new. It replaced the old SEPP 44. We are told that at the heart of this dispute were the rights and the benefits for farming communities. But as we saw on the weekend in an op-ed penned by Mr Rob Oakeshott, a former State and Federal member of Parliament, it is really the interests of developers on the mid North Coast that were motivating The Nationals here. Of course, that is something for which they have form. We well remember that in the late 1980s The Nationals leadership created a climate conducive to corruption in relation to North Coast development. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. SYDNEY NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (17:04:34): I take note of the response from the Minister for Finance and Small Business to my question relating to the 24-hour economy strategy for Sydney. As a former councillor in the City of Sydney for 12 years, I welcome the Government's strategy. The 24-hour economy, particularly the night-time economy, has been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We all want to see a post-COVID Sydney thriving, 24 hours a day, and a restored night-time economy in particular. We want to it to be safer and more accessible. We want employment to improve and for there to be support for the arts sector. As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Live Music, I particularly want to see support for the live music sector. We also want a restoration of the food and beverage industry—dear to my heart and to and my family's hearts—which has been really hard hit by COVID. We heard from the Minister about the five pillars and I was particularly impressed about highlighting the diversification of the night-time economy, which the City of Sydney has tried and tried to do. With the State Government's support, we should be able to get that underway. There was consultation mentioned with stakeholders, who are universally enthusiastic. I want to put a number of those stakeholders on the record. The involvement of key stakeholders in the industry advisory group has been an essential part of the development of the strategy and they are thrilled with the outcome. The respected Committee for Sydney was represented by Michael Rose and James Hulme. They noted: Sydney is one of the most livable cities in the world. It is now time for us to become a 24-hour city. Whilst our night-time offer is great in many places, we should aspire to have a well-functioning, vibrant and diverse 24-hour economy across Greater Sydney. This strategy shows us how it can be achieved; now we all need to work together to make it happen. Executive Director of the Sydney Business Chamber Katherine O'Regan said: We must take action to distribute and diversify the night-time economy, to create opportunities for people to safely participate in both work and social activities across all hours of the day and night and across all of Sydney. … Now is the time to capitalise on the changing work/life hours and patterns that COVID restrictions have produced and plan ahead for a longer and stronger 24-hour economy. The New South Wales Government's 24-hour economic strategy defines the way forward. John Wardle, a friend of ours from the Live Music Office, stated: Prepared in close partnership with key organisations from the music and arts sector, the 24-hour economy strategy of the New South Wales Government puts in place a robust and confidence-building new foundation from which to grow a greater and better City of Sydney. I think it is a very exciting opportunity. THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:07:29): As the shadow Treasurer, I contribute to this take-note debate and reflect on answers given by the Ministers in relation to the Deputy Premier. It is extraordinary to see Ministers Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3911

stand in this Chamber and align themselves with the Deputy Premier, especially in light of the character assessments given by the police Minister, the transport Minister, the Minister with responsibility for western Sydney and the Parliamentary Secretary for Cost of Living about his ability to represent and serve the families of New South Wales. On the weekend, the Premier could not even bring herself to utter his name. It is extraordinary to see Ministers in this Chamber declare their support for such an ill-disciplined Deputy Premier. They have to be secretly embarrassed by the Deputy Premier's antics. I have observed the Hon. Sarah Mitchell for a number of years now. She is a sincere and serious legislator. While I do not share her political views, we both are patriots and we want to see Australia emerge out of COVID stronger and fairer. I know that she would rather be talking about jobs, extending JobKeeper and JobSeeker, supporting rural and regional areas and lifting education and childcare standards rather than defending the Deputy Premier. But it is saddening that the once great National Party—the party of Ian Armstrong, Ian Sinclair, Doug Anthony, Sir Asher Joel, "Black Jack" McEwen and Earle Page—is now reduced to the likes of the Deputy Premier, John Barilaro. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: I have tried to be generous to the Hon. Walt Secord, but he is reflecting on the Deputy Premier, which is entirely inappropriate. The Hon. Walt Secord should be called to order. The PRESIDENT: I do not want to take time from the Hon. Walt Secord, but I have indicated on previous occasions that the take-note debate is not an opportunity to make imputations against other members, particularly members of the other place. Members will not continue to do so. If they do, I will call them to order. The Hon. WALT SECORD: I am mindful of your ruling, but question time was dominated by the Deputy Premier. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The member has just reflected on your ruling. The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for a second time. There is no but. I made it very clear and then he started to reflect on a member in the other place. He is now on two calls to order. I do not want to call him to order for a third time. The Hon. WALT SECORD: According to legal British statutes, an idiot is someone with an IQ of less than 20, an imbecile is someone with an IQ of less than 49 and a moron is someone with an IQ of less than 69. The PRESIDENT: Be very careful. The Hon. WALT SECORD: I thank the House for its consideration. The PRESIDENT: I remind the Hon. that she is in the chair next. I am reluctant to call her to order. BUSHFIRES AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES The Hon. LOU AMATO (17:10:52): I take note of the Hon. Don Harwin's response to Indigenous businesses being utilised in the bushfire recovery. I note the Government's ongoing commitment to increasing the use of Aboriginal businesses in procurement. It is good to see this continue through the bushfire recovery. Laing O'Rourke, the main recovery contractor, has exceeded industry targets and Government expectations to source local businesses for their services. Laing O'Rourke has done a magnificent job in my area in the Southern Highlands after the bushfires. I congratulate it on the work it has done to date. Some $45.7 million of the total spend has gone towards Aboriginal participation in the clean-up. A quarter of the direct contract spend has gone towards 11 Indigenous businesses to bring skills and economic development to areas that have been devastated by last season's bushfires. The reinvestment into the communities devastated by the fires is a key process of the recovery. Indigenous Australians suffered acutely during the bushfire crisis, as many experienced a strong connection to the lands that were scorched by fire. THE HON. JOHN BARILARO The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (17:12:10): I take note of answers given today, particularly from the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. I congratulate the Minister on her undying loyalty to the Deputy Premier. Loyalty is a very rare thing in politics and she should be congratulated on that. But I do not congratulate her on her lack of loyalty to the broader Nationals, the Coalition and the ability to stably govern in New South Wales. One of the most important jobs we have is to speak truth to power and say no when leaders are over the top. When a leader threatens to break up from the Government on, not one, but at least seven occasions; when a leader uses the media, rather than government processes, as a way to resolve conflict; when a leader has a preposterous position that his whole party can sit on the crossbench, but everyone keeps their portfolio, salary, Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3912

cars, staff and drivers; when a leader allows junior members of his party, some of his closest loyalists, to become cannon fodder in a war of words, where they may well put themselves outside the Government, which continues to be the case; when a leader helps to elect a Federal Labor MP; when a leader is accused of bullying by someone else in his own Coalition— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have allowed some leeway, but I have made it very clear that a take-note debate is not an opportunity to make imputations about another member. If I were to examine very carefully each and every word from the Hon. Penny Sharpe, I would find she was clearly making serious imputations against a member of the other place. The Hon. Penny Sharpe was granted latitude by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, who was about to take a point of order, and I am surprised she did not do it much earlier, but that is enough. If the Opposition continues to make imputations in the take-note debate, I will continue to call members to order. No more imputations are to be made against a member of the other place. The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My point is that when you are loyal to a leader it is sometimes your responsibility to stand up and say no. It is your responsibility not to provide undying loyalty under any circumstances. The point that I am making here is that it is disappointing that such blind loyalty is leading the Hon. Bronnie Taylor down a path where the public interest— The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The Hon. Penny Sharpe is now reflecting on the Hon. Bronnie Taylor and her answer in question time. Opposition members well know that is not appropriate in the House, particularly in the take-note debate. There are other mechanisms they can use if they wish. The PRESIDENT: Again, Sessional Order 31 (3) states: A speaker will be in order as long as the contribution is relevant to the subject matter of the question asked and the answer given. Simply reflecting on and making imputations against another member, particularly a Minister, does not come within what is allowed in a take-note debate. A member can clearly talk about the subject matter and can clearly talk about the answer given, but it cannot be used as an opportunity to attack a Minister. The Hon. Penny Sharpe was doing it in a very clever way, but she was clearly making imputations against a member of the other place and against Minister Bronnie Taylor. I note the member's time has expired. I call the Hon. Taylor Martin. The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Are you going to defend Barilaro? The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Courtney Houssos to order for the first time. COVID-19 AND SCHOOLS The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (17:16:48): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning on the Government's record school building program during question time. It was great to hear that the New South Wales Government is supporting communities during the COVID-19 pandemic and that a number of school building projects have been fast-tracked under the Planning System Acceleration Program. The New South Wales Government is investing $6.7 billion over four years to deliver more than 190 new and upgraded schools to support communities across New South Wales. In addition, a record $1.3 billion is being spent on school maintenance over five years, along with a record $500 million for the sustainable Cooler Classrooms Program to provide air-conditioning to schools. This is the largest investment in public education infrastructure in the history of New South Wales. This year alone we have built 42 new and upgraded schools. By the end of 2020 we will have built more new and upgraded schools in a single year than ever before. One of those schools is Terrigal Public School, where I was a student. Minister Sarah Mitchell was at Terrigal Public School with the great member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, to inspect the upgrade. Together with the upgrade to Wamberal Public School, this investment has futureproofed 25 new classrooms for these schools. Some 140 new and upgraded schools have been delivered since 2011, with a further 135 new and upgraded schools currently in the construction or design and planning stages. Since 2011 more than 1,960 new classrooms have been delivered, representing more than 36,800 equivalent student places. Finally, I highlight one of the projects raised by the Minister during her answer in question time relating to the construction of the new Porters Creek Public School at Warnervale. We are providing world-class facilities for the students of New South Wales. Porters Creek Public School will have 20 new air-conditioned classrooms, as well as a library, a hall, a canteen, administration facilities, a drop-off and pick-up zone and an out-of-school-hours care service. Porters Creek Public School is one of the school building projects that has been fast-tracked through the Planning System Acceleration Program as part of the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The construction phase of this project will create 225 jobs, which is a big boost to the local economy, given the difficulties that COVID-19 has presented. Local families are looking forward to the opening of the school to students in term 1 of 2022. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3913

KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT Mr JUSTIN FIELD (17:19:35): I take note of answers to questions this day. I asked a question about why last week the Deputy Premier of New South Wales publicly said that he wanted to see a thriving koala population in New South Wales, even a doubling of the population. My question was simply this: How can the community have any confidence in the Deputy Premier when, immediately after some of the most devastating bushfires ever to impact on our native animals and environment, the Deputy Premier was pushing Forestry Corporation to allow logging in some of the last unburnt critical koala habitat in this State. In fact, nine areas of unburnt koala habitat was logged between the end of the fires and June this year. The Lower Bucca State Forest was described by the EPA as having a high proportion of high value koala habitat, including mapped koala hubs, indicating that the forest holds a breeding colony and may be important for bushfire recovery. This was The Nationals' contribution to koala recovery in New South Wales. This was the contribution of the Minister responsible for forests, Deputy Premier John Barilaro. This is their contribution even after we have been warned that the koala will become extinct in New South Wales. Even though 60 per cent of North Coast State forests and more than 80 per cent of South Coast forests have burned, the Deputy Premier and The Nationals are logging koala habitat in other unburnt State forests against the advice of the EPA. The remainder of its contribution to the protection of nature and koalas has resulted in a 1,300 per cent increase in land clearing in New South Wales over the past few years. Most of the land clearing that occurred is unable to be identified as being within the laws of this State. The Nationals continue with their unflinching support for the Narrabri gas project that will destroy koala habitat in the Pilliga Forest and the Shenhua coalmine that will also impact on koala habitat. I congratulate the Premier of New South Wales and the environment and planning Ministers on the small steps they have taken recently to protect the koala. At the end of the day, if we want to protect the koala we have to stop chopping down trees. If The Nationals will not be part of that solution, the Liberal Party will have to step in and stop it. THE NATIONALS COVID-19 AND SCHOOLS The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:22:41): Questions today have focused on the extraordinary events of last week when the Deputy Premier brought this Government to the brink and then tried to claim a victory for maintaining the status quo. The PRESIDENT: Order! However members package their speeches, they are still making imputations about an individual. Members are well aware that they are entitled to make comments about the Government, the Liberal Party or The Nationals, but I will pull members up as soon they start making imputations about an individual. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: The chaos and dysfunction created by our State's most senior Ministers as they echoed a series of character assessments usually reserved for political opponents and not their Cabinet colleagues while we are in the midst of a global pandemic and recession shows just how much The Nationals are out of touch. In trying not to speak about the extraordinary events of last week, the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning took another victory lap while talking about building a school that is ridiculously overdue. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The member is now making reflections on me and the answer that I gave. It is not appropriate and should not be happening. The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Courtney Houssos is more than entitled to refer to an answer given by a Minister. The problem is that the member is using adjectives to describe the Minister or the Minister's answer, which were not part of the Minister's answer nor part of the subject matter that were in accordance with the sessional order. The member can state whether she agreed or disagreed with the Minister without using those adjectives. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: This is the story of so many growth areas around New South Wales. We have heard it spoken about before in relation to Jordan Springs and today's version was the suburb of Googong. This time it is in her leader's electorate—at least her leader for now. The vacant block of land has been sitting there for years, waiting for a school to be delivered. This is a rapidly growing area that is projected to double in size by next year and double again by 2030. The Deputy Premier spent most of last week blowing up the Government and was more focused on his local area. This project should have started years ago. The Government should deliver what the community needs, which is not just a school but also an early childhood preschool or early childhood centre. Give the people of Googong what they deserve. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3914

THE NATIONALS The Hon. WES FANG (17:25:55): I take note of answers given this day from the four Ministers in relation to the events of last week. I note the contributions of other members during this take-note debate. It is important that we look at the policy that The Nationals raised, initially behind closed doors and in good faith, which then led to what occurred last week, which is what Opposition members have raised in their questions today. It is important to note that The Nationals are looking at the policy. We are not playing the man, we are playing the ball, which is in stark contrast to other contributions that have been made during this take-note debate. The Nationals have an issue with the State environmental planning policy and its implementation. The Nationals have been raising those issues privately behind closed doors with the applicable Ministers to seek a resolution. The Deputy Premier negotiated in good faith with his party room colleagues. The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has the call. The Hon. WES FANG: Today those opposite have made many character assassinations of the Deputy Premier who has fought for rural and regional communities. [Time expired.] The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders debate is interrupted to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to respond. TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (17:28:42): I take note of a number of answers given today. I take note first of the answer to the extremely important question that dominated the discussion and thoughts of every member in this Chamber, which is support for the arts in local government. In 2019 the New South Wales Government delivered the most significant reform to arts and cultural funding in 10 years. As part of that, a separate Local Government Authorities Arts & Cultural Programs funding round was established. It is entirely new because the Government acknowledges that council museums, council galleries and council performing arts spaces are the lifeblood of communities all over the State, particularly in regional areas. That is why we have announced $6.6 million in total funding to support this programming over the next three years. I am delighted that over 50 per cent of this funding is going to regional New South Wales. The Minister talked about a couple of extremely important examples—in Coffs Harbour and Moree—and I would like to add, particularly for the Hon. Taylor Martin's sake, Newcastle Museum, which will receive $135,000 per annum over the next three years to service a broad visitation through collections, exhibitions and programming. Lake Macquarie council will receive $150,000 over three years to deliver creative excellence in that city—the city in which I was born. I now take note of a second answer, and that is from the Hon. Damien Tudehope about the 24-hour economy strategy for Sydney—an excellent strategy. I was on that night-time economy inquiry and I am so delighted that this strategy now looks at things which were recommended: late-night transport options, later trading hours for some cultural institutions and retailers, simpler liquor licensing and a review of the live music and noise regulations, which the Hon. John Graham has referred to again and again and which this Government is doing something about—all under the auspices of a coordinator-general. The Minister for Jobs and Investment said Sydneysiders deserve a global city that is thriving 24 hours a day and that the world wants a 24-hour Sydney, and that is what we are going to deliver. Finally, I take note of answers given particularly by the Hon. Bronnie Taylor and the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. There is a reason John Barilaro's name has come up again and again today: it is because those opposite are scared of him. Those opposite are scared of him for one reason only: he is a passionate fighter for regional New South Wales—he is dogged, he is determined and he never gives up. [Time expired.] The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Ben Franklin to order for the first time. I should not have to indicate on three occasions that the member's time has expired. The time for debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Deferred Answers COMPANION ANIMALS In reply to the Hon. EMMA HURST (25 August 2020). In reply to the Hon. MICK VEITCH (25 August 2020). Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3915

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government provided education about buying and selling dogs and cats including through social media, information on the web, and attended both the Royal Easter Show and the Dog Lovers Show. NSW Pet Registry user guides are available on the Office of Local Government website. The NSW Government also engaged key stakeholders, including the Minister for Local Government's Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group. The improved New South Wales Pet Registry provides better information about dogs and cats, which must be microchipped by 12 weeks of age or before being sold or given away. Anyone advertising a dog or cat for sale or to give away must include an identification number from the register so that each animal can be traced. The animal welfare enforcement agencies have access to the register to trace animals. The NSW Pet Registry provides for buyers to search for information such as a pet's breed, age, gender, whether it is registered and de-sexed, or in the case of a breeder or rehoming body. The business name and address, and whether an animal requires an annual permit and if a current permit is in place. When a kitten or puppy is added through the new "add litter" function, these animals are linked to the animal from which they were born on the register. The New South Wales Government remains committed to continue improving the NSW Pet Registry. Since 1 July 2019, RSPCA NSW has issued multiple penalty infringement notices for offences related to advertising dogs and cats. KANGAROO CULLING In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (25 August 2020). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: In March 2020, the Government committed to a mid-term survey of kangaroos in the South East Tablelands zone to provide an index of population variation since the 2018 survey. The Central Tablelands is also being surveyed in line with its zone survey plan. The surveys will be under taken in September and October 2020 with results expected in December. The South East Tablelands kangaroo population survey will be carried out again in 2021 as part of regular population monitoring. MINISTERIAL SECONDMENTS In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (25 August 2020). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: I expect Ministers and their offices to comply with the requirements of the Members of Parliament Act 2013 and the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. COVID-19 AND RUBY PRINCESS In reply to the Hon. ROD ROBERTS (25 August 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government has thanked Commissioner Bret Walker, SC, and his team for their work on the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess and extends its heartfelt apology to anyone who experienced any additional hurt, stress and trauma due to issues identified in the Report. All recommendations made by the Commissioner have been accepted and New South Wales is working with the federal agencies involved to address them. The Commissioner stated that the procedures undertaken by NSW Health public health physicians were not made because they failed to treat the threat of COVID-19 seriously, and noted that there were no 'systemic' failures to address. Written Answers to Supplementary Questions SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY GRANT In reply to the Hon. ADAM SEARLE (27 August 20200). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)— In 2018-19 New South Wales Government agencies reported expenditure of approximately $4.1 billion with 8,000 small and medium enterprises [SMEs] on construction procurement and approximately $8.4 billion with 50,000 SMEs on goods and services procurement. Some SMEs supplied both construction and goods and services so the total reported spend of approximately $12.4 billion in 2018-19 was with 53,000 distinct SME suppliers. SMEs are identified based on the number of employees as provided by the supplier and supported by data from an external provider where possible at the time. The New South Wales Government Small and Medium Enterprise and Regional Procurement Policy defines an "SME" as an Australian or New Zealand based enterprise with fewer than 200 full time equivalent employees. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3916

In 2018-19 the New South Wales Government spent $1.5 billion on goods and services procurement with 26,000 distinct regional suppliers. The New South Wales Government Small and Medium Enterprise and Regional Procurement Policy defines a "Regional Supplier" as a business of any size with a registered business address in regional New South Wales. Regional New South Wales includes all areas within New South Wales outside the Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong metropolitan areas. Since 1 January 2020 this policy requires agencies to first consider purchasing from a regional supplier whenever a direct procurement for goods and services is undertaken in a regional area, up to $250,000. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Report: Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 25 August 2020. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (17:33:41): In reply: I note members' contributions to the debate and I note that not all members of the committee made a contribution. I stand by my contribution in regards to the process that the committee undertook, which, as observed by some members, is the decision of the House, not the decision of the committee given how much time we had to undertake an inquiry of this nature. The House made the decision, the House passed the resolution, and the committee and the secretariat are, of course, bound by that resolution. We did our best to conduct that inquiry given the parameters that the House set. I acknowledge the criticism, but I do not believe it is fair to criticise the committee because it laboured hard to deliver a report, which, as I said in my contribution, was balanced and was used on both sides of the debate. I chaired the Committee of the Whole and the report was extensively quoted from by both sides of the debate, demonstrating that we had gathered all the contributions we could for it. I believe some lessons have been learnt from that. The House has acknowledged that more time is required for those types of inquiries and it has taken that on board quite seriously. With those few comments, I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the committee which conducted the inquiry. I thank the contributors to the take-note debate on the report. I thank the secretariat, who were under immense pressure during the committee inquiry in the Parliament. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON SYDNEY'S NIGHT TIME ECONOMY Report: Sydney's Night Time Economy Debate resumed from 25 August 2020. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (17:35:27): I will not take up too much of the time of the House, but I was a member of the committee and I want to put a few thoughts on the record. First, I acknowledge the Kelly and Christie families. Every person in this House is united in genuine grief and distress for their losses, which is reflected in finding 4 of this report that "The 2014 laws were both necessary and effective at the time they were implemented. They were effective in reducing alcohol-fuelled violence …" It is extremely important to acknowledge that. The second thing I want to acknowledge—and this has been acknowledged by other speakers in this debate—is finding 2, which is that "The Committee accepts that alcohol causes harm." That should not be something revelatory; it should not be something that causes great consternation. In fact, it should be self-apparent. But the fact that the finding is so clearly upfront in the report is a very important statement for this House because alcohol does cause harm and we need to do what we can to ameliorate it. I will not go into the range of different issues and recommendations but I will talk about a couple of things. First, a number of specific examples clearly need to be addressed, such as the 1.30 a.m. lockout; small bars and, something I was particularly passionate about, increasing the number of patrons who are able to attend small bars, which will make them economically viable; and keeping bottle shops open later to allow individuals to go and purchase alcohol if they want. This is about diversifying the offerings that we have available. That is the way we can achieve a safe society. We need restaurants, pubs, clubs, theatres and wine bars. We need a range of these things together so that the city is alive, alive not just with a coterie of persons but alive with families, older people and young people who want to go out and dance—alive with the full-blooded demographic of our city and our society. That is what will increase safety, because when everyone is together and supporting each other that will make it more safe. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3917

Another issue I was particularly focused on is the importance of venues. We heard again and again through the inquiry that there is a dearth of some venues in Sydney. Some of the recommendations that we made were very important to addressing that dearth. For example, recommendation 17 looked at empty or underutilised government spaces and how we could use them as temporary or opt-up arts and entertainment venues—an eminently sensible suggestion. Recommendation 19 looked at developing regulations to support the night-time use of spaces occupied by businesses during the day, with a particular focus on supporting the night-time use of the space by creative businesses and, in doing that, taking away the sometimes incredibly onerous planning requirements and restrictions that are placed on these businesses and organisations that want to do just that. We should be making it easier, not more difficult, to increase the cultural life of this city, which is exactly what the report recommended. I am delighted about recommendation 20, which urged the New South Wales Government to consider developing regulations to permit unused government buildings to be used as creative spaces, which is excellent. I am delighted that yesterday's launch of the 24-hour Economy Strategy addresses so many of those issues. We know it will take time. Obviously, we are now in an extraordinary environment with COVID-19, which is adding to the serious issues that many venues, establishments and cultural institutions were already facing. That makes the task even harder but the Government has introduced and implemented a range of strategies, and will continue to do so. The Treasurer and the jobs and investment Minister have made it very clear that they are watching and doing all they can to move, to be agile and to fix the problems and create opportunities for all of those institutions, whether they be restaurants, bars or cultural institutions, to be able to not only survive but thrive. Government is responsible for improving the offerings we have in the city, which is Australia's truly premier global city. My final point is about process and I thank committee staff and the secretariat. They were professional as always, but on this occasion, because it was so contentious and because the deliberative went on for hour after hour, they were extraordinary. It has been mentioned before but it is worth mentioning again: This committee was the best of the Parliament because it had a cross-section of the broadest possible philosophical and policy views on how to address the issue. Everyone approached it with goodwill, decency, integrity and a desire to fix the problem. Everyone was there for the right reasons, which meant that we landed in a place that was, for so many of the recommendations and findings, unanimous—and if not unanimous, then almost unanimous—which was an extraordinary thing. I acknowledge those members of this House, Ms Cate Faehrmann, the Hon. Mark Latham, the Hon. John Graham and the Hon. Natalie Ward, who was magnificent in her chairing. She was impartial, appropriate, considered and she led from the front while ensuring that every person on the committee was able to provide the contribution that they needed to make. She did it respectfully and appropriately and it was a pleasure to work with her and all the committee members. I am glad we are fixing this issue. It will take a lot longer to fix it now because of COVID-19 but the goodwill of the Government and the Chamber in making it happen will make the challenge easier. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (17:42:51): It was a privilege to be The Greens representative on the Joint Select Committee on Sydney's Night Time Economy. It was also a strange experience, wandering into The Ivy nightclub with such a diverse range of people. I would not have thought that I would be squeezed into the back of a taxi between the Hon. Mark Latham and the Hon. John Graham, heading to The Ivy for a night on the town, but that is what happened. Thankfully, I did not recognise anybody in that establishment on that night. It was indicative of how much all committee members did during that time. We all travelled well together in a spirit of trying to fix the problem. This report was fantastic and the Government's response to COVID-19, from Monday, is also positive, which I will get to later. We must remember the impact that lockdown laws had on businesses over many years although I acknowledge that those laws were in response to the tragic deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie in Kings Cross in 2012 and 2013. As a result of the lockout laws and as a result of many businesses closing and hundreds— if not thousands—of jobs being lost in restaurants, clubs and nightclubs in Kings Cross, we had this inquiry to see whether there were consensus recommendations from all parties on getting Sydney's night-time economy functioning. We heard from witnesses about the impacts of the lockout laws on their businesses and on Sydney's creative industries and its night-time economy. When we debated the report in September 2019, none of us thought that a year later something so much more drastic would hit our night-time economy. The report's recommendations were solid and I supported all of them as The Greens' representative. However, I also made some recommendations, particularly around Kings Cross. The Greens believe Kings Cross should not have been excluded as it was in the report, but unfortunately that was not supported. Instead, there was a 12-month review into the impacts of continuing the lockout laws in Kings Cross. I would welcome any response by the Hon. Natalie Ward about how the Cross is going, particularly as a result of COVID-19. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3918

On Monday the State Government released its night-time economy strategy and I look forward to debating that legislation in the coming days and weeks. It is very good to see that the Government is prepared to look at encouraging businesses and restaurants to be able to survive COVID-19 by opening up outdoor dining and by looking at ways to extend licensing. I am not sure what the parameters of a pilot look like. I urge the Government to consider something more than a pilot at this particular time. Businesses and restaurants have told me they want to be able to conduct their business differently but safely, while abiding by COVID Safe plans. When I wrote this speech a couple of weeks ago, I was urging the Government to provide outdoor spaces but the strategy released on Monday responds significantly to that and relaxes some of the restrictions on businesses. It was incredibly frustrating to hear that within the first few weeks of pubs and restaurants being able to open up again following a short lockdown, when you consider what Victoria is going through, some of those businesses were experiencing noise complaints. Opening businesses now is not just about jobs; it is about the wellbeing of the community and the cultural fabric of our cities. To be able to have our businesses open safely is important to how we get through this pandemic. I ask residents who may live next to a pub or a restaurant to be sensitive to the fact that we now have thousands—if not tens of thousands—of people out of work as a result of hospitality, pubs and clubs closing down. Residents need to be part of the solution and be a little bit more relaxed; everybody is making sacrifices during the COVID period. If a restaurant is now moving onto a footpath, that is the way we are going to get through this together. I thank the Hon. Natalie Ward for her chairmanship of the joint select committee. It was undertaken in a very good spirit. It was an excellent committee to be a part of. The stakeholders feel that they have been listened to. We have the night-time coordinator general, we have had the advisory body established and we have the round table. The consultation aspect of the lockout laws was well and truly addressed after the committee's work. The report is excellent and the Government response so far is good. I hope we see more of it. I certainly hope that a lot of the responses are fast tracked in the coming months so that we can have a thriving, COVID-safe restaurant, cafe and pub business environment this summer and we can all feel a little bit normal. The Hon. NATALIE WARD (17:51:45): In reply: I am delighted and quite humbled to be able to close on the report in reply. It has been an absolute privilege to have chaired this committee and to have been a part of, as Ms Cate Faehrmann said, quite a diverse group. It was a group that undertook the task quite some time ago, who had quite a difficult job ahead and came from very diverse views. I thank each and every one of the committee members for their honesty, diligence, input and fair dealings. We all came to the table with very different views at the outset. I feel that we explored those in a robust but respectful and polite way, and the outcome in the report reflects that. I thank members who made a contribution to the debate. I acknowledge the Hon. John Graham, who was consistent in his call for a coordinator or a "night-time mayor". I am sorry that he did not get the title, but he got the position and the outcome, which is to his credit and the Government's credit. The Government has listened and implemented the recommendation by the Hon. John Graham that one person takes responsibility for this. The honourable member also highlighted something that is quite prescient now and that is the issue of loneliness. I would never have even acknowledged the word "pandemic" when we began the inquiry. Particularly in this pandemic time we are so much more aware that people need other people. Part of the program and part of reinvigorating the night-time economy is to allow people to get together at a time that they choose in a sensible, safe and balanced way. I thank the honourable member for highlighting that. Outdoor dining is something that we have all come to appreciate in a beautiful place such as Sydney. We can now look at innovative ways to approach our night-time economy, our hospitality industry and our music industry, such as being outside and allowing venues to provide an array of offerings so that we can socially distance, enjoy our beautiful climate in Sydney and allow tourists to enjoy it too. I will say it again: We are the only global city in Australia. I love people in Melbourne and I love the feedback that I get from them every time I say that. I love our friendly rivalry and I feel for our friends there at the moment. I hope that they can soon enjoy the night-time as well. Tourism, music and outdoor dining are parts of enjoying everything Sydney has to offer. We are the only truly global city with a harbour, an opera house and a harbour bridge where we can get together and enjoy Sydney's nightlife in a way that 12 months ago we would never have appreciated like we presently do. I acknowledge the Hon. Mark Latham. Much has been made of his contributions but I do admire his advocacy for Newcastle, his recognition of Government investment in Newcastle and his work in that area. I acknowledge his particular interest in that area. I acknowledge the Hon. Ben Franklin and I could ditto his speech in its entirety. His usual articulate flair has covered the dynamics of this committee, in particular the deliberative report, which was on a late sitting night. The other House had finished for the night and those members of the committee who we were keeping here were not so delighted to be here at night. They stayed, nonetheless, to be Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3919

able to contribute. Those of us that were still sitting ducked in and out of the deliberative meeting to attend divisions. We made accommodations for that and I thank them for their indulgence and patience. I particularly thank the committee staff for putting up with us during that meeting, and for putting up with me and the draft report. I was slightly detailed on it and perhaps a bit—I am trying to think of a polite word. I was quite concerned about the content and they were very patient with me. I thank them for that. They are still ducking me in the hallways and avoiding me wherever they can—that is understandable! I thank Ms Cate Faehrmann for her particular interest and advocacy for Kings Cross throughout this process. She has been absolutely consistent in a number of the issues that she has raised—many of which, as she kindly acknowledged, have been taken on board. It is important that we acknowledge that the Government has listened to the recommendations. Initially I did not want more than five or six recommendations. It turned out that we had 40 in the end, but that reflects the detail with which the members of the committee were concerned. The Government listened to those recommendations and is embracing the idea of having a different approach to the night-time economy. There are people who do not work business hours; we are amongst them. There are shift workers and people in the hospitality industry who want to go out after their shift finishes. That is for them what five o'clock is for office workers and we should be adaptable to that. We would like to welcome tourists arriving at this destination—who hopefully may arrive on many planes at many different hours—into a thriving night-time economy and make it available to them. I acknowledge the Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney, the Hon. Stuart Ayres, and the work that he has done to ensure that we can implement the recommendations. I acknowledge the work he has done to ensure that the Government listens, particularly at this vital time, and supports jobs in hospitality, tourism, retail and the arts; we know that they have been particularly hit with COVID difficulties. It is important that we support them in every way possible at this time. The Government has listened and it is prepared to do so. The Hon. , in his very strategic way, has ripped away red tape and made it easier for businesses and venues to apply and proceed through the licensing process. He has been clear on his intent to make this work and not just pay lip service to a report that was undertaken in an inquiry by this House and the other House. His intent is to ensure that it is implemented, now more than ever, to take advantage of the $16 billion economy that we are missing out on. It is more important than ever in realising the potential of non-traditional work hours in the night-time economy and ensuring that those people who have lost jobs have opportunities when we are able to open up. In particular, I refer to the councils and industry groups that made submissions to the inquiry and appeared before the Committee. I thank them for their thorough, polite and respectful diligence in assisting and guiding the committee. I thank the medical profession and others who made submissions and gave evidence on safety, which was dealt with in the first chapter of the report and remains front of mind. I hope the families feel that the committee prioritised the safe enjoyment of a night-time economy that is not focused purely on alcohol. My 15-year-old daughter is now being exposed to alcohol. Again, I return to the pathway that she will follow shortly. I hope that my daughter's and my son's ventures into Sydney's night-time economy, and those of all young people, can be safe, productive, enjoyable and not exclusively alcohol-based. However, if that is what people want, I hope that can be done safely but also that they can embrace the arts, hospitality, and this beautiful city and that that experience is extended to other areas beyond the CBD. I take on board Ms Cate Faehrmann's comments about King's Cross and I undertake to get back to her about what is being done in that area. I am aware that she is not the only member in this place who has a passion for King's Cross. However, she has been vocal about the issue and I appreciate her contribution on that front. Finally, I thank the House for its indulgence and for the opportunity to chair the committee. It was a great privilege to work with so many members of this House, some of whom had divergent views. It was a lesson in the good that both Houses can do through joint select committees, which is a function of Parliament that works effectively. Committee members of differing views were able to come together and produce a report that was constructive, positive and workable. Although members' views differed they were not hugely divergent. However, we managed to accommodate those views and worked through them constructively. I am grateful to the committee members and for the opportunity to contribute in this way. I hope that some time very soon we can, once again, squeeze Ms Cate Faehrmann into the back of a taxi between other members and head out for a night to enjoy the revised hours the committee hopes to see implemented. I commend the report to the House and thank the committee members. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3920

Motion agreed to. Documents ENVIRONMENTAL WATER Return to Order The CLERK: According to resolution of the House of 17 June 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding rules-based environmental water, received this day from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. STRONGER COUNTRY COMMUNITIES FUND Return to Order The CLERK: According to resolution of the House of 5 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding Stronger Country Communities applications, received this day 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 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. LACHLAN VALLEY Return to Order The CLERK: According to resolution of the House of 25 August 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding drought modelling for the Lachlan River, received this day 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 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. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: On behalf of Mr David Shoebridge: I move: That committee reports and Government responses orders of the day Nos 3 and 4 be postponed until next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Report: Right to Farm Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 22 October 2019. The Hon. EMMA HURST (18:03:22): I contribute to debate on the report of Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry on the Right to Farm Bill 2019. The bill is part of this Government's sustained witch-hunt against animal advocates in New South Wales and is a clear attempt to silence whistleblowers and reduce transparency. It is disappointing that this harmful and unnecessary law passed through Parliament, despite the overwhelming evidence and submissions received indicating that it is a bad law. The Right to Farm Bill was strongly opposed by the majority of stakeholders who were consulted during the inquiry. Groups from across the spectrum, including animal advocates, environmental, union, legal and civil liberties groups, all expressed serious concerns about the impact of the bill on the rights of private property owners, whistleblowers and protesters. As members may recall, the bill—now the Right to Farm Act 2019—had two components that were considered by the committee. The first part established the so-called Right to Farm Act and creates a defence for agricultural operations that are the subject of nuisance proceedings from neighbours. Accordingly, people living in rural areas near intensive animal agribusiness operations that produce terrible odours, run-off, pollutants and other negative environmental impacts will no longer be able to bring a case for nuisance before the courts. The Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3921

second part of the bill amended the aggravated offences section of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to drastically increase penalties, including allowance for the imposition of a jail term of up to three years and the introduction of a new provision about incitement. As I noted in my dissenting statement to the report, this is not an evidence-based law. During the inquiry, the Government provided no compelling statistics about the number of farm trespasses that have been committed by animal advocates or any evidence that the number is increasing. By contrast, the committee heard undisputed evidence from the NSW Police Force that the leading cause of rural trespass is illegal hunting, yet that barely got a mention from the Government. Stakeholders who gave evidence at the inquiry also expressed serious concerns about the impact that the bill would have on the rights and freedoms of the citizens of New South Wales and on our democratic society. Those diverse groups all agreed that the bill expands inappropriately the scope of offences to target activists and whistleblowers and would have a potential chilling effect on protest activities in New South Wales. As the committee heard, what is needed is an immediate review of this State's animal protection laws, including a properly funded and functioning enforcement agency and increased penalties for animal cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. Currently those penalties are among the lowest in the country. The Government should focus its energies on that, rather than on increasing penalties for trespassing without adequate justification. The committee found that our laws are failing to protect animals and that our enforcement system to uphold those weak laws is failing animals. That is why the community is upset. The inquiry exposed that the Government is stifling transparency in an industry already hidden from the public. Rather than working to fix the issue, the bill was designed to hide the failings of the Government from the public. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (18:06:52): The Right to Farm Bill 2019 was an historic piece of legislation for farmers across the State. The Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry inquiry took only four weeks and included one hearing day. The report made one recommendation only—that the bill proceed to this place and be debated. The Chair noted that the Government had effectively addressed some concerns by amending the bill in the other place before it progressed to this House. The bill contained two elements: first, a defence to the tort of nuisance was created through the Right to Farm Act; and, secondly, an amendment was made to the Inclosed Lands Protection Act to create a new subsection of aggravated trespass pertaining to trespass on agricultural land against agricultural businesses. The committee noted that the Government should debate and address concerns about the balance of land use rights with regards to the tort defence and to debate the proposed changes to the trespassing provisions to clarify how they would work in practice. The Government addressed the Committee's comments robustly and succinctly in the course of debate. It accepted minor amendments that clarified the scope of provisions in the Right to Farm Bill, which is now in force. This means that the law will not be used against farmers who have been happily farming. It provides also for pre-emptive de-escalation and ensures that the spectrum of trespass activities being conducted against agriculture is adequately reflected and punished within the law of trespass. As I noted several times during debate, the bill did not create new trespass; it acknowledged finally that aggravated trespass on agricultural lands and businesses comes with a specific activity and risk profile and must be adequately punished and deterred. Since the passage of the bill we have seen a marked drop in non-farm invasions, proving that loopholes were being exploited to create dangerous on-farm situations through highly aggressive trespass masquerading as a protest. The new provisions introduced by the bill have in no way impeded the right to protest. The Right to Farm Bill provided desperately needed protections for farmers, who are no different to any other business owner. They deserve the protection from people who wish to disrupt their business and risk the lives of their employees and families on ideological grounds. With regards to the purported "why" behind these trespass activities, as we have said time and time again, New South Wales has animal welfare laws in place and three enforcement agencies able to enforce those on a day-to-day basis—not just one, but three. Further, animal welfare is at the heart of agriculture as the welfare of an animal is the farmer's core business. To suggest otherwise is offensive to farmers and offensive to agriculture. Someone's personal feelings about an industry should not be conflated with welfare and any suspected welfare issue should be reported as any crime should, rather than loopholes creating the case where people believe they have free reign to take justice into their own hands or damage a business under the guise of a lawful activity, which is all but unimpeded on public land. The Right to Farm Bill was historic for farmers, it was historic for New South Wales, it was delivered by this Government and I am very proud to have had carriage of it through this Chamber. The Hon. LOU AMATO (18:11:23): I speak to report No. 41 tabled on 21 October 2019, entitled Right to Farm Bill 2019. Firstly, I thank the chair, my fellow committee members, the secretariat and all those who Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3922

participated in the inquiry into the bill. The Right to Farm Bill 2019 was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 17 September 2019 by the Hon. Adam Marshall, MP, Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales. It was subsequently referred to the Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry for inquiry and report on 24 September 2019. The bill, which was welcomed by the agricultural industry, sought to create a new Act to protect commercial farmers from nuisance claims. The new Act would in effect modify nuisance at common law. The need for a new Act was in response to commercial farmers' concern over vexatious nuisance claims by activists and lobby groups. The main purpose of the bill was to prevent a person from engaging in litigious action against commercial farmers. The new Act would prevent a person from engaging in nuisance claims against a commercial agricultural activity, as long as the activity was lawful, not negligent and conducted on agricultural land in operation for at least 12 months. The new Act would also require a court to consider alternative actions other than ordering an agricultural activity to completely stop operations if a nuisance claim was successful. As per the report, an overview of the bill's provisions are as follows: a) to prevent an action for the tort of nuisance being brought in relation to a commercial agricultural activity where it is occurring lawfully on agricultural land, b) to require a court to consider alternative orders to remedy a commercial agricultural activity that is found to constitute a nuisance rather than order the activity to cease, c) to extend the circumstances of aggravation for an offence of entering inclosed lands without permission or failing to leave inclosed lands when requested to do so and to increase the maximum penalty for the aggravated offence, d) to create an offence of directing, inciting, procuring or inducing the commission of the aggravated offence, e) to modify offences of leaving a gate open on inclosed lands to apply the offences where the gate is removed or disabled, to specify that a gate includes a cattle grid or any moveable thing used to inclose land and to increase the maximum penalties for the offences, and f) to specify how proceedings for an offence under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 are to be dealt with. The bill also sought to amend certain trespass offences contained within the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, summarised by the report as follows: 1.14 Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 by strengthening the offence of aggravated unlawful entry on inclosed lands with increased maximum penalties, additional aggravating factors and a new offence of inciting aggravated unlawful entry. 1.15 The bill would add additional aggravating factors – of damage to property and releasing livestock. It also adds 'hindering' to the existing aggravating factor of interfering with business. 1.16 The bill increases the maximum penalty for the aggravated offence from 50 penalty units to 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. It also makes provision for a further maximum penalty (of 200 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 years, or both) if the unlawful aggravated entry involves serious risk to safety or if 'the offender was accompanied by 2 or more persons when the offence occurred'. 1.17 The bill also creates a new offence – that of directing, inciting, procuring or inducing aggravated unlawful entry. The maximum penalty for this offence is 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. 1.18 The bill replaces the Act's previous section 5, which provided a penalty for leaving a gate or slip-panel open on inclosed land. The proposed new section 5 creates an offence so that 'a person who enters into or upon the inclosed lands or another person and wilfully or negligently leaves open, removes or disables a gate is guilty of an offence'. The proposed new section 5 also specifies that the term gate may include a cattle grid or 'any moveable thing use to inclose land'. As stated previously, the Right to Farm Bill 2019 was welcomed by the agricultural industry; however, there were many who opposed the bill on the grounds that the right to peacefully protest was seriously undermined by the provisions of the proposed Act. The committee received a large volume of submissions in opposition to the bill. In particular, Greenpeace Australia opposed the bill, stating that it would undermine the right to protest, which is important in shaping liberal democracies around the world. One concern was that the bill provided for disproportionate penalties and would deter people from participating in peaceful protest. Many submissions reflected a concern that the bill's provisions would catch a wide range of peaceful protests, subjecting participants to criminal penalty. Ms Sharp of the New South Wales Bar Association stated to the committee that the significant penalties imposed upon peaceful protesters would discourage the right to peacefully protest. She stated: … members of the public who wish to engage in peaceful protest, including on public land which is inclosed, will be committing an offence which exposes them to a term of imprisonment. The Human Rights Law Centre stated that the bill could burden the implied freedom of political communication. It said: Protests about the environment are a form of political communication that is protected in the constitution. … In our view, the Committee ought to closely inquire into the extent to which the Bill would prohibit onsite environmental protests, the likes of which were found to be of critical constitutional importance in [Brown v Tasmania]. … we consider there are real risks the Bill could burden the implied freedom of political communication in a manner that is unconstitutional. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3923

The committee acknowledged difficulties in balancing the right to peaceably protest with the rights of commercial agricultural operations. The New South Wales Parliament Legislation Review Committee identified that the Right to Farm Bill 2019 creates a new offence in relation to trespass with increased penalties. In its Legislation Review Digest No. 5/57, published on 24 September 2019, it came to similar conclusions as the Legislative Council committee, which identified difficulties in balancing the right to peacefully protest with the rights of commercial agricultural operations. In the digest the Legislation Review Committee stated: The Bill introduces a new offence that applies to those who incite or direct trespass without committing trespass themselves, which could attract a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. The Committee notes that the creation of new offences impacts upon the rights and liberties of persons as previously lawful conduct becomes unlawful. However, the Committee acknowledges that the purpose of this offence is to address a gap in the legislation where people incite or direct trespass without actually committing it themselves. Given that there is a public interest in protecting the rights of farmers from trespass on their land and the attendant risks to themselves and others that may eventuate, the Committee makes no further comment. To address the concerns of stakeholders, the committee made its recommendation that the bill proceed for further debate in the Legislative Council and that the New South Wales Government address the committee concerns as identified in the report during debate in the House. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Legislative Assembly passed the amendment on sheet c2019-183C on 16 October 2019, which clarified the definition of inclosed lands and addressed stakeholder concerns. The amended bill was assented to on Thursday 21 November 2019. I commend the report to the House. The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (18:19:47): In reply: Like all inquiries, this report reflects arguments for both sides. The chief recommendation was that the bill proceed to the House for debate and it did. Concerns that were cited in the committee hearing process were addressed by the Government and by the amendments that were moved and passed by my party, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. The Right to Farm Bill is an issue we happily campaigned on during the last election, so it was pleasing to see the Government take heed of our push for a right-to-farm piece of legislation that protected farmers against farm invasions. I note the commentary in the inquiry and the debate about concerns that there was no justification for this law because the offences were simply not happening. To respond to that in the first instance—if these offences were not happening, then this law would affect nobody. Nobody would be prosecuted, so no harm no foul. But we saw quite quickly after the passing of this law that at least two or three people were arrested and charged. Clearly, these offences were happening and this law helped clarify how those offences would be dealt with. It was pleasing to see that the law came into action quickly. Concerns about the right to protest did come through heavily, particularly from the unions. We were pleased, as the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, to bring forth those amendments that clarified things and gave those unions some peace of mind about their right to protest. That would not be impinged on by this piece of legislation. It was pleasing that the Minister took note of that amendment and actively supported it. I look forward to seeing this piece of legislation continue to protect farmers. Of course, if there are further deficiencies then we will be looking to make the law stronger. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. Rulings NOTICES OF MOTIONS The PRESIDENT (18:23:05): During the giving of notices of motions earlier today, the Hon. Mark Banasiak gave a notice of motion concerning a proposed inquiry by the Privileges Committee into whether the Hon. Niall Blair and a number of other members and public servants had provided misleading information in relation to commercial fishing. The Hon. Trevor Khan subsequently took a point of order raising three separate matters. He said that the notice did not refer to members by their proper title, was excessive in length, and trespassed on the principle of comity and mutual respect between the two Houses. I reserved ruling on the point of order and indicated that the notice of motion would not be placed on the Notice Paper until I had ruled. I will now address these three matters separately. In relation to the first matter, and having viewed the notice, I note that, on the first occasion where it refers to a member or former member, it appropriately uses the title "the Honourable" before using the title "Mr" in subsequent references. This is standard practice. In relation to the second point regarding the length of the notice, there is no restriction on the length of notices of motions in the Legislative Council. I note that in November 2016 the former Leader of the Government, the Hon. Duncan Gay, gave a notice of motion that, amongst other things, sought to restrict certain notices of motions to 250 words. The motion was never moved. The matter was also considered by the Procedure Committee on two occasions, in 2012 and 2017. On each occasion the committee did not reach consensus on the giving of notices and did not recommend any changes to the rules for notices. In Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3924

those circumstances, where the House has in the past chosen not to restrict the length of notices of motions, it would not be appropriate to rule the notice of motion given by the Hon. Mark Banasiak on this day out of order. However, as a general proposition, I believe that members of the House in drafting the notices of motion should reflect on what is best parliamentary practice. Notices are an opportunity to put a question or proposition to the House, which may be debated and amended before being decided by the House. They are not an opportunity to put voluminous material on the Notice Paper except as necessary to facilitate debate and elicit a decision of the House. In relation to the third matter, it is well established through several rulings of past Presidents that neither House may inquire into the operations of the other. Of note, former President Primrose on two occasions in 2008 ruled out of order a notice of motion or part of a notice of motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the treatment of an officer employed by the Legislative Assembly. I do not believe, however, that the notice given today by the honourable member trespasses on the principle of comity. Certain paragraphs of the notice raise the potential that members in the other House misled that House. However, the notice does not seek to provide the Privileges Committee with authority to inquire into such matters. Rather, the final paragraph of the notice only invites the Legislative Assembly to undertake its own inquiry into such matters. There is no obligation on the Legislative Assembly to do so. In those circumstances I do not believe the notice contravenes the principle of comity between the Houses. Accordingly, I do not uphold the point of order. I direct the Clerk to place the notice of motion on the Notice Paper. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Report: Mining Amendment (Compensation for Cancellation of Exploration Licence) Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 12 November 2019. Reverend the Hon. (18:27:37): I speak on report No. 72 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled Mining Amendment (Compensation for Cancellation of Exploration Licence) Bill 2019, dated October 2019. I have a deep interest in this issue and this bill because it was introduced and read a second time by me in this House on 6 June 2019, after I received a number of submissions from what I call the innocent mum-and-dad investors in NuCoal and so on. They are not big business people. They are not wealthy people. They are working class people that have been financially affected by the decisions of this Parliament. The bill was immediately sent to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which published this report on 30 October 2019. As members know, the committee made two recommendations: firstly, and surprisingly to me, that the bill not proceed in its current form; and, secondly, perhaps more promisingly, "that the New South Wales Government address the outstanding matters raised during this inquiry, where appropriate, including the issue of compensation for innocent shareholders." I note the foreword by the Hon. Wes Fang in report No. 72: However, the committee also accepts that there are some innocent shareholders, including mum and dad investors, who acquired shares in good faith and without any knowledge of the controversy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Order! It being 6.30 p.m., the time for debate on committee reports has expired. Bills WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (INFORMATION EXCHANGE) BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. (18:30:48): On behalf of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I am pleased to introduce the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020. This bill demonstrates the Government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that every worker in this State has a healthy, safe and productive working life. It lays the groundwork for information sharing between NSW Health and the New South Wales work health and safety [WHS] regulators. The Government believes that information sharing will play a valuable role in reducing the prevalence of occupational diseases in this State. The Government initially intends to use the information sharing power created by this bill to address the increase in reported cases of the occupational lung disease silicosis. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3925

This is just one part of a broader package of reforms which the Government has developed to tackle this disease. Silicosis is a lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust. Crystalline silica is a naturally occurring mineral present in most rocks, sand and clay, as well as products like brick, concrete, tile and manufactured stone. Silica dust is produced when those materials or products are cut, drilled, ground or polished. When it is inhaled, this dust can permanently scar a worker's lung tissue and progressively cause respiratory impairment and reduce lung functionality. This damage is irreversible and, in the most serious cases, fatal. Silicosis does not always take a long time to develop, unlike other occupational lung diseases with which members may be familiar. There are three forms of silicosis: acute, accelerated and chronic. Acute silicosis can kill young people who have only just begun their working lives. It has been observed in workers within a few months to two years after they have been exposed to high concentrations of silica dust. Accelerated silicosis can appear in workers who have had high levels of exposure over one to 10 years. Chronic silicosis results from long-term exposure—more than ten years—to low levels of silica. One worker with this disease is one too many. No person should end up with permanent or fatal disease as a result of their work. The dangers of silica dust have been known for a long time and until relatively recently silicosis remained a rare condition. This is because industries that have traditionally been exposed to crystalline silica have protective measures in place. Its re-emergence is linked to the increasing use of manufactured stone in housing and construction, particularly as benchtop material in kitchens, bathrooms and laundries. Manufactured stone can contain much higher percentages of crystalline silica than traditional materials and products. This popularity has coincided with a sharp spike in silicosis cases across New South Wales. From 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020, 107 cases of silicosis were identified by icare in New South Wales. In the 2018-2019 financial year, there were 40 cases, and in the year before there were nine. The frustration for WHS regulators, workers and their families affected by this disease is that it is preventable. The exposure need not happen if the appropriate risk management steps are taken when working with manufactured stone and other materials containing silica. In response to the rise in silicosis cases, the Government has developed a comprehensive, multi-agency silicosis prevention strategy to ensure that everyone in this State is working safely with silica. The strategy includes three regulatory reforms. The Government has acted to ban dry cutting of manufactured stone, to halve the workplace exposure standard for silica and, with this bill, to enable regulators to target their compliance and enforcement at workplaces that are not protecting their workers from exposure to a risk of contracting silicosis. First, the Government has amended the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 to explicitly ban the practice of uncontrolled dry cutting of manufactured stone containing crystalline silica. Dry cutting manufactured stone with a power tool is particularly dangerous because of its potential to generate a high volume of silica dust. This practice has always been prohibited under the broader obligations of health and safety duty holders in the Act not to expose workers to risks to their health and safety. But this amendment makes it clear to those working with manufactured stone that no-one should be using a power tool to cut these materials without controls: either water-fed tools, an extraction system attached to the power tool or an exhaust system in place to reduce the generation of dust. The amendment also makes clear that persons conducting a business or undertaking [PCBUs] must ensure that all workers potentially exposed to a dangerous level of silica dust—not just those doing the cutting, but workers nearby—are provided with and are wearing adequate personal protective equipment. PCBUs who allow workers to perform uncontrolled dry cutting or who do not ensure workers are wearing adequate protective respiratory equipment are committing an offence. The Government has given work health and safety inspectors the power to issue on-the-spot penalties to PCBUs who do not comply with the ban on uncontrolled dry cutting. The Government has put this ban in place from 1 July. The Government has also moved swiftly on another aspect of the silica strategy. The workplace exposure standard is determined at a national level under the harmonised work health and safety laws. It sets the maximum airborne concentration of silica dust that a person should be exposed to in a workplace. It is an offence for a PCBU to allow a person at a workplace to be exposed to silica dust in an airborne concentration that exceeds the workplace exposure standard. Late last year, after being presented with new evidence about the dangers of silica dust, I agreed with the Commonwealth and other State and Territory work health and safety Ministers that the workplace exposure standard for silica should be lowered from a time-weighted average over eight hours from 0.1mg/m 3 to 0.05mg/m3. That is a halving of the workplace exposure standard. But at the national level the deadline for implementing that revised standard is not until September 2022. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3926

That is too long to wait while workers are being exposed to unacceptably high levels of silica in workplaces in New South Wales now. That is why the Government has implemented the revised standard in New South Wales well in advance of the national deadline, from 1 July this year. I acknowledge that this may have required businesses to adjust their work practices swiftly. The Government wants to help businesses to meet that standard and conduct their activities safely. That is why until 30 June SafeWork NSW offered rebates of up to $1,000 to manufactured stone businesses which purchased new equipment to control the risks of dry cutting. This brings me to the third regulatory reform, the reform contained in this bill, which forms part of this strategy, and supported by a declaration by the health Minister under the Public Health Act 2010, that silicosis is a scheduled medical condition. The goal of creating the information sharing power in this bill is to enable NSW Health to assist WHS regulators to target their ongoing efforts in education, enforcement and compliance at the workplaces where they are most needed. That is, at workplaces where workers are contracting silicosis. Our existing laws require PCBUs to ensure that workers who are exposed to silica dust are subject to regular health monitoring. If a worker is diagnosed with silicosis, then the PCBU is required by law to provide a copy of the health monitoring report to the WHS regulator. These processes are designed to quickly identify workplaces of greatest risk so that there can be targeted education and enforcement action. However, in practice, the notifications are not reliable and, alone, are not sufficient to stem the increasing number of diagnosed cases. The WHS regulator cannot take enforcement action against a PCBU for failing to inform of a diagnosis when the WHS regulator does not know there has been a diagnosis. Additionally, not all cases of silicosis are diagnosed through the health monitoring PCBUs are required to provide under the Work Health and Safety Act. Workers may be diagnosed outside of that process by their own doctors. In that case, there is presently no obligation on doctors or workers to notify WHS regulators. WHS regulators have explored all available options to get information about silicosis diagnoses. With the assistance of icare, which provides screening services for silicosis, WHS regulators have been able to obtain some information about cases of silicosis diagnosed in workers using their service. But WHS regulators are still not informed of all diagnoses of silicosis in New South Wales. This is the only way to halt this rapid increase in the number of workers affected by silicosis. The Government therefore intends to implement a system which will seek to ensure that WHS regulators, with the cooperation of the NSW Department of Health, are informed of all diagnoses of silicosis in this State. This bill is a crucial step in establishing the legal framework for that system. The Minister for Health and Medical Research has already declared that silicosis is a category 2 scheduled medical condition under part 4 of the Public Health Act 2010. The effect of that declaration is that when a medical practitioner diagnoses an individual with silicosis, they are required to notify the NSW Health secretary. To do so, they must use a form published on the NSW Health website, which has been designed to collect the information WHS regulators need to target their compliance and enforcement efforts, including the details of the worker's current or most recent employer. That brings me to another aspect of the Government's silicosis strategy. It is the ongoing efforts of our WHS regulators to ensure that workers are being protected from the dangers of contracting silicosis. The New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act requires PCBUs to do what is reasonably practicable to ensure their workers' health and safety, and our WHS regulators will be vigilant in ensuring that they do. SafeWork NSW and Safe Work Australia offer guidance on how PCBUs can meet that standard. There are a number of work methods that PCBUs can put in place to ensure that their workers are not being exposed to an unacceptably high level of silica from working with manufactured stone. These include wet cutting, using tools fitted with extractors, working with local ventilation systems, using dust suppression techniques, isolating high dust generation work processes and ensuring that adequate personal protective equipment is worn. Our laws require PCBUs to conduct air monitoring if it is necessary to determine whether there is a risk to workers' health. PCBUs also need to provide health monitoring to workers who are exposed to silica dust on an ongoing basis to determine whether their health has been affected by the exposure. The New South Wales WHS regulators, SafeWork NSW and the NSW Resources Regulator, have been active in ensuring that PCBUs understand and comply with these obligations. SafeWork NSW's activities have been directed by its five-year hazardous chemicals strategy, the 2017–2022 Hazardous Chemicals and Materials Exposures Baseline and Reduction Strategy. The strategy identifies silica as one of its top two priority chemicals. As part of the strategy, SafeWork has undertaken extensive educational activities across the State to ensure that employers and workers understand how to work safely with manufactured stone. This educational outreach has been accompanied by a strong focus on compliance and enforcement at manufactured stone sites. SafeWork NSW has visited every site where manufactured stone is fabricated in this State. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3927

Together with SafeWork's activities under our existing workplace laws, the Government's reforms make up a cohesive whole-of-government strategy to address the re-emergence of silicosis. In the first instance, the Government intends to use the information sharing power in this bill to target silicosis. But over time, as new materials and new technologies come into use in New South Wales, other threats to workers' health may emerge, or re-emerge, as silicosis has. That is why this bill will enable information sharing between NSW Health and WHS regulators in relation to other conditions if it becomes necessary in the future. As in this case, the Government will consult with the NSW Information and Privacy Commissioner on any future information sharing proposals. New South Wales WHS regulators need to be able to respond swiftly and flexibly to protect workers in this State. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of having the infrastructure in place to mobilise quickly and efficiently to respond to a health crisis, particularly in our workplaces. This bill will ensure that if threats emerge to workers' safety, our WHS regulators can seek assistance from the NSW Health, which has well-established systems for monitoring the prevalence of conditions or diseases of public concern. This is an efficient approach that makes use of the existing expertise of two Government agencies. NSW Health and WHS regulators are united in their concern for the long-term health of workers in this State and will work together to stem the tide of increasing silicosis diagnoses. The Work Health and Safety Act is based on a national model Act which has been adopted in all Australian jurisdictions except Victoria and Western Australia. The Government knows how valuable the harmonisation of our work health and safety laws with those in other Australian jurisdictions has been for workers and businesses in this State. It has enabled businesses to streamline their operations across State borders and to adopt a consistent approach to health and safety issues in workplaces across the country. This bill to amend the Work Health and Safety Act will not affect that harmonisation. The Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety allows jurisdictions to make changes to their work health and safety legislation if the changes do not materially affect the operation of the model laws. The amendments contained in this bill do not materially affect the operation of the model work health and safety laws. They cover internal information sharing between two New South Wales Government agencies. Other jurisdictions have enacted reforms to address the issue of notification of silicosis using the mechanisms appropriate to their own internal administrative arrangements. The information-sharing arrangement between NSW Health and WHS regulators is vital to ensuring workers' safety and will not affect national harmonisation. I turn now to the substance of the bill. The bill seeks to amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to authorise the secretary of the Ministry of Health to provide information to the regulators established by that Act. There are two work health and safety regulators who enforce the Act: SafeWork NSW, which is responsible for the Act in all workplaces subject to New South Wales law except mining and petroleum sites; and the NSW Resources Regulator, which is responsible for mining and petroleum sites. Clause 3 inserts section 271B to the Work Health and Safety Act. This section will authorise the secretary of the Ministry of Health to provide information to the New South Wales work health and safety regulators if the provision of that information is necessary for the regulators to exercise their functions under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The health secretary is not under any duty to disclose information. The health secretary will have discretion to provide or withhold information and the decision to do so will be based on the secretary's assessment of whether the information in question is necessary for the WHS regulators to enforce work health and safety laws in New South Wales. The bill does not restrict the type of information that the health secretary may provide to the WHS regulators. The health secretary may provide any information the secretary has, as long as the information is necessary for the regulator to carry out its functions under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Clause 3 of the bill also provides that information may be shared under section 271B (1) despite any prohibitions or requirements in the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002. This is an important provision. The Government understands the importance of protecting workers' privacy. However, the Government has good reasons for providing that the secretary's discretion to disclose information to the regulators will not be fettered by the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act. In exceptional situations, such as the current spike in silicosis cases, NSW Health may provide limited personal and medical information about workers in order to protect those workers, and other workers, from serious risks to their health and safety. Our WHS regulators need to know which workers are getting occupational disease so that they know which workplaces are the problem and can intervene where necessary. In the case of silicosis, it is the Government's intention that SafeWork NSW and NSW Health will enter into a memorandum of understanding, which will set out the means by which those agencies will share information. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3928

In that memorandum of understanding, SafeWork NSW and NSW Health will both make commitments as to how they will share, use and store the information they receive from health practitioners about diagnoses of silicosis. The memorandum of understanding is being developed by SafeWork NSW and NSW Health in consultation with the information and privacy commissioners to ensure that workers' personal information is treated with the respect for their privacy that the Government believes it deserves. Access to the information will be restricted to those who need to know. It is the Government's intention that it will be held in a secure database, with restricted accessibility and access auditing. The commissioners will be informed of any amendments to information-sharing arrangements under the memorandum of understanding relating to silicosis and will be consulted on the sharing of information about other workplace health issues, should they arise in the future. Clause 2 of the bill provides that the amending Act will commence on assent. The Government wants to put this information-sharing arrangement in place as soon as possible. I am proud to have worked with the health Minister on this bill and on developing a mechanism through which WHS regulators can be notified of silicosis cases. I commend the Minister and his department for their contributions to these important reforms. With this new information-sharing power, WHS regulators and NSW Health will be in a stronger position to respond to emerging threats to workers' health and safety, including the current increase in silicosis cases. The Government wants to see every worker go home safe at the end of their day, and every workplace that uses hazardous materials doing the right thing by its workers. With all of these reforms—this bill, banning dry cutting and lowering the workplace exposure standard—the Government aims to once more make silicosis a disease of the past. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (18:31:45): I lead for the Opposition on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020. The bill amends the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 so that NSW Health is no longer prohibited from notifying SafeWork NSW that a worker from a particular workplace was diagnosed with silicosis if NSW Health chooses to do so. SafeWork NSW is then meant to undertake compliance and enforcement checks at that workplace. To be clear, while Labor supports in principle any measures to curb the explosion of cases of silicosis in New South Wales, it has concerns about the limited nature of the bill. New South Wales is experiencing a sharp rise in the number of people developing silicosis, a severe and irreversible occupational disease of the lung, which can lead to an early death. Historically, New South Wales would average three to four diagnoses of silicosis each year. Patients would present in their seventies or eighties, having likely contracted the disease from prolonged exposure to dust while working in the mining, quarrying or tunnelling industries. In the 2018-19 financial year New South Wales identified 40 new known cases of silicosis. The new stratum of patients was identified as stonemasons aged in their thirties and forties who had cut manufactured stone like Caesarstone, commonly found in kitchen benchtops. The latest figures we have for the previous financial year suggest that more than 70 cases have been detected. As we learned in the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquiry into the bill, this year we will record 140 cases of silicosis. I will pause there to say that in the span of less than one session of Parliament, in less than four years, the number of people having been diagnosed with silicosis has gone from an average of four to what will be reported as 140. That is a terrifying rise. What is worse is that the risk is going up. This is not a diminishing occupational risk. Silicosis is a preventable dust disease. Tough action would save lives. I will tell the story of one person whom I met who had a silicosis diagnosis. His name is Kyle, he is in his 30s and he is a resident of the North Coast of New South Wales. For many years in his 20s, Kyle worked, as is common, in one of the workshops that sit on the Queensland-New South Wales border. When Queensland started to take action a few years ago, when it undertook a case-finding study, it was brought to Kyle's attention that he was exposed to risk. He then had himself diagnosed and he was found to have silicosis. Kyle is younger than me and he has been given a prognosis that his likely life expectancy is about 40. He has young children. What is worse is that all of his workmates who worked at the same workshop during the same period of time were also told to get tested. Every single worker on the same shift as Kyle has been diagnosed with silicosis. All of them were stonemasons, cutting manufactured stone and working with materials that have silica concentrations north of 90 per cent to 95 per cent—extreme risk. That is a common story. It has taken a lot of effort by the Labor movement nationally to bring the issue onto the national agenda. Even though our State is likely to have the most cases of silicosis in Australia, we are substantially lagging the Queensland and Victoria Labor governments in taking action to stop the nationwide rise of silicosis. Notwithstanding the bill, the New South Wales Government is yet to commit to a comprehensive strategy to tackle silicosis in New South Wales. NSW Labor has committed to a comprehensive strategy. Members of the House Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3929

may well recall that at the end of last year, using our powers under Standing Order 52, we sought information on the status of silicosis in New South Wales, which caused SafeWork NSW to release results about the number of people who are exposed to manufactured stone in New South Wales, the number of workshops in which they are exposed and the workplace health and safety compliance record in those shops. We learnt that nearly every one of the approximately 250 workshops in which manufactured stone is cut has had an infringement notice of some form. What is worse is the time that has been given to them to rectify was substantial. In New South Wales we know that approximately 7,000 workers in those workshops have been affected. The only reason why we have all that information on the public register in New South Wales is not that we have a dust diseases register like in Queensland, but that the Labor Opposition used its powers in the House to cause SafeWork NSW to release the information. When you have such an explosion in a preventable occupational dust disease, it should not take the use of an order for papers under Standing Order 52 for that information to surface; that information should already be public. That should be the first part of a comprehensive strategy to crack down on manufactured stone risks to occupational workers. In February this year I had the pleasure of standing with the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, the leader of Unions NSW, silicosis victims, leaders of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Hon. Mark Buttigieg and the Hon. Anthony D'Adam to outline what Labor said should be the comprehensive strategy. We said that New South Wales should immediately introduce a regulation to ban the dangerous practice of dry cutting manufactured stone. We also said that we should immediately establish a New South Wales notifiable dust lung diseases register for major dust diseases like Queensland has had in operation since July 2019. We said that the exposure limit needs to be reduced from 0.1 milligrams per metric square metre to 0.002 for all non-mining industries—the world's best silica dust limits. New South Wales stonemasons and workers should have access to the world's best protections against silica dust. We said that stonemasons should receive and be required to have full face respirators with the world's best filtration technology, protecting them from dangerous dust. We said that every site where manufactured stone is cut should be registered and that registration should take place every 12 months, because we know that workshops appear and disappear and at this point there is no way for the regulator to keep track of them. For a substance this dangerous, there should be mandatory registration every 12 months to allow tougher enforcement throughout the manufactured stone supply chain. We also said that there should be a registration scheme for workers cutting manufactured stones so that their health outcomes can be tracked over the duration of their life. People come in and out of this industry. A person like Kyle will work in it in his twenties, leave in his thirties and may have symptoms present in his forties, fifties or sixties. To avoid any sense of litigation as to causation and to enable us to ensure that those people are getting health treatment, we must know who they are. We said that there must be a proper tripartite approach between employers and trade unions to introduce regular, mandatory health screenings for workers exposed to silica dust. We said that there must be mandatory health and safety representatives in industries with high exposure to silica dust and health and safety committees comprising the majority of workers. When there is a functioning health and safety committee in a workplace, that workplace is safer. That has been corroborated by the data that we have learnt since. There is less risk when there is better organisation on safety. We also said that a regulation must be introduced for dust exposure in the tunnelling industry. This morning newspapers reported on the risks at the WestConnex project and the soup of dangerous substances that tunnelling workers there are exposed to. The tunnelling industry requires its own discrete safety regulation. SafeWork NSW must undertake a tripartite awareness campaign and a case-finding study as it happened in Queensland. The Queensland regulator is capable of doing a case-finding study to look at each case and identify a common point of exposure, but more importantly, to then look for other workers who may have been exposed. If it is good enough for Queensland then it is good enough for New South Wales. Had the New South Wales Government started progress towards implementing the comprehensive strategy we would be on track to have the world's best protection against silica dust. We do not have that in New South Wales. Labor will continue to campaign for the world's toughest standards when it comes to silica dust because our workers deserve nothing less, which brings me to the bill. In its recent report into the dust diseases scheme, the law and justice committee recommended: That the NSW Government immediately establish the Silicosis Health Register and ensure that it captures not only diagnosed cases of silica-related disease but also screening results and investigative reports undertaken for workers exposed to crystalline silica. That recommendation came from a committee chaired by a National Party member. In its 2018 review, then chaired by a member of the Liberal Party—I believe it was the Deputy President, the Hon. Shayne Mallard—the same committee recommended that if a national dust diseases register was not established by the end of 2019, the Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3930

New South Wales Government should establish a New South Wales dust diseases register. Let us be clear: They were unanimous recommendations from two successive inquiries chaired by two coalition partners of the current Government. As early as 2018 a committee of this House was saying to the Government that New South Wales needs a dust diseases register. We are well into 2020 and there is no Commonwealth or national dust diseases register in sight. The bill does not establish a dust diseases register; it purports to establish a dust disease register. There is a wide gap between the one provision of the bill and the promises that the Minister made in his second reading speech, in which he said that this is a register. As the committee learnt through the inquiry that it undertook, it is not. It is simply an information-sharing provision. It is, of itself, welcome, but it nowhere near resembles a dust disease register of the type New South Wales needs to deal with the explosion of silicosis in the State. I congratulate my colleagues from all parties who were on those two law and justice committees and made strong recommendations to fight the spread of this terrible but preventable occupational disease in New South Wales. Labor is concerned that the bill grants discretionary powers to NSW Health. We are told that the dust disease register—or what purports to be the dust disease register—is to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding between NSW Health and SafeWork NSW. We have now had the opportunity to look at that draft memorandum of understanding, which purports to introduce a regulator, and from which it is clear that NSW Health decides if and what information is passed on. In his second reading speech the Minister stated that the Health Secretary is not under any duty to disclose information. Queensland introduced a notifiable dust diseases register last year in its Public Health Act. In New South Wales, despite having some of the highest cases, no comparable action has been taken by the Minister. Sadly, the result of this delay is that more workers are at risk of developing debilitating and incurable disease, so Labor will reserve its position on the bill at the second reading stage and look forward to debating it in Committee. Labor will seek to make the bill true to the Minister's word. We will seek to introduce a notifiable dust disease register at law. We will seek to remove the register from an arrangement between two agencies reflected in an unenforceable memorandum of understanding and placing it within the law of the State. We will seek to direct SafeWork NSW to undertake a case-finding study. These are two aspects of Labor's 10-point plan when it comes to silicosis that it will pursue through the Committee stage of the bill. We thank the Government for the professionalism of the dialogue so far on the matter. Between now and the Committee stage, we look forward to concluding that dialogue with Minister Anderson's office. I place on the record my appreciation for the professionalism displayed since the committee completed its inquiry. I reserve on the professionalism displayed before we commenced our inquiry. Mr David Shoebridge: What about his media release? The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I acknowledge that interjection; I make no comment. In the good-faith spirit in which we now engage with Minister Anderson, I make no reference to that press release. Mr Shoebridge might, and I accept that. We will support any constructive action from Executive Government that means that New South Wales workers have more protection. We look forward to the Committee stage in which we are able to deliver the commitments of the New South Wales Government better than it has. We look forward to implementing the cross-party unanimous recommendations that the law and justice committee has now made twice, or at least we look forward to pursuing it. Labor will not oppose the debate going into the Committee stage. Labor reserves its position to see what emerges in the Committee stage. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (18:46:30): On behalf of The Greens, I speak on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020. The Greens will not oppose this bill but will seek to substantially amend it to live up to at least some of the promises that the Government gave when introducing the bill. The bill as drafted by the Government does not produce a dust disease register or a silicosis register. The overview of the bill states: The object of this Bill is to authorise the Secretary of the Ministry of Health to provide information to the regulator established by the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The substantive part of the bill is less than half a page in length. It permits, but does not require, the Secretary of the Ministry of Health to provide certain information to the secretary responsible for the Work Health and Safety Act. That is what it does. It does not create a register. It does not compel the production of information, even in relation to one category of dust disease, nor does it compel the production of information in relation to silicosis cases. The Government introduced the bill with great fanfare and said it was living up to its promise to introduce silicosis register—it does not and it never did. I am glad to say that in more recent days there have been some productive discussions with the Government. I would hope that by Thursday we could be in a position to agree to a set of amendments that establishes a silicosis register in New South Wales. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3931

Why do we need this? I first became aware of the emerging crisis of silicosis mainly among workers who deal with manufactured stone. Manufactured stone is the shiny, uniform, stone-like product that many of us see increasingly in kitchen bench tops, in commercial kitchens and in commercial fit-outs across our cities and towns. It looks nice and uniform. It is very shiny and is relatively easy to work with. However, it kills the people who work with it. The cutting of the product produces a fine silica dust and those silica crystals lodge in workers' lungs. We are increasingly seeing workers as young as their late 20s being stricken with silicosis. In far too many cases it is untreatable and fatal. Some workers in those circumstances are lucky enough to get a lung transplant—I say "lucky enough" in the context of the awful trauma that they and their families face— but most do not and in too many cases it can be fatal. It is not always fatal, but we are seeing workers in their late twenties, early thirties being struck down with this appalling disease. When I first became aware of the disease I found that cases had been cropping up around the world. Many of the cases first arose in Israel where Caesarstone—one of the largest manufacturers—is located, and the debate we are having now has been mirrored in Israel as they have been seeking to get on top of the crisis of silicosis in that country. But it is happening also in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and across Europe. Wherever this manufactured stone is found, following it—sometimes a decade later—is this dreadful toll upon the workforce who work with it. I first became aware of this as an emerging issue in about 2016. So when the Standing Committee on Law and Justice held its inquiry in 2017, I made it a focus of the work I did on that committee to try and find out what the work health and safety regulators and what the insurer, icare, had been doing in that space. It would be fair to say that in 2015-16 and 2016-17 little, if anything, was being done and more and more of these cases started coming through. I was alerted to this, in part, by the proactive work of the Thoracic Society, whose doctors and specialists who were increasingly seeing coming into their practice these young workers with this potentially fatal diagnosis of silicosis. I am grateful to them, and we should all be grateful to them, for the proactive work they did in trying to draw the attention of governments and parliamentarians to the problem. In New South Wales, nine silicosis cases were registered in 2014-15, nine in 2015-16, nine in 2016-17 and it went down to just six in 2017-18, if my data is right. The Government was asking why we were raising this issue, that "there is nothing to see here". Meanwhile, a case-finding study in Queensland was showing scores of those cases in the construction sector in Queensland from construction workers who were doing multiple kitchen fit-outs primarily in high-rise buildings. Then, after pressure was put upon icare to start asking questions, to do proactive screening, to increase the number of screenings it does with its Lung Bus, to send the Lung Bus out to do screenings onsite—and they are screenings only with an X-ray, which most experts say is an inadequate form of screening and does not pick up all silicosis cases; there needs to be low-dose MRI screenings done—the number of cases that were found started to dramatically increase. In 2018-19, 40 cases of silicosis were found. The most recent data, if my numbers are right, in the financial year ending 2019-20 found 140 cases of silicosis. Far too many of those cases will be fatal, and often they are young workers struck down in their working prime. The bill before us today, failing to put in place a silicosis register, failing to live up to the promises that have been repeatedly made, is deeply disappointing. In 2017, once we got some of that evidence from the Thoracic Society and from unions—and I commend in particular the work of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [CFMMEU] in this regard, which has been clear and unambiguous in calling for action because it is their members who are dying—the Standing Committee on Law and Justice stated: A national register for gathering data on the incidence of dust disease would provide a variety of benefits, including information sharing and contributing to disease prevention, planning, research and education. The information could also be used to identify trends across industry, occupations, locations and age groupings, allowing for resources to be directed where needed. The committee is encouraged by icare's interest in establishing and co-funding a national system, but acknowledge it would need commitment from key stakeholders across the country. The committee recommends that icare commence consultations with these stakeholders to examine the feasibility of establishing such a system. The recommendation was that "icare consult with stakeholders to examine the feasibility of establishing a dust diseases data collection system". That recommendation was the compromise that we reached and I am grateful to say that it was unanimous. I would have liked a far clearer and more urgent recommendation, but that is what we got in 2017. In the 2019 report the committee revisited this issue and said: The committee acknowledges that icare and SIRA are supportive of a national register and have been advocating for its inception. Some stakeholders note that implementing a register is an urgent priority and point to Queensland which is in the process of legislating for the establishment of its own register. A national register is the optimal solution, however if this is not expedited the committee recommends as an alternative that New South Wales establishes its own dust diseases register as a priority in the new Parliament. Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3932

The recommendation was that if a national dust disease register is not established by the end of 2019 the New South Wales Government establish a New South Wales dust diseases register. That was a unanimous recommendation. Mr Deputy President, I think you were the committee chair at the time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): I am getting a lot of credit for this. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Or was that the Hon. Wes Fang? The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It was the Hon. Wes Fang. The one before was the Hon. Shayne Mallard. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the work of all members on that committee to get to that point. Then we find this bill, and this bill is not a register. The Government wanted to push the bill through in the last parliamentary sitting and force it through for adoption. In fact, the Opposition and I said, "This is not living up to the commitment; it is not producing a register. Sit down and talk with us and we will see if we can get a register up." We then said, "If you are not going to sit down and talk with us, it should go to a short, sharp committee inquiry." We got a media release from the Minister attacking the Opposition, me and The Greens for not supporting the bill and with some claims in that media release about how this Government was establishing a register. It was unfortunate, unhelpful and uninformed—thankfully it was unread—but we then had the inquiry. I will read from page 8 of the inquiry's report. The committee found as follows: While several inquiry participants agreed that the bill was a "step in the right direction", some expressed dissatisfaction that the bill did not offer further dust disease policy action, such as the establishment of a dust diseases register or other recommended policy action in this area. As both the CFMMEU and Unions NSW stated in their submissions, the bill does not create or assist in creating a full dust diseases register. According to the CFMMEU: [I]t remains unclear how the proposed reform will assist in implementing a national dust diseases register. Nor is it clear that the reform is intended to apply to a broader range of dust diseases other than those associated with silicosis. The report continues: In this regard, Unions NSW called for a register of notifiable dust lung diseases similar to the Queensland model so as to allow for monitoring and analysis of data. At 2.22 the report states: In addition, Associate Professor Deborah Yates, Respiratory Medicine Physician, Royal Australasian College of Physicians— and one of those members of the Thoracic Society who I credit for ringing the bell on this— highlighted that there are "a large number of diseases that are not included under the category of silicosis", and therefore by only having silicosis as a notifiable medical condition "then one would probably miss a large proportion of the others". This was supported by Dr Edwards, who noted that the Queensland "legislative framework … goes beyond just silica dust diseases in its reporting requirements". Further, there was some discussion among stakeholders about the need to implement recommendations previously made by this committee in its recent reviews of the dust diseases scheme. For example, Ms Rita Mallia, President, CFMMEU, called for the government to "undertake a comprehensive Case Finding Study in relation to exposure to silica and the extent to which workers suffer silica related disease, and the need to reduce further the safe exposure limit" as recommended in the 2018 Dust Diseases review. The ultimate recommendation from that committee report was that we take those observations into account in the debate and in any amendments that we present. So where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves with a dreadfully inadequate bill, but we find ourselves in a situation where there has been productive conversations in the last week with the Minister. I am hopeful that those conversations will lead to an agreed register in New South Wales that in time will include all the relevant lung diseases—silicosis and other related diseases—and provide a clear pathway so that information comes from NSW Health to SafeWork NSW and is then available for policy work to prevent this dreadful and unnecessary disease. This register, these health responses and the debate we are having here are all essential because we continue to allow a dreadfully dangerous manufactured stone product to be used in our society. There is no need for manufactured stone to be used. We do not need to have a marginally cheaper and marginally shinier kitchen if the workforce who install it is dying. Yes, let us get the register in place and let us have the amendments next week but let us do what the construction union has been calling for. Let us do what The Greens have been demanding for two years. Let us not just put in a register and record the tragic toll of people dying from working with this manufactured stone. Let us ban manufactured stone as well. Let us actually address the source of the problem. Let us look at the work health and safety hierarchy and do what we were told we should do when we looked at that hierarchy of responses to risk. Let us remove the risk in the first place. I think there will be more debate on this in the committee stage. The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (19:01:00): Manufactured stone fabricators are killing workers. It has been a cowboy industry and the harmful effects of silica dust have been known for decades. In fact, we know that the material handling guides identified that manufactured stone had a deleterious effect on workers' health at a very early stage. We know it is a preventable disease and the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 20202 is a piece in the suite of measures required to address this re-emerging epidemic. I grant Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3933

that it is a positive step, but we know that with the emergence of manufactured stone silicosis has re-emerged in our society. Recently, we have all gained more knowledge and understanding of epidemiology so we are familiar with the concepts of tracking and tracing and identifying clusters. This is the kind of technique that needs to be applied to addressing the silicosis epidemic. If NSW Health shares the relevant information with SafeWork NSW, we will be able to identify workers who are affected, have those workers interviewed and the sites they have worked at— and the workers who have also been exposed—can be identified and screened for silicosis and silica-based conditions. That is why a case finding study is essential and that is what a case finding study would look like. Another interesting issue around this re-emergence of silicosis is that because it is a preventable disease and because measures had been taken previously to eliminate it, the expertise around identifying silicosis and the expertise of radiologists in identifying silica-related diseases in workers has diminished because there have been fewer cases. With its re-emergence, society needs to reacquire those skills. Re-establishing a register where we can pool information and examine cases over a long period enables specialists to gain greater understanding of the prevalence of the disease. They can better understand its origins, its sources and how to treat the condition. That is why case finding studies and establishing a silicosis register are essential. This legislation is a step in the right direction but unfortunately it does not create a register and we do not have a commitment to a case finding study. Until we have those, we will not be able to eliminate silicosis. Debate adjourned. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That this House do now adjourn. FIREARMS PERMITS KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (19:05:30): Deeply distressing evidence has been heard by the Coroner's Court concerning the appallingly violent murder of two teenage children—and the resulting death of their mum— by a man who carried a handgun that the police allowed him to own and who called himself the father. This was a man with a violent and controlling past. When the children's mum went to police to seek help and to end his violence, instead of taking her concern seriously they did not even talk to the children. Instead police marked a report "domestic violence - no offence detected" with a note adding that it may be a premeditated attempt to influence future Family Court and divorce proceedings. If the NSW Police Force had recorded the report as "domestic violence - assault" and it was an assault on her children, it would have shown up in the search by the NSW Firearms Registry when this man successfully applied for a gun licence the following year. That said, when the Firearms Registry was considering this man's application for a gun permit, they scrolled past 15 entries relating to either apprehended violence orders, stalking allegations, assault allegations or adverse interactions in relationships and they still issued him with a firearms permit. As of June 2019 there were 27 vacancies at the Firearms Registry, meaning it was operating at only 65 per cent capacity. Chronic understaffing and deep cultural problems within the police produce failures like this. When dealing with firearms, such failures can be fatal. We now know this man was rejected by several gun clubs that refused to let him train. He then approached the NSW Police Force and they gave him a General Commissioner's Permit which he used to purchase five guns, one of which he used to commit his crime. In the immediate aftermath of these murders, the police commissioner's response was not to apologise to the family, not to increase resources to the Firearms Registry or admit to any failures. It was to remove the name "commissioner" from the permit. His instinct was to first protect the reputation of the police and himself. It is hard to understand or forgive this. The coronial inquest continues, as does the grief caused by yet more lives lost to domestic abuse and gun violence. No changed form and no internal memo will come close to delivering the change needed to protect victims and survivors from domestic abuse and gun violence in this State. This all happened in the context of a society-wide failure to confront the domestic violence crisis. The grossly inadequate actions by police compounded the problem. I hope the Coroner will see this. If we are serious about protecting koalas, there is one simple step this Government can take that will save taxpayer money, secure a future for koalas and even help us deal with climate change. It is ending native forest Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3934

logging. We know that State forests across New South Wales include critical habitat for koalas and we know koalas have already lost far too much habitat. Allowing any more to be deliberately destroyed will mean we lose them forever. Forestry Corporation falsely claims that logging and koalas have coexisted for the past 100 years, but that is quite a claim when in just one week in May this year contractors recorded the death of a koala in Dingo State Forest and an injured koala in Kalateenee State Forest. Hundreds of other deaths just went unnoticed with industrial logging. There are currently 78 State forests on the list for logging this year, including Mogo, Bodalla, Wild Cattle Creek, Styx River and Clouds Creek. Many of these 78 forests contain koala habitat. Koalas and logging cannot coexist. The NSW Koala Strategy has set aside 24,000 hectares of new koala reserves. For context, 890,000 hectares of native State forests were impacted during the 2019-20 fires. With an estate of more than two million hectares, it is clear that more must be done and 24,000 hectares will go nowhere near what is needed to save koalas. I say to Government members that if you are serious about protecting koalas, here is one simple, meaningful way to do it. End native forest logging and have a legacy you can actually be proud of. The Koala Strategy has set aside 24,000 hectares of new koala reserves. For context, there are 890,000 hectares of native State forest that were affected just in the 2019-20 fires. Within a State of more than two million hectares it is clear to see that much more must be done and 24,000 hectares will go nowhere near what is needed to save koalas. If the Government is serious about protecting koalas, here is one simple and meaningful way to do it: end native forest logging and have a legacy the Government can actually be proud of. ANTI-SEMITISM The Hon. NATALIE WARD (19:10:02): In 2018 Attorney General the Hon. Mark Speakman introduced tough laws making it a criminal offence to publicly threaten on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex or HIV/AIDS status. Section 93Z of the Crimes Act attracts a maximum penalty of three years in prison for this crime. The laws reflect the sentiment in the community that hate speech inciting violence is unacceptable. Our right to speak freely does not and should not extend to violent hate speech. In Australia—in 2020 or ever—free speech does not allow us to threaten to behead someone. We live in a country that has free education, free health care, that looks after its people and is a righteous democracy. Those privileges come with the obligation to respect our laws and conventions. In 2017 Ismail al-Wahwah, the leader of the radical fringe Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, spouted a number of statements about the Jewish community. That person is a resident of our free, democratic and peaceful country. The statements made by al-Wahwah were extremely concerning. They were not welcome in our community in 2017 and they are not welcome now. I do not wish to repeat the words he said because I do not want to give them any more oxygen. Suffice to say they were targeted at the Jewish community. There were targeted at hatred. They talked about knives, infidels and beheading. When al-Wahwah first made those statements in 2017 it led community leaders across multiple faiths and backgrounds to work together and to establish the group Keep NSW Safe. The group, led by Mr Vic Alhadeff from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, successfully campaigned for the creation of a new criminal offence targeting speech that incites violence. On 29 July this year Ismail al-Wahwah emerged from the dark cave of hatred in which he resides to repost his vile hate speech from 2017 on a YouTube channel bearing his name. As chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel I denounce those comments. As a person who is privileged to serve as a member of this place—as a mother, a wife and an Australian—I call out this hateful, violent, offensive behaviour. No matter your religion, your faith or what you believe in, there is never an excuse to incite violence against anyone in our community, particularly based on their faith. New South Wales is a proud multicultural and multi-faith society and encouraging violence based on someone's race or religion is entirely unacceptable. In May this year the New South Wales Government launched the Stop Public Threats campaign to ensure that the community understands its legal rights and to encourage people to report any threats of violence to police. I encourage anyone who witnesses or is a victim of a threat of violence to contact the Police Assistance Line on 131444 or, in the case of an emergency, 000. We will continue to call out those hateful statements and those hateful crime speeches wherever we need to. I thank Mr Vic Alhadeff, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Keep NSW Safe for staying on top of this matter. I am pleased that it has now been referred to the NSW Police Force and I await its investigation. VIRTUAL MEETINGS The Hon. WALT SECORD (19:13:59): As the deputy chair of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel I often get invited to talks by visiting international experts. I thought that COVID would put an end to those exchanges. Surprisingly I have found that I am actually getting more access to a more varied range of lecturers than I could get in person. That is largely due to Zoom and the effect that products like it have on communities Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3935

and businesses adjusting to social distancing rules. Zoom now claims that it brings together more than 300 million participants each day. On a busy day I can participate in five or six Zoom meetings, but most relate to me in my capacity as shadow Treasurer. In fact. I have a new sticker on my door that says, "If it is closed do not enter as I am in a Zoom meeting." In the last few weeks alone I have heard former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd speak on Israel-United Arab Emirates normalising ties; Jerusalem-based Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee's International Director of Interreligious Affairs, speak on the current state of Muslim-Jewish relations; Anat Hoffman of the Israel Religious Action Centre urge diaspora Jewry to become more involved in religious affairs in Israel; and Lord John Mann, the United Kingdom's first adviser to the government on anti-Semitism, and former Federal Labor MP Dr Mike Kelly speak on international global trends in anti-Semitism. Many of those were events that I might not have been able to attend if they were held live. Indeed I wonder if, in academic circles, the ability to engage with specific international conferences online will ultimately be a greater democratising force. A researcher can hear the best thinkers in their field and engage with them on their work and theories. The door has been flung open to the entire world. In addition to business and academic growth, virtual meetings have gotten families through the isolation of COVID lockdowns. On a personal level, we regularly follow Shabbat services at the Emanuel Synagogue on Zoom. In May this year we marked Shauvot online. On the weekend of 12 September we watched the blowing of the shofar and viewed a joint Selichot service from Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. We are now looking forward to the Jewish high holy days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which will be conducted online this year. Furthermore I have taken all of my Hebrew lessons via Zoom with Ms Shelly Triffon, who is director of the Sydney Hebrew Ulpan. Surprisingly Shelly and I have completed the entire alphabet but we have never met face to face. Born and educated in Israel, she is a first-class instructor and is very patient. Whenever anyone in the Jewish community asks me about my progress I give full credit to Shelly. As a 55-year-old grappling with a new language I am appreciative of their support and for cheering me on. As shadow Minister for the Arts I have attended writers' festivals, individual book launches and theatrical events online. As shadow Treasurer I have held many financial meetings on infrastructure, unemployment, procurement, investment, superannuation and the economy, as well as reconciliation and a treaty. Most recently on 10 September I was involved in an Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce New South Wales branch talk on COVID and tourism, chaired by University of Technology Sydney academic Dr David Beirman and hosted by chamber CEO Michelle Blum. Dr Beirman observed that in 2019 Australia had 1.4 million international visitors and tourism was growing at 4 per cent a year. For the past 50 years travel has become cheaper by the year, but that is no longer the case. Globally, 215 countries restricted or closed their borders; Australia went even further and effectively banned outbound travel. New South Wales and Australia are therefore facing their biggest economic challenge since World War II, but we can now see "green shoots" as regional and rural tourism benefits from no overseas travel. There is an extraordinary pent-up demand but the onus is on the Berejiklian Government to translate that into domestic activity. The virtual meeting has taken off so much that I understand airlines are now concerned about the corporate market being dramatically reduced by Zoom and similar technologies. That will mean that corporate travel may not return to previous levels. I say "may not" because it is in our nature that we expect that what we see today will continue. However, if we develop a vaccine, we may see the human desire to meet face to face put planes back into the skies. In the meantime, virtual meetings have been a fantastic bonus on many levels. They have opened us to speakers and events which we would have never dreamt about in the past. As tough as periods of lockdown have been for Australians—and may yet be—I ask them to think about how much harder these times would have been in the pre-digital age. It gives one a new respect for those who saw through the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. I thank the House for its consideration. ENERGY POLICY The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (19:18:27): I quote: It's almost 3 p.m. Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead), turn off excess lights and unplug any appliances you're not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part. One would think this announcement came from a third world country, not from the Mayor of Los Angeles on 7 September 2020 during California's current heatwave and energy crisis. As my colleague the Hon. Mark Latham commented in the media recently: California closed nuclear and gas plants and said 'renewables will do the job'. This is the inevitable result … Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3936

New South Wales needs to pay attention to and learn from that failed policy. During coronavirus and a heatwave, millions of Californians were forced to struggle with inadequate electricity supplies. What did this do to businesses, hospitals and schools? Weather dependent, California sits on a knife's edge. It narrowly avoided rolling blackouts, thanks to natural gas-fired power plants, not large-scale solar and wind farms. Twice in one weekend the State's grid operator called for emergency outages due to inadequate power supplies, in part because demand peaked as solar production began its evening decline. The State relies on natural gas plants to produce power at peak times but even that was not enough. Californian Governor Gavin Newsom said that the emergency outages demonstrate the challenges California faces in making sure its transition to cleaner power does not come at the expense of reliability. I suggest Minister take note. The United States' largest and most pioneering State, when it comes to greening the grid, is now struggling to keep the lights on. California has almost eliminated coal and has reduced its reliance on natural gas and nuclear power in favour of renewables, which now supply more than one-third of its daily energy needs. The State relies heavily on imports from other States, which are also experiencing high demand during the heatwave. In evaluating why the grid is not able to handle the extreme stress, it is perfectly clear that this could be avoided with the support of greater baseload power. It is obvious that gas and nuclear power plants are needed to keep the system operating. So why did the New South Wales Government reject nuclear energy by not lifting the ban on uranium mining in New South Wales? With nuclear energy placed on the backburner, is the Government's push for 100 per cent renewables going to produce reliable baseload power and avoid blackouts in our extreme heatwaves? I think not. California's experience shows us that. The people of New South Wales have been through too much to have to undergo further experiments. We face record levels of unemployment during the recession. There is a push for Australia to look after its own first and to bring business and manufacturing back to our shores. We need to create jobs—and fast. In order for that to happen, businesses and people require energy certainty. A necessary condition of high employment and manufacturing is low-cost reliable electricity. Why cannot all energy sources be considered—gas, nuclear, high-efficiency low-emissions coal power, clean-coal technologies, hydro, wind and solar? Why can they not compete on an equal playing field, which means slashing subsidies to renewables? According to Mineral Council of Australia research, subsidies to renewable energies will cost $2.8 billion a year for the next 10 years. New South Wales taxpayers have a right to know the true cost of different energy sources. Let us not forget the last Federal election campaign, dubbed by the media "the climate election". The majority of Australians rejected it. What are voters' priorities today? How do the people of New South Wales see energy policy in relation to broader policies such as job creation, supporting small business, building new industries, local manufacturing and infrastructure? Is the public confident in its understanding of climate change? Does it know that nuclear energy produces zero emissions? Are we capable of having a mature, informed debate over sensible energy policies to build a stronger New South Wales? Like the Californian experience has shown, we do not want to leave our grid vulnerable. COVID-19 AND VICTORIA The Hon. LOU AMATO (19:23:15): The SARS-CoV-2 virus and its associated health problems are disturbing. However, most Australians are more alarmed by the current behaviour of the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews. Not only has he mismanaged the Victorian COVID response, he has deliberately misled the Victorian people. Of particular concern is his continual denial that the Federal Government offered the services of the Australian Defence Force to support his dismal quarantine efforts. Evidence has surfaced of the offer of Federal Government support. However, Mr Andrews, with his typical stone face, continues to deny the hard evidence. When we contrast our Premier with Daniel Andrews we see a different picture. Admittedly the New South Wales Government made some mistakes in the early days as it came to terms with COVID-19. However, our Premier and the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government has become a shining example of how to deal with the COVID pandemic. As a conservative government, we understood the need to ensure the health of our citizens and the importance of keeping our economy alive. We also understood the need for freedom and democracy to reign, no matter what trials were before us. Daniel Andrews seems to have forgotten that Australia is a democracy and a total lockdown of the Victorian economy will have far more dire consequences than the COVID-19 virus. Mr Andrews' initial response to COVID-19 was the most dictatorial and draconian of any State, yet he still botched the job. His current response is extremely alarming. Members know about the arrest of a pregnant woman who made a political statement in a Facebook post. She was handcuffed in front of her children and taken away. Victorians are now under Orwellian-like curfews, with their lives totally in the control of the State. We have seen police harassing defenceless elderly women sitting on a park bench. None of this is a surprise; Daniel Andrews' election platform was filled with identity politics and typical social engineering straight from a Karl Marx grab bag. Hopefully the Victorians understand the consequences of installing a Labor government. No doubt when Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3937

Mr Andrews is eventually booted out it will take a Liberal government to fix the problem. Hopefully future elections will still be occurring in Victoria for that to happen. Residents in Victoria who have escaped falling victim to Mr Andrews' induced Stockholm syndrome are not happy. They are wondering why New South Wales has been able to manage COVID-19 and keep its economy running. Why does Victoria have 14 times the number of deaths of New South Wales? New South Wales was hit with the same virus, just like the rest of the world, and was flying blind until the Government's understanding of what it was dealing with slowly evolved. Undoubtedly, we made some initial mistakes. However, we learnt from them. That is what good governments do. No government or agency has all the answers. New South Wales certainly did not. However, the Government knew with certainty that it had two priorities: first, the health and safety of the people of New South Wales and, secondly, the health of the State's economy. Just as we built the roads and infrastructure that rescued New South Wales from years of neglect by the Labor Party, we built systems to manage the COVID pandemic, whilst Daniel Andrews read scripted speeches blaming the Victorian people for his own failings. NSW Health had already deployed its highly trained team of contact tracers. We increased testing and made it easy for our people by establishing drive-through testing facilities. Whilst Daniel Andrews imposed curfews and closed businesses, New South Wales soldiered on. According to Michael Walsh, QC, one of Melbourne's top silks, Daniel Andrews' imposed curfew on Victorian citizens is legally invalid. None of that seems to matter to Mr Andrews who obviously pictures himself as Victoria's authoritarian leader, outside of the restraints of the law and the general principles of Australian democracy. Our Premier Gladys Berejiklian and, indeed, the entire New South Wales Government are to be commended on what has been described as the model for all others to follow. We have not beaten COVID-19 and our lives have not returned to normal but we can rest assured that the New South Wales Government is committed to working for the people of New South Wales to consign COVID to a distant memory. Our great hope is that the world can return to a pre-COVID existence. Our thoughts go out to our fellow Australians in Victoria. Victoria's floundering Premier Daniel Andrews has received numerous offers of assistance from the New South Wales and Federal governments. Hopefully he has the foresight to accept them. Daniel Andrews is not only destroying the Victorian economy but also is damaging the national economy. COOMA COMMUNITY The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (19:27:45): I stand with Dan. Recently I visited the lovely town of Cooma with the NSW Labor leader. The Daily Telegraph held its annual bush summit there in August. It was a great opportunity to show the Labor leader around the town and to meet with a number of fantastic local people, some great hardworking community groups and local businesses. It has not been an easy time in regional New South Wales, including in Cooma and the Snowy Monaro region. Bushfires, drought and now the COVID pandemic have had an unprecedented economic and social impact on the region. However, it is a wonderfully resilient community and I take the opportunity to recognise some of its members. I thank the staff at Cooma Hospital, especially the Health Services Union members and delegates whom we met. They are doing great work in keeping people safe at the local hospital. I thank the team from the Cooma Multicultural Centre, the local Country Women's Association of New South Wales and the Snowy Monaro Regional Youth Council for sharing their stories. The Cooma Multicultural Centre connects people of diverse cultural backgrounds who live in the Cooma and Snowy region. This incredible centre works to bring together 100 people from more than 50 ethnic backgrounds and offers to support, skill and train or provide a space to talk. It was great to meet a number of them in August and especially the excellent Evie who runs the centre and is well regarded by all. Likewise, the Country Women's Association in Cooma offers an important voice to women in the area. It was great to hear about the important work they did supporting their community during the bushfires. I am sure the firefighters are still thankful for the record number of sandwiches that CWA members made to keep them going over the summer. As I listened to each of the groups, it was clear that now more than ever southern New South Wales needs greater support. The local community is up for any challenge but they need the resources to do it. They need more support to keep businesses going, people in jobs and access to services. The critical recurring issue that I hear is that of access to services. We know that there is a disparity between the services on offer to support people in Sydney and major cities and those in regional communities such as Cooma. Our regional communities are feeling it, particularly when it comes to accessing mental health and other health services. Young students I met with as part of the Snowy Monaro Regional Youth Council were acutely aware of the need for change. This inspiring and impressive group of young leaders spoke with me about their 2020 experiences, as they navigate through remote school learning, drought and bushfires. They spoke not only of the limits of seeking help in the Snowy Monaro region but also about their pride for their community and their wishes Tuesday, 15 September 2020 Legislative Council Page 3938

for great futures locally. We need to invest in support for more jobs in regional areas. People want to be able to live and work in their communities, and not feel they have no choice but to move to the city for work. With official figures showing youth unemployment at 11.9 per cent in regional New South Wales and up to 20 per cent in some parts of New South Wales—a shocking figure—there is an urgent need to address training, skills and development and a jobs plan for regional New South Wales. It is possible to do it well. I also had the chance to meet with the team at a totally locally based women's clothing company called Birdsnest—I am sure members are familiar with it. It is a very successful company formed in and still wholly run from Cooma. The entire operation is run from its site on Sharp Street—the shop, the online store, the designers, the warehouse and shipping, and a studio where they bring models to town to shoot advertising and online shopping campaigns. It is a fantastic, sophisticated operation and there is no reason we cannot support more businesses to work from the regions in a similar way. If there can be a lesson from this pandemic period, it is that we can structure our working lives outside the CBD so we can give more consideration to supporting ideas and businesses to do just that. Finally, I give a shout-out to the local Australian Labor Party members who care so much about their local community. It was great to have time to catch up with Labor's local crew and I thank P.D. Murphy's cafe for fantastic coffee throughout the day. We should take any chance we have in this place to recognise regional communities. QANTAS WORKERS The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (19:31:59): I take this opportunity to raise an important issue that I am sure many members of this House would not be aware of. Last Friday I attended a rally in York Street on behalf of 2½ thousand Qantas workers who have been told by the CEO, Alan Joyce—the highest paid CEO in the country—that they have to justify why they should keep their jobs. Those workers receive JobKeeper. The Federal Government is doing the right thing in paying the company JobKeeper so that it can keep workers on and they are being asked to justify why they should keep their jobs. We have witnessed scenes in airports of workers from Swissport—a company that is notorious for paying under award wages—sleeping on the floor because they are doing split shifts and cannot go home. That is the way this great Australian icon—this once-great company that the CEO has run into the ground—is treating workers. Since the pandemic began, Qantas has received $800 million in public subsidies. People who have worked for this company for 30 and 40 years are sons, daughters, fathers and uncles. I have a personal connection with this company—my mother worked for Qantas over 30 years and my sister still works there as a flight attendant. Guess what? My sister receives JobKeeper but frontline staff—cleaners, baggage handlers and ground staff—are being told that they must find $100 million in cost savings so they can justify keeping their jobs in the middle of the pandemic. As if there is not enough stress and job insecurity, the CEO of a national icon is telling workers that they may not have a job, all the while taking $800 million in subsidies courtesy of the Australian taxpayer and, moreover, receiving JobKeeper. That is absolutely disgraceful. I do not care if it is a Federal or a State issue; it must be brought to the attention of this House. Every Australian—not least every Australian politician—should be concerned about it and we should be out there defending those jobs and those workers. This country is going down the path where it is all about the bottom line and superficial accounting procedures that make things look good on someone's balance sheet so that shareholders feel comfortable, all the while creating insecure employment, taking spending power out of the economy and not allowing people to go out and participate in economic activity and get the loans they need to feed their families and put food on the table. The name of this once-great company is being trashed and, along with it, the name of Australia because it is the national carrier. It is disgraceful, it should not be allowed and it should be called out at every opportunity. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 19:35 until Wednesday 16 September 2020 at 10:00.