New South Wales

Legislative Council

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Fifty-Seventh Parliament First Session

Tuesday, 4 August 2020

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Documents ...... 2595 Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link ...... 2595 Correspondence ...... 2595 Bills ...... 2596 Crimes Amendment (Special Care Offences) Bill 2020 ...... 2596 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Bill 2020 ...... 2596 Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 2596 State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 2596 Digital Restart Fund Bill 2019 ...... 2596 Assent ...... 2596 Governor ...... 2596 Administration of the Government ...... 2596 Bills ...... 2596 Casino Control Amendment (Inquiries) Bill 2020 ...... 2596 Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Sustainability Infrastructure) Bill 2020 ...... 2596 Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 ...... 2596 First Reading ...... 2596 Digital Restart Fund Bill 2019 ...... 2596 Messages ...... 2596 Announcements ...... 2596 Covid-Safe Arrangements ...... 2596 Acting Editor of Debates ...... 2597 Parliament House Ceilings Project ...... 2597 Search Warrants ...... 2597 Members ...... 2598 The Hon. ...... 2598 Leave of Absence...... 2598 Documents ...... 2599 Law Enforcement Conduct Commission ...... 2599 Reports ...... 2599 Tabling of Papers ...... 2599 Tabled Papers not Ordered to be Printed ...... 2599 Committees ...... 2600 Committee on the Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Crime Commission ...... 2600 Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies ...... 2600 Legislation Review Committee ...... 2600 Reports ...... 2600 Selection of Bills Committee ...... 2600 Reports ...... 2600 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Documents ...... 2604 Papers Presented Out of Session ...... 2604 Auditor-General ...... 2604 Reports ...... 2604 Committees ...... 2604 Committee on Children and Young People ...... 2604 Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports and Other Matters of the Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People ...... 2604 Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment ...... 2604 Report: Koala Populations and Habitat in New South Wales ...... 2604 Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry ...... 2605 Reports ...... 2605 Bills ...... 2605 Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 ...... 2605 First Reading ...... 2605 Business of the House ...... 2605 Restoration of Business ...... 2605 Committees ...... 2605 Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs ...... 2605 Report: Rural Fires Amendment (NSW RFS and Brigades Donations Fund) Bill 2020 ...... 2605 Business of the House ...... 2606 Restoration of Business ...... 2606 Documents ...... 2606 NSW Building Commissioner ...... 2606 Return to Order ...... 2606 Unlicensed Electricians...... 2606 Claim of Privilege ...... 2606 Return to Order ...... 2606 Public Sector Wages ...... 2606 Correspondence ...... 2606 Principal Bicycle Network ...... 2606 Return to Order ...... 2606 Claim of Privilege ...... 2606 Stronger Country Communities Fund ...... 2606 Return to Order ...... 2606 Claim of Privilege ...... 2607 TAFE NSW Hamilton Campus ...... 2607 Claim of Privilege ...... 2607 Claim of Privilege ...... 2607 Stronger Communities Fund ...... 2607 Return to Order ...... 2607 Covid-19 and Healthcare Workers ...... 2607 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Return to Order ...... 2607 Claim of Privilege ...... 2607 Workers Compensation ...... 2607 Return to Order ...... 2607 Claim of Privilege ...... 2607 Return to Order ...... 2607 Claim of Privilege ...... 2608 Disability Advocacy Services ...... 2608 Return to Order ...... 2608 Claim of Privilege ...... 2608 Return to Order ...... 2608 Claim of Privilege ...... 2608 Recreational Fishing Trust Fund ...... 2608 Return to Order ...... 2608 Claim of Privilege ...... 2608 Federal Financial Relations Review ...... 2608 Return to Order ...... 2608 Claim of Privilege ...... 2608 Young High School Joint Use Library and Community Facility ...... 2608 Return to Order ...... 2608 Claim of Privilege ...... 2609 Return to Order ...... 2609 Claim of Privilege ...... 2609 Environmental Water ...... 2609 Return to Order ...... 2609 Claim of Privilege ...... 2609 Payroll Tax ...... 2609 Claim of Privilege ...... 2609 Get Wild Pty Ltd ...... 2609 Return to Order ...... 2609 Claim of Privilege ...... 2609 Transport Strategic Asset Management Plan ...... 2609 Correspondence ...... 2609 Young High School Joint Use Library and Community Facility ...... 2610 Correspondence ...... 2610 Correspondence ...... 2610 Get Wild Pty Ltd ...... 2610 Correspondence ...... 2610 Floodplain Harvesting ...... 2610 Tabling of Redacted Documents...... 2610 Tabling of Redacted Documents...... 2610 Stronger Communities Fund ...... 2610 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 2610 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 2610 TAFE NSW ...... 2610 Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 2610 Report of Independent Legal Arbiter ...... 2611 Irregular Petitions ...... 2611 Edmondson Park Public School ...... 2611 Business of the House ...... 2611 Precedence of Business ...... 2611 Withdrawal of Business ...... 2611 Members ...... 2611 Leader of the Government ...... 2611 Leader of the House ...... 2611 Parliamentary Secretaries ...... 2611 Representation of Government in the Legislative Council ...... 2611 Questions Without Notice ...... 2612 Covid-19 ...... 2612 Powerhouse Museum ...... 2612 Covid-19 and Public Sector Employees ...... 2613 Teacher Professional Development ...... 2613 Education Week ...... 2614 Marine Estate ...... 2615 State Economy ...... 2615 Drought and Rural and Regional Mental Health ...... 2616 Firefighter Safety Equipment ...... 2617 Education Reform ...... 2617 Covid-19 and Business Connect ...... 2618 Coalmining ...... 2618 Land Tax ...... 2619 Closing the Gap ...... 2620 State Insurance Regulatory Authority...... 2621 Covid-19 and Small Business ...... 2621 Covid-19 and Teachers ...... 2622 Covid-19 and Public Sector Employees ...... 2622 Supplementary Questions for Written Answers ...... 2623 Land Tax ...... 2623 Questions Without Notice: Take Note ...... 2623 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 2623 Education Reform ...... 2623 Teacher Professional Development ...... 2623 Education Reform ...... 2623 Education Week ...... 2624 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Land Tax ...... 2625 Teacher Professional Development ...... 2625 Drought and Rural and Regional Mental Health ...... 2625 Education Reform ...... 2625 Covid-19 and Small Business ...... 2626 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 2626 Deferred Answers ...... 2627 Covid-19 and Schools ...... 2627 Covid-19 and Emergency Services Personnel ...... 2627 Wildlife Trade ...... 2627 Government Performance ...... 2627 Cletus O'Connor Sexual Abuse Allegations ...... 2628 School Cleaning Contractors ...... 2628 School Student Report Cards ...... 2628 Firearms Registry ...... 2629 Disability Advocacy Services ...... 2629 Gaming Machine Tax ...... 2629 Cletus O'Connor Sexual Abuse Allegations ...... 2629 Bushfires and Forestry Industry ...... 2629 Covid-19 and Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras ...... 2630 Early Childhood Centres ...... 2630 Greyhound Racing Industry ...... 2630 Mr ...... 2630 State Economy ...... 2630 Illawarra Shoalhaven Economy ...... 2631 Water Security ...... 2631 Student Electronic Devices ...... 2631 Student Electronic Devices ...... 2632 Water Sharing Plans ...... 2632 Aged-Care Sector ...... 2632 Information Sharing ...... 2632 Written Answers to Supplementary Questions ...... 2632 Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW ...... 2632 School Infrastructure ...... 2633 Notices ...... 2633 Presentation ...... 2633 Rulings ...... 2633 Formal Business ...... 2633 Committees ...... 2634 Select Committee on the High Level of First Nations People in Custody and Oversight and Review of Deaths in Custody ...... 2634 Chair and Membership ...... 2634 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 2634 Membership ...... 2634 Standing Committee on State Development ...... 2634 Membership ...... 2634 Select Committee on the impact of technological and other change on the future of work and workers in New South Wales ...... 2634 Membership ...... 2634 Regulation Committee ...... 2634 Membership ...... 2634 Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs ...... 2634 Membership ...... 2634 Selection of Bills Committee ...... 2635 Membership ...... 2635 Public Accountability Committee ...... 2635 Reference ...... 2635 Bills ...... 2635 Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 ...... 2635 Second Reading Speech ...... 2635 Second Reading Debate ...... 2637 State Revenue Legislation Amendment (COVID-19 Housing Response) Bill 2020 ...... 2641 First Reading ...... 2641 Second Reading Speech ...... 2641 Second Reading Debate ...... 2644 In Committee ...... 2649 Adoption of Report ...... 2654 Third Reading ...... 2654 Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020 ...... 2654 Second Reading Speech ...... 2654 Second Reading Debate ...... 2657 In Committee ...... 2661 Adoption of Report ...... 2681 Third Reading ...... 2682 Adjournment Debate ...... 2682 Adjournment ...... 2682 Modern Slavery Act 2018 ...... 2682 Smile Like Drake Foundation ...... 2683 Animal Cruelty ...... 2683 Covid-19 and Manufacturing Industry ...... 2684 Covid-19 and Working from Home ...... 2685 Covid-19 and Religious Freedom ...... 2686

Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2595

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 4 August 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.

Documents WESTERN HARBOUR TUNNEL AND BEACHES LINK Correspondence The PRESIDENT: On Thursday 18 June 2020 the House ordered that should the Leader of the Government fail to table the final business case for the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link and the strategic business case for the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link, the Leader of the Government is to attend in his place at the table on the next sitting day at the conclusion of the prayers being read to explain his reasons for continued noncompliance. I now call on the Clerk to report correspondence received from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of 18 June 2020 I table correspondence relating to a further order for papers regarding the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link business cases, received on Friday 31 July 2020, from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet attaching a letter from the Secretary of Transport for NSW, certifying that to the best of his knowledge no documents covered by the terms of the resolution and lawfully required to be provided are held. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the order of the House of Thursday 18 June 2020, I call upon the Leader of the Government to explain his reasons for continued noncompliance. The Hon. (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (14:33:27): The Government respects the authority of this House to make orders to compel Government Ministers and agencies to produce documents. The Government acknowledges its obligation to comply with those orders, despite the significant resource and cost burden that is often imposed as a result. However, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has determined that the power of this House to compel the production of documents does not extend to Cabinet information. Accordingly, even if otherwise covered by the terms of an order, Cabinet documents are neither identified nor produced in response to an order. This Government, like successive governments before it, recognises and respects the importance of Cabinet confidentiality to the system of responsible government. It is well established, however, that the Premier, as Chair of Cabinet, may decide to release Cabinet information voluntarily in the public interest. The Government will uphold the longstanding convention that Cabinet information will not be produced or referred to in responding to a resolution made under Standing Order 52. Honourable members would know that there is a cost associated with preparing documents for public release. Documents of a similar nature cost of the order of $250,000 to prepare for public release. The Government assesses the need for voluntary disclosure of Cabinet information on a case-by-case basis. I can now advise that in this case I will voluntarily provide the documents sought to the Clerk of the Legislative Council by 5.00 p.m. on Wednesday. I note that some information will be redacted from the documents where its disclosure could compromise the financial interests of taxpayers; for example, by adversely impacting ongoing commercial negotiations, or where it relates to matters that are still for decision by the Government. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (14:35:43): By leave: I welcome the Leader of the Government back to his former chair. It appears that toll mania has taken its toll during his absence. First, I welcome the Government's concession in voluntarily agreeing to provide those two important documents. It sets a significant precedent in the House. Members heard the Government's many arguments in response to the call for the production of the documents and discussed the matter over many hours in this Chamber. On behalf of the Government, the Leader of the Government in this place has bowed to the will of the House. I welcome that significant concession. It strengthens the earlier precedent established by the Government's production of documents pertaining to the Powerhouse Museum. The precedents are consistent with judicial decisions on House procedure and with the views of members on the scope of powers under Standing Order 52. However, the Executive's admission that it holds that view is also welcome. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2596

Secondly, the power to call for the production of documents is an important power that must be used wisely. However, the power is effective only if it is enforceable. I thank those members of the House who were prepared to act to enforce it. I do not believe it would have happened if certain members had not indicated in the strongest possible terms their preparedness to support enforcement against the Leader of the Government should the Government fail to act. Thirdly, I indicate how the Opposition will proceed. We welcome the concession and propose to inspect the documents. The statement of the Leader of the Government includes a number of caveats. The Opposition would like to inspect the documents as presented. We reserve the right to take action in the House on Thursday to defend the privilege of the House and its members, if that is required. In reserving that right, the Opposition acknowledges that the Government's proposal is a welcome step and sets a significant precedent in this House. I thank the Leader of the Government. Bills CRIMES AMENDMENT (SPECIAL CARE OFFENCES) BILL 2020 MENTAL HEALTH AND COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT FORENSIC PROVISIONS BILL 2020 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2020 DIGITAL RESTART FUND BILL 2019 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bills. Governor ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages regarding the administration of the Government. Bills CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT (INQUIRIES) BILL 2020 STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (SUSTAINABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE) BILL 2020 WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (INFORMATION EXCHANGE) BILL 2020 First Reading Bills received from the Legislative Assembly. Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality. The Hon. : I move: That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. DIGITAL RESTART FUND BILL 2019 Messages The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments to the bill. Announcements COVID-SAFE ARRANGEMENTS The PRESIDENT (14:40:45): I remind all members that in May and June the following measures were implemented to provide for a COVID-safe Chamber: Loqs and Notices Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2597

Loqs and notices prepared by the Procedure Office are sent to members by email, and printed copies are no longer available in the House. The Procedure Office will use the notice it has prepared for you for the Running Record and the Notice Paper unless you advise that the notice you give verbally is different to the one prepared. Formal Business Requests Formal business requests, dated and signed electronically, must be lodged with the Clerk by email to [email protected] by 4.00 p.m. Committee of the Whole Run Sheets Run sheets prepared by the Procedure Office for complex bills will be emailed to members. Divisions Members are to stand in their place and be counted for divisions. Social Distancing I remind members to adhere to the various social distancing measures in the Chamber. This includes sitting on the seating stickers placed on the benches and using hand sanitiser. Members' Speech Notes As members are aware, your written speech notes greatly assist Hansard, ensuring the accurate spelling of names and that quoted material is rendered correctly. It would be appreciated if members or their staff could email speeches to [email protected] as soon as possible after delivering the speech. ACTING EDITOR OF DEBATES The PRESIDENT (14:42:35): I am pleased to announce that, following recruitment action, Merrin Thompson has been appointed Acting Editor of Debates for a period of six months. Merrin has been working for the past 18 years in the Legislative Council Committee Office and commenced her new role on Monday 3 August 2020. On behalf of all members, we congratulate Merrin and wish her the very best in her new position. PARLIAMENT HOUSE CEILINGS PROJECT The PRESIDENT (14:43:08): As members would be aware, the Department of Parliamentary Services Facilities branch has received Treasury funding to replace the 40-year-old ceilings throughout the building. The most recent part of this project has, of course, been the work on members' offices on level 11. The office space has been divided into four zones for the 37 members' offices. Work on zone one started on 19 June, and zone two began on 26 June. Undertaking these two zones simultaneously has reduced the overall project time frame on level 11 by 27 construction days, saving time and money, and reducing the inconvenience to members. I can inform the House that zone three is scheduled to commence on 8 August, with an estimated completion date of 3 October, with zone four starting shortly after the completion of zone three. The work, when completed, will involve the installation of 40 new air conditioning units, 140 light fittings and 60 computer data outlets for the upcoming IPTV rollout. The establishment of 11 temporary members' offices has been a key element to allow the above programming, and the occupancy rate of the rooms was 98.5 per cent for the full six weeks of construction. Several workstations were also set up throughout the building to assist with high demand days. As always, if any member has concerns arising from this work, I encourage you to speak with me or my office, unless it is a matter best dealt with by your Whip or party leader. I thank Rob Nielsen, Lyndall Smith and their team members—including Perry Gardiner, Adam Goodyer and Emily Garland—with great support from the security desk and maintenance teams, for the work completed to date. I also thank all members for your cooperation, understanding and assistance to enable this project to proceed ahead of schedule and under budget. SEARCH WARRANTS The PRESIDENT (14:45:12): On 26 June 2020 the Australian Federal Police [AFP] executed search warrants as part of an investigation into possible offences under sections 92.3 (1) and 92.3 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the so-called foreign interference offences created in 2018. A number of premises were searched, including the Parliament House Office and the home of the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, and premises associated with one of his staff, Mr John Zhang. A subsequent search warrant in relation to the parliamentary electronic files and emails of Mr Moselmane and Mr Zhang was executed on 24 and 25 July. In the 2010 inquiry by the Privileges Committee into a protocol for execution of search warrants by the NSW Police Force, the commissioner of the AFP indicated that if in future the AFP had cause to execute a search warrant on a member of the New South Wales Parliament it would follow the same protocol it had with the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2598

Australian Federal Parliament. I therefore required that in executing these search warrants the AFP at all times follow and comply with the AFP National Guideline for the Execution of Search Warrants where Parliamentary Privilege may be involved, which I now table. Document tabled. At my request, the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Deputy Clerk have been present at all times while the AFP conducted the search warrants at Parliament House, and during further routine follow-up work at Parliament House involving the AFP. I have been assured that the provisions of the protocol were followed at all times. Written assurances have been provided to the Clerk that no information searched electronically has been transmitted to officers outside of the building and, at the end of each examination, all electronic versions of documents being searched were deleted from any equipment used by the investigation unit. In accordance with the protocol, claims of parliamentary privilege have been made over certain documents and other material of interest to the AFP. The legal representatives for Mr Moselmane and Mr Zhang, together with the AFP, agreed to place all items over which privilege had been claimed in the safekeeping of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, as the agreed "neutral third party". Since 26 June Mr Moselmane, through his legal representative, and the AFP have sought to narrow the range of documents of interest the subject of ongoing claims of parliamentary privilege. Mr Moselmane, through his legal representative, has advised that he wishes to have the disposition of these documents—that is, a ruling as to privilege claims—made by this House. Consequently, I had anticipated that a motion would be moved by the Leader of the House this afternoon to refer the question of the privilege status of these documents to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report by Tuesday 15 September. However, on Friday 31 July the Clerk was notified that Mr Zhang's solicitor had that day commenced proceedings in the High Court of Australia, challenging the legality of the search warrants executed by the AFP in respect of Mr Zhang. It is understood that the proceedings will concern arguments as to the constitutional validity of the offence provisions underpinning the investigation. Mr Zhang's legal representative has further indicated that, the matter now being before the High Court, the AFP will need to suspend all processing of materials and data seized pursuant to the warrants until such time as the matter is determined by the court. In view of this development, and in the absence of a sealed copy of the application being sought from the High Court by Mr Zhang's representatives, I will not invite the Leader of the House to move to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee today. Instead, I will await a copy of that application and will report to the House again once it is received, at which time it may or may not be appropriate for such a motion to be moved. In the meantime, the documents and other material over which privilege has been claimed will remain in the safekeeping of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk as the agreed neutral third party. Members THE HON. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE The PRESIDENT (14:49:19): I inform the House that on 27 June 2020 the Clerk received correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. , advising that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane's membership of the Australian Labor Party has been suspended. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane will now serve as an independent member of the crossbench. LEAVE OF ABSENCE The PRESIDENT (14:49:42): I have received the following communication from the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: 29 June 2020 BY HAND The Hon John Ajaka MLC President Legislative Council of New South Wales Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr President, I am writing to you to formally seek leave of absence from Sitting in the House on account of the Investigation which is being undertaken by the Australian Federal Police. You will no doubt by now readily recall that my home and parliamentary office were the subject of the execution of a Search Warrant under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2599

I have maintained and continue to protest my innocence as to any wrongdoing whatsoever. I seek leave of absence from the House to allow the orderly conduct of both the House and the Investigation, such as it is, to continue and to that end, respect the rule of law and the right of this Honourable House to conduct its affairs without the unnecessary distraction. I formally seek to advise and notify you that neither my staff nor myself will seek access to the physical confines of my parliamentary office or any other service which pertains to the use of my office including but not limited to emails, computer and/or electronic devices or telephones that would normally be available to me and/or my staff; save where I am required by the Australian Federal Police to attend and assist in the ongoing investigation. For abundant caution I also seek to advise that my staff will not attend on the House or seek to utilise any of the services referred to. In concluding, I thank you for taking the time to both acknowledge and process my request, seeking my leave of absence as made today and to be effective on and from today, until the Investigation concludes. Yours sincerely, SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE MLC Documents LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016, I table the following reports of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission: (1) Report entitled Report on the monitoring of NSW Police Force misconduct matter investigation – Strike Force Blackford, dated July 2020, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 21 July 2020. (2) Report entitled Report on the monitoring of NSW Police Force misconduct matter investigation – LMI1703786, dated July 2020, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 21 July 2020. (3) Report entitled Operation Tutoko, dated July 2020, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 21 July 2020. (4) Report entitled Operation Shorewood: Review of how the NSW Police Force manages and investigates workplace equity matters, dated July 2020, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 21 July 2020. (5) Erratum to report entitled Report on the monitoring of NSW Police Force misconduct matter investigation – LMI1703786, dated July 2020, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 4 August 2020. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the reports be printed. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I table the following papers: (1) Industrial Relations Act 1996––Report of Industrial Relations Commission for year ended 31 December 2019. (2) Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989—Annual report and determination of additional entitlements for members of the Parliament of New South Wales by the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal, dated 7 July 2020. (3) Transport Administration Act 1988 and Passenger Transport Act 1990—Report of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations entitled Bus Safety Investigation Report: Bus Fire TV 9159, Sydney Harbour Bridge, NSW, dated 2 November 2018. I move: That the reports be printed. Motion agreed to. 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. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2600

Committees COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION AND THE CRIME COMMISSION Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies The Hon. : I table report No. 1/57 of the Committee of the Ombudsman, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Crime Commission entitled 2020 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies, dated August 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (14:54:20): I move: That the House take note of the report. The reporting body is one of the core functions of the committee; that is, scrutinising the performance of several important but distinct agencies. Those agencies include the NSW Ombudsman and the NSW Child Death Review Team, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission [LECC] and its Inspector, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Inspector of Custodial Services and the Information and Privacy Commission NSW. In this report both the 2017-18 and the 2018-19 annual reporting periods are covered. The committee felt it was therefore an opportune time to update the Parliament on key aspects of the work of all the oversight agencies, even if the committee made no recommendations in relation to that specific agency. This year the committee made several recommendations in respect of the LECC, the Crime Commission and the Information and Privacy Commission. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has undergone an immense period of change recently, with the departure of its inaugural chief commissioner and the commissioner for oversight in January this year. Given that the role of the commissioner for oversight remains vacant, the committee has recommended that the relevant Ministers clarify the status of this position. The committee has also recommended that the legislation governing the LECC be amended to delineate the respective roles of the commissioner for integrity and the commissioner for oversight. The committee has recommended that the Government consider whether the current level of funding for the LECC is adequate. Noting that the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 has not undergone a formal review since its commencement, the committee has recommended that the Government consider a departmental review of the Act, especially in light of potential issues raised by the NSW Privacy Commissioner. Lastly, the committee has recommended that the statutory review of the Crime Commission Act 2012 be finalised as a matter of urgency. The committee first held hearings with oversighted agencies in relation to this review in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank all agencies not only for participating in this review but also for continuing their important work in an increasingly challenging environment. I thank all fellow committee members for their ongoing dedication and their collaborative efforts as part of the review. I also thank the secretariat, which has played a vital role in the undertaking of the hearings and in the preparation of the report. Debate adjourned. LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I table the following reports of the Legislation Review Committee: (1) Legislation Review Digest No. 17/57, dated 4 August 2020. (2) Legislation Review Digest No. 18/57, dated 4 August 2020. I move: That the reports be printed. Motion agreed to. SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I table report No. 34 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 4 August 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2601

Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (14:58:26): According to paragraph 4 (1) of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee, I move: (1) That: (a) the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for inquiry and report; (b) the bill be referred to the committee upon receipt of the message from the Legislative Assembly; and (c) the committee report by Friday 11 September 2020. (2) That the following bills not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report this day: (a) Casino Control Amendment (Inquiries) Bill 2020; (b) Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Sustainability Infrastructure) Bill 2020; (c) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2020; (d) Water Management Amendment (Water Rights Transparency) Bill 2020 (No 2); (e) State Revenue Legislation Amendment (COVID-19 Housing Response) Bill 2020; and (f) Defamation Amendment Bill 2020. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (14:59:34): I move: That the motion be amended as follows: (1) Omit paragraph (1). (2) Insert "Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020" at the end of paragraph (2). The Work Health and Safety (Information Exchange) Bill 2020 facilitates sharing of information between NSW Health and SafeWork NSW about silicosis diagnoses in the State. Referring the bill to a committee will impose a significant delay on the information sharing, meaning that SafeWork NSW is powerless to receive any information about the silicosis diagnoses that NSW Health has received since silicosis became a notifiable disease on the 1 July 2020. Until the bill is passed, SafeWork NSW will not know which workplaces across New South Wales are endangering the lives of workers by engaging in unsafe practices that are leading to the development of silicosis. It will also be stopped from penalising or addressing those practices. That means that workers will be at continued and prolonged risk of exposure to deadly levels of silica while a committee debates the semantics about the best mechanism for information sharing about the disease. To put it simply, delaying the bill is putting the lives of New South Wales workers at risk. Mr David Shoebridge opposes the bill and has sought to refer it to a committee because it does not replicate Queensland's silicosis register, which is its model for information sharing about silicosis diagnoses. In effect, NSW Health will maintain a register of silicosis cases, which it has been receiving since 1 July. The information that NSW Health receives will be maintained centrally by NSW Health to ensure that patients' confidential medical information is protected and safeguarded. In contrast, the Queensland Government has created a silicosis register by amending its Public Health Act, which specifies with whom Queensland Health can share information, including naming a specific work health and safety delegate position. Doctors are required to fill in specific notification forms, which are then shared with a separately maintained register rather than directly with Queensland Health. New South Wales did not seek to amend its Public Health Act to make silicosis a notifiable disease. Instead, it amended the Public Health Regulation, issued a gazette to make silicosis notifiable and is now seeking to amend the Work Health and Safety Act to facilitate information sharing through the bill. The Government is making silicosis notifiable in New South Wales using existing mechanisms that make sense for our State. New South Wales has never taken its governance orders from Queensland and it certainly is not going to start doing so now. While the mechanisms for information sharing about silicosis diagnoses in both States differ, the outcome is the same. There is no material benefit to delay the passage of the bill so that a committee can explore how the Queensland model for information sharing could be imported into the State when the model that this bill proposes will have the same material impact and can come into effect as soon as this week. Mr David Shoebridge has also suggested that New South Wales should adopt Victoria's model for making silicosis notifiable, but no such mechanism exists. Silicosis is not notifiable in Victoria, nor does a silicosis register exist in that State. New South Wales is the second State to make silicosis notifiable and, upon passage of the bill, it will be the second State to facilitate information sharing between our health department and our workplace safety regulator about diagnosed silicosis cases. However, that cannot happen until we pass the bill. Until that occurs, people's lives are on the line. Passage of this bill does not prevent the New South Wales Government from Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2602

exploring or engaging with SafeWork Australia in the development of a national silicosis register. New South Wales will be an enthusiastic and willing participant in the process. Those issues are not mutually exclusive but we need a mechanism for information sharing that makes sense for our State right now. We cannot risk continuing to endanger workers' lives while members of this place play politics and debate semantics about differing models for record keeping of silicosis diagnoses. The Hon. (15:04:45): I speak against the amendment. I will be clear at the outset: Understanding that we are debating a procedural motion, I do not wish necessarily to canvass the issues that are to do with the bill. But I take exception to the suggestion made by the senior Minister that an inquiry is a semantic exercise when it comes to something as serious as silicosis in New South Wales. Earlier this year the matter was ventilated by the Legislative Council's Standing Committee on Law and Justice. That committee is dominated by the Government; it is not one on which the crossbench or the Opposition have the numbers. The committee resolved unanimously that there be a notifiable New South Wales dust diseases register and that recommendation was made to the Government. We are yet to formally hear the Government's response to that recommendation as we have not yet reached the six-month period. The evidence that was adduced in this year's review as to why New South Wales should have its own dust diseases register was adduced also in a review two years ago. Both committees and both reports recommended it. To be fair, the first one made its recommendation in the event that a dust diseases register was not established by the Commonwealth. The incidence of silicosis is rising in New South Wales. It is a serious issue. A committee dominated by the Government has already recommended that New South Wales implement a notifiable dust diseases scheme. The bill, which purports to implement one, does not in fact do so. We are not here to debate the merits of the bill. The Opposition is not necessarily suggesting that, from its perspective, the bill has no merit; it is saying that the merit of that bill ought to be benchmarked against the committee findings in order to discover whether or not the bill achieves the same objectives achieved by the committee. Hence it is appropriate that it go back to the committee to be examined. We are not seeking to refer it to an Opposition-dominated committee; we are seeking to refer it to the same Government-dominated committee that undertook the investigation earlier this year to see whether the Government bill meets the committee's objectives. A short, two-week inquiry is appropriate in that context. Some members might take offence to a suggestion that a delay of two weeks to ensure that there is an effective dust diseases register in New South Wales somehow risks the lives of dust workers. That argument has been made by a Minister of the Crown. I will not take any lectures from any Minister when in four years there has not been any action from the Government on this issue. The only reason there has been action in the past six months is that the Opposition, in conjunction with the crossbench—The Greens; the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party; and One Nation—put the issue on the agenda earlier this year. The Hon. Trevor Khan: And The Nationals. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: And The Nationals too. I accept that it was the members of The Nationals too. That is the only reason we are seeing any action. We welcome action from the Executive Government in this respect. It is well and truly overdue, but we must ensure that it is effective and that it achieves the objectives of the report to which we are yet to hear a formal Government response. It is sensible for that reason that we ask the same committee to undertake a short, sharp inquiry into the Government's proposal to see whether it meets the objectives of what the committee recommended and what is needed to protect the lives of stonemasons and tunnellers in New South Wales, and any other person exposed to an occupational dust disease. A simple point about the bill is that it covers one occupational dust disease; the Queensland system and the one that has been recommended by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice cover 16. There is a difference between what the Government has proposed and what the committee has recommended. If the Government is serious about tackling all occupational dust diseases, not just silicosis, it would take the time to get it right because this is about lives. A two-week delay to properly adduce the evidence and hear back from the same witnesses is to the benefit of the bill, the Government, the House, and the mission of the Parliament to protect lives in New South Wales. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15:09:00): The Greens also oppose this amendment. In fact, I understood that there were good-faith negotiations with the Minister's office, but it turns out that discussions one has with the Minister's office get converted into false verballing by the Minister in representations in this House, which makes it difficult to see how those good-faith negotiations will continue. Nevertheless, we are very clear—I think all parties agree—that the ultimate goal is a national register that covers all dust diseases across the country. The very real concern that has been related to our office by the thoracic-pulmonary surgeons who have been asking for a State and national register for four years, by the unions and by the workers is that if New South Wales adopts a model different from the Queensland model, which has been operating for the better part of Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2603

12 months and is working, it will make it extremely difficult to get to the ultimate goal of having a national system. The only way we will achieve a national system is if all the States and Territories set up their own registers and those registers form a common basis upon which the data can be pulled at a Federal level, because we all agree that there is no Federal public health system and no Federal work health and safety infrastructure that will allow them to have a standalone register. The only way that that register will happen is if we have common schemes in each of the different States and Territories which feed in on common bases to a single national register. That is what we all want. The problem with New South Wales going ahead with what it has done is that it has come out of the Minister's office. There has been no consultation with the unions, the doctors or any other State or territory jurisdiction. We are going to have a standalone system in New South Wales that will not work towards creating a national system, and I thought we were all on the same page about wanting to have a national system. For the Government to say that wanting to refer this off to a committee which will go for a couple of weeks is somehow delaying actions from me on behalf of The Greens or from the Labor Party, when we have been calling for a national register for years and the Government has been resistant to putting forward even a State register for years, is really unfortunate and is playing politics in an area where we did not want to play politics. We wanted to have a short, sharp, hopefully positive inquiry by a Government-dominated committee to try to get this right because if we set up the wrong infrastructure we will be delaying and actually prejudicing the ultimate goal we all want, which is a coherent national scheme. It is pretty clear that the Opposition and I have said that we do not necessarily need an inquiry. If there is a clear commitment from the Minister, which we do not yet have, to engage in good-faith negotiations between now and when Parliament next sits, we are happy to consider that, but we have no such commitment and indeed the Minister is obviously getting the Hon. Damien Tudehope to verbal us and politicise something about which I thought we were on the same page. At this stage we need an inquiry, but if between now and Thursday the Minister comes forward and says he is happy to have good-faith negotiations and talk with stakeholders between now and then, maybe we do not need to have an inquiry. Nobody wants another inquiry, but this is too important to allow it to go ahead as the Minister is currently planning. The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones has moved a motion to which the Hon. Damien Tudehope has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The House divided. Ayes ...... 14 Noes ...... 20 Majority ...... 6

AYES Amato Cusack Fang Farraway (teller) Franklin Harwin Khan Maclaren-Jones (teller) Martin Mitchell Nile Taylor Tudehope Ward

NOES Banasiak Borsak Boyd Buttigieg (teller) D'Adam (teller) Faehrmann Field Houssos Hurst Jackson Latham Mookhey Moriarty Pearson Primrose Roberts Searle Sharpe Shoebridge Veitch

PAIRS Farlow Donnelly Mallard Graham Mason-Cox Secord

Amendment negatived. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones be agreed to. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2604

Motion agreed to. Documents PAPERS PRESENTED OUT OF SESSION The CLERK: I announce receipt of the following reports presented since the last sitting of the House and ordered to be printed: (1) Destination NSW Act 2011––Report on review of Act, dated September 2019. (2) Electricity Supply Act 1995––Report of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment entitled NSW Energy Savings Scheme - Final Statutory Review Report 2020. (3) Forestry Act 2012—Report of the NSW Environment Protection Authority entitled NSW Forestry Snapshot Report 2018-19: Implementation of NSW Forest Agreements and Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals. (4) Local Government Act 1993––Report and determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal under sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act 1993, dated 10 June 2020. (5) Music Festivals Act 2019—Report on review of Act, dated June 2020. (6) Transport Administration Act 1988 and Passenger Transport Act 1990––Erratum to report of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations entitled Bus and Pedestrian Fatal Accident Brunker Road Adamstown, dated 5 November 2019. (7) Water NSW Act 2014—Report entitled 2019 Audit of the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment, volumes 1, 2 and 3, dated 16 June 2020. AUDITOR-GENERAL Reports The CLERK: According to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of the following reports of the Auditor-General: (1) Performance Audit Report entitled Water Conservation in Greater Sydney, dated 23 June 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 23 June 2020. (2) Performance Audit Report entitled Their Futures Matter, dated 24 June 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 24 June 2020. The Hon. (15:24:49): I move: That the House take note of the Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled Their Futures Matter. Debate adjourned. Committees COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Report: 2020 Review of the Annual Reports and Other Matters of the Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No.1/57 of the Committee on Children and Young People entitled 2020 Review of the Annual Reports and other matters of the Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, dated June 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 19 June 2020. The Hon. (15:25:49): I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Report: Koala Populations and Habitat in New South Wales The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No. 3 of Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment entitled Koala Populations and Habitat in New South Wales, dated June 2020, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, tabled documents, answers to questions on notice and supplementary questions and correspondence, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 30 June 2020. Ms (15:26:31): I move: That the House take note of the report. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2605

Debate adjourned. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Reports The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No. 44 of Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry entitled Constitution Amendment Water Accountability and Transparency Bill 2020, Water Management Amendment Transparency of Water Rights Bill 2020, and Water Management Amendment (Water Allocations) Drought Information Bill 2020, dated July 2020, together with transcripts of evidence, submissions, tabled documents, responses to the online questionnaire and summary report of these responses, and correspondence and answers to questions on notice and supplementary questions, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 31 July 2020. The PRESIDENT: The Clerk has just reported receipt of a report by Portfolio Committee No. 4. The report examined three bills that were referred to the committee. Now that the committee has reported, the bills can be restored to the stage which they had reached before they were referred. Therefore, I will call on the relevant members to move the appropriate procedural motions in relation to each of the three bills, commencing with the Minister. Bills CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (WATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY) BILL 2020 First Reading Bill read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. . The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. Business of the House RESTORATION OF BUSINESS The Hon. : I move: That the Water Management Amendment (Water Allocations—Drought Information) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. The Hon. : I move according to paragraph 5 of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee: That the Water Management Amendment (Transparency of Water Rights) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and the second reading stand as an order of the day for the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 5 - LEGAL AFFAIRS Report: Rural Fires Amendment (NSW RFS and Brigades Donations Fund) Bill 2020 The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No. 54 of Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs entitled Rural Fires Amendment (NSW RFS and Brigades Donations Fund) Bill 2020, dated July 2020, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions, correspondence and answers to questions on notice and supplementary questions, responses to online questionnaire and summary report of responses, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 31 July 2020. The Hon. (15:30:31): I move: That the House take note of the report. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2606

Debate adjourned. Business of the House RESTORATION OF BUSINESS Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15:30:35): I move according to paragraph 5 of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee: That the Rural Fires Amendment (NSW RFS and Brigades Donations Fund) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and the second reading stand as an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. Documents NSW BUILDING COMMISSIONER 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 site visits taken by the NSW Building Commissioner, received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. UNLICENSED ELECTRICIANS Claim of Privilege The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Return to Order The CLERK: I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding complaints and referrals regarding unlicensed electricians, received on Monday 29 June 2020 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding economic modelling on public sector wages, received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, stating that the relevant departments hold no documents covered by the terms of the resolution. PRINCIPAL BICYCLE NETWORK 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 principal bike network plan for Sydney, received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. STRONGER COUNTRY COMMUNITIES FUND 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 Stronger Country Communities Fund grants, received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2607

Claim of Privilege The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. TAFE NSW HAMILTON CAMPUS Claim of Privilege The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 June 2020, I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 24 June 2020 relating to paragraph (1), which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 15 July 2020 relating to paragraph (2), which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. STRONGER COMMUNITIES FUND Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding the Stronger Communities Fund, received on Monday 29 June 2020 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. COVID-19 AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 13 May 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding personal protective equipment, received on Monday 29 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Monday 29 June 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that according to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. WORKERS COMPENSATION Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 13 May 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding workers compensation scheme providers, received on Monday 29 June 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Monday 29 June 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 13 May 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding workers compensation scheme providers, received on Tuesday 4 August 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2608

Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Tuesday 4 August 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. DISABILITY ADVOCACY SERVICES Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 June 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding funding for independent disability advocacy services, received on Wednesday 8 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 8 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 June 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding funding for independent disability advocacy services, received on Wednesday 15 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 15 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. RECREATIONAL FISHING TRUST FUND Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 June 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding recreational fishing around Sydney Harbour, received on Wednesday 8 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 8 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. FEDERAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS REVIEW Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 13 May 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Federal Financial Relations Review, received on Wednesday 15 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Wednesday 15 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL JOINT USE LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY FACILITY 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 Young High School joint use library and community facility, received on Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2609

Monday 20 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Monday 20 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 3 June 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Young High School joint use library and community facility, received on Friday 31 July 2020 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 additional documents received on Friday 31 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. ENVIRONMENTAL WATER Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 June 2020, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding rules based environmental water, received on Wednesday 29 July 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 29 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders, the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. PAYROLL TAX Claim of Privilege The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Tuesday 24 March 2020, I table a return identifying documents received on Friday 31 July 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. According to standing order, I advise that the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. GET WILD PTY LTD Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 13 May 2020, I table additional documents relating to an order for papers regarding Get Wild Pty Ltd, received on Tuesday 4 August 2020 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying additional documents received on Tuesday 4 August 2020 which are considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. TRANSPORT STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN Correspondence The CLERK: I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding the Transport Asset Management Plan, received on Friday 26 June 2020 from the Group General Counsel of Transport for NSW, requesting that one document for which a claim of privilege had been made, which was provided in the non-privileged return received Wednesday 3 June 2020, be removed from the publicly available return. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2610

YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL JOINT USE LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY FACILITY Correspondence The CLERK: I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Young High School joint use library and community facility, received on 21 July 2020, from the General Counsel of the Department of Education, advising that due to the volume of documents, a response to the order was delayed. Correspondence The CLERK: I table further correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Young High School joint use library and community facility, received on 31 July 2020 from the Office of the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, requesting that certain privileged documents, which were provided in the non-privileged return received Monday 20 July 2020, be removed from the publicly available return, together with a revised index. GET WILD PTY LTD Correspondence The CLERK: I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding Get Wild Pty Ltd, received on Thursday 23 July 2020 from the General Counsel of Regional NSW, advising that due to the volume of documents a response to the order was delayed. FLOODPLAIN HARVESTING Tabling of Redacted Documents The CLERK: According to paragraph (1) (d) of the resolution of the House of Thursday 18 June 2020, I table redacted documents received Friday 26 June 2020 from the General Counsel of WaterNSW, identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 11 June 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to floodplain harvesting. Tabling of Redacted Documents The CLERK: According to paragraph (1) (b) of the resolution of the House of Thursday 18 June 2020, I also table redacted documents received Friday 31 July 2020 from the Secretary of Department of Premier and Cabinet, identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 11 June 2020, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to floodplain harvesting. STRONGER COMMUNITIES FUND Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 22 June 2020 the Clerk received from Mr David Shoebridge a written dispute as to the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk on Wednesday 17 June 2020 relating to the Stronger Communities Fund. According to standing order, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, being a retired Supreme Court judge, 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 the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, for evaluation and report. Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The PRESIDENT: I report that the Clerk has received a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. TAFE NSW Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 10 July 2020 the Clerk received from the Hon. Adam Searle a written dispute as to the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk on Monday 24 June 2020 relating to TAFE underpayments. According to standing order, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, being a retired Supreme Court judge, 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 the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, for evaluation and report. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2611

Report of Independent Legal Arbiter The PRESIDENT: I report that the Clerk has received a report from the Independent Legal Arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, on the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. Irregular Petitions EDMONDSON PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL The Hon. : I move: That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from 580 citizens of New South Wales requesting the Government urgently approve funding for the construction of a public school at Edmondson Park. Petition received. Business of the House PRECEDENCE OF BUSINESS The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That Government business take precedence of debate on committee reports and Government responses this day. Motion agreed to. WITHDRAWAL OF BUSINESS Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I withdraw private member's business item No. 585 relating to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Moratorium on Waste to Energy Incinerators) Bill. Members LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I inform the House that on 3 July 2020 the Premier advised that the Hon. Don Harwin, MLC, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts has been appointed Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. LEADER OF THE HOUSE The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I inform the House that on 3 July 2020 the Premier advised that the Hon. Damien Tudehope, MLC, Minister for Finance and Small Business, has been appointed Leader of the House in the Legislative Council and will continue to manage all Government business in the Legislative Council except for the specific functions conferred upon the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, under the standing orders of the House. PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I inform the House that on 6 July 2020 the Office of General Counsel, Department of Premier and Cabinet, provided an updated list of parliamentary secretaries. A further updated list of parliamentary secretaries was provided by the Premier on 14 July 2020, reflecting the appointment of the Hon. , MLC, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and for COVID Recovery REPRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I inform the House of changes in the representation of Government responsibilities in this Chamber. I will act in respect of my own portfolios and will represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios: The Hon. Dominic Francis Perrottet, MP, Treasurer The Hon. Stuart Laurence Ayres, MP, Minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney The Hon. Victor Michael Dominello, MP, Minister for Customer Service The Hon. Kevin John Anderson, MP, Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation The Hon. David Andrew Elliott, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services The Hon. Don Harwin, MLC, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, will act in respect of his own portfolios and will represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios: The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, MP, Premier Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2612

The Hon. Paul Lawrence Toole, MP, Minister for Regional Transport and Roads The Hon. Andrew James Constance, MP, Minister for Transport and Roads The Hon. Matthew John Kean, MP, Minister for Energy and Environment The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock, MP, Minister for Local Government The Hon. Sarah Mitchell, MLC, Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, will act in respect of her own portfolio and will represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios: The Hon. (John) Giovanni Domenic Barilaro, MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade The Hon. Mark Raymond Speakman, SC, MP, Attorney General, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence The Hon. Anthony John Roberts, MP, Minister for Counter Terrorism and Corrections The Hon. Dr Geoffrey Lee, MP, Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education The Hon. Gareth James Ward, MP, Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services The Hon. , MLC, Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, will act in respect of her own portfolio and will represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios: The Hon. Bradley Ronald Hazzard, MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research The Hon. Robert Gordon Stokes, MP, Minister for Planning and Public Spaces The Hon. Melinda Jane Pavey, MP, Minister for Water, Property and Housing The Hon. Adam John Marshall, MP, Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales The Hon. Dr Geoffrey Lee, MP, Acting Minister for Sport, Multiculturalism, Seniors and Veterans The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Questions Without Notice COVID-19 The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00:43): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government. What is the threshold number of positive COVID-19 cases needed before the Government will require the State to go into a Victorian-style lockdown? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:00:58): I thank the member for his question. I take it that it is asked of me in my capacity as the Minister representing the Premier. I am happy to take the question on notice and get him an answer so that he has the information he needs. POWERHOUSE MUSEUM The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:01:34): My question is addressed to the arts Minister. Will the Minister update the House on the Powerhouse project? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:01:45): On 4 July it was an enormous pleasure to join the Treasurer to announce that the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo will remain open. This is a great outcome for Ultimo, a great outcome for Sydney and a great outcome for museums in New South Wales. The decision to retain and renew the Powerhouse Ultimo, in addition to the establishment of the new flagship Powerhouse Parramatta, means the New South Wales Government will provide two world-class museums for the communities of New South Wales. This will significantly increase access to the museum's internationally renowned and historic collection. As I have always said since I became arts Minister, the heritage core of the Ultimo site must be retained for cultural purposes in the city. I admit that it has always been an aspiration of mine to keep the Ultimo museum open and fulfil the needs at both Ultimo and Parramatta. Powerhouse Ultimo will be Australia's leading museum of design and innovation. It will tell the stories of industrialisation in Australia and will showcase historic periods of innovation and creativity that influenced design, architecture, fashion and visual communication. Ultimo will support jobs in the cultural and creative sectors, while ensuring the site contributes to a vibrant, active and connected place. As announced on 4 July, the Government will forgo $195 million from the potential redevelopment of the Ultimo site. Treasury will allocate an additional $195 million in consolidated funds for capital expenditure on the Powerhouse Parramatta project. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order— Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2613

The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. The Hon. Damien Tudehope: I hate to be a killjoy but I, for one, am very interested in what the Minister has to say. I suggest that members opposite allow the Minister to be heard in silence. The PRESIDENT (16:04:08): I indicate a couple of things: First, I am a great believer in a robust question time, but there is a limitation to how robust it can be. Secondly, I know we have a different set-up in the Chamber, with members sitting in the public gallery. Maybe it has not been made clear, but interjections from members sitting in the public gallery are just as disorderly as interjections from members sitting in the Chamber. The fact that one member can conceal herself behind a pillar does not assist when I can still hear her very clearly. Thirdly, interjecting during a Minister's answer is bad enough; interjecting when a member is taking a point of order about interjections does not help the member's cause. I have not called anyone to order but I am coming close to it. I uphold the point of order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The New South Wales Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences has two world-class museums in Sydney and Parramatta, and the announcement on 4 July demonstrates this commitment. A final business case is currently being prepared by the Government, which will support the vision for the Ultimo site. The Hon. Walt Secord: Another business case! The Hon. DON HARWIN: No, it is the same one: the Ultimo business case. As part of the preparation of the final business case, I look forward to consulting with a broad array of stakeholders who are passionate about the museum's collection, and who are similarly committed to restoring Powerhouse Ultimo to being a world-class museum once again. COVID-19 AND PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16:06:16): My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, and Leader of the Government. As the Minister responsible for the public service, what direction has he given to government departments to ensure that all public sector employees have the appropriate personal protection and sanitation equipment to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission? The PRESIDENT: I would be grateful if members could provide me with the copy of the question, rather than handing it to an attendant during these COVID times. The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:07:08): The Government supports agencies in continuing to meet their core functions and obligations under business continuity plans. New South Wales public sector agencies have plans in place to minimise disruption to core business activities, ensure maintenance of essential services during COVID-19 and assist employees with more flexible working arrangements and leave options— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Are you answering the right question? The Hon. DON HARWIN: I have a large amount of information that is relevant to the honourable member's question. If the honourable member would prefer me to take the question on notice and get a specific answer to a small amount, I am happy to do so. TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:07:54): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. I refer the Minister to the 2017 Government decision to end the Safe Schools program in New South Wales and ask: Why then has the NSW Teachers Federation been accredited and trained teachers in a professional development program called Supporting Safe Schools and three other gender fluidity courses supported by nine gender fluidity guides on the Teachers Federation website, including two written by Roz Ward, the founder of Safe Schools? Given that the NSW Teachers Federation is training teachers on how they can fit gender fluidity instruction into classroom teaching, will the Minister now ensure that the federation's accreditation is withdrawn? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:08:50): I thank the Hon. Mark Latham for his question. He referred to specific professional development courses from the NSW Teachers Federation. I will take the specific part of the question on notice and get some information about the courses he referred to and come back to him with an answer. I can say to the member more broadly, and he may be aware of this, that I have recently asked the NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA] to undertake an immediate review into its processes for endorsing professional development providers and their courses. At Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2614

the moment NESA endorses the providers, but does not assess the course content. That has led to over 42,000 registered courses. We need to make sure that we have high-quality professional development to help our teachers to continue to improve their teaching practice and ensure student learning outcomes as well. That may be of general interest to the member but in regard to the specifics about the particular courses that were raised by the NSW Teachers Federation, I will take that part of the question on notice. The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:09:53): I ask a supplementary question. The Minister mentioned the review of the 42,000 NESA professional development courses. Will the Minister elaborate on the terms of that review and give the House an assurance that if any of the 42,000 courses teach gender fluidity, in defiance of the Government's 2017 State schools decision, she will withdraw the accreditation of that provider? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:10:18): I can advise the honourable member that there are no references to gender fluidity in the New South Wales curriculum. The purpose of the review that I have asked NESA to undertake is to ensure that every NESA-endorsed course has the appropriate content and will support teachers and principals to lift standards and improve student learning outcomes. That review will be concluded by 2020 and a new process will commence in 2021. The review will look at the processes for both assessing and endorsing professional development providers to ensure that course content is taken into consideration specifically. It will also ensure that professional development delivers relevant content, which is evidence-based and grounded in best practice pedagogy. I am very happy to keep the member updated on that review as it progresses. EDUCATION WEEK The Hon. (16:11:15): I address my question to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. What activities are occurring to celebrate the achievements of public education for Education Week? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:11:38): I thank the honourable member for his question. As many members know this week is Education Week, an annual celebration of our public education system in New South Wales. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic this year many schools have chosen virtual celebrations rather than the usual open classrooms and school assemblies. It has never been more important to acknowledge the great work of our public educators. The New South Wales public education system is the largest provider of education in Australia. We have more than 90,000 teachers and support staff delivering high-quality education to more than 815,000 students across 2,216 schools. This year's theme for Education Week is "Learning together" and is a reflection on the unprecedented year we have had so far, with bushfires, floods and a global pandemic on top of the ongoing drought that continues to impact so many of our rural and regional communities. Our public school communities have responded magnificently to the unprecedented challenges of the year, with our parents and the broader community working with teachers to ensure continuity of learning, despite the disruption caused by COVID-19. The theme "Learning together" reinforces the idea that our schools are the cornerstone of our communities, with parents and carers partnering in learning. Education Week launched yesterday with a live stream that focused on the achievements of students, school staff, parents, carers and the community. The live stream included student performances and films reflecting on the remarkable year so far. I encourage members who did not see the live stream to go online and have a look. Yesterday, the Government announced that Seven Hills High School will introduce specialist vocational education facilities within three years as part of a $34 million election commitment. The Government is committed to supporting students to engage in learning that builds skills and enhances access to apprenticeships and traineeships. Other activities throughout the week include a fun video lesson on Aboriginal languages to celebrate National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children's Day, which is today. There is also a student film festival, a webinar on the technology used in schools and some of our secondary students will share their aspirations and ideas for learning with our secretary. I am very proud of what we have achieved in New South Wales public education so far this year. Our curriculum review is the biggest shake-up of education in 30 years. The Government is committed to overhauling the New South Wales curriculum to improve standards and to ensure that our teachers have the time and support they need to teach the fundamentals, which include maths, English and science. The Government has continued to deliver on its record-breaking infrastructure projects throughout the pandemic, with more than 40 new and upgraded schools so far this year. Most recently, I visited upgraded schools in Yass, Ku-ring-gai and west Penshurst. I officially opened one of our brand-new schools in western Sydney. I also visited the site of a new primary school being built in Wagga Wagga with my colleague the Hon. to see how the more than $1.3 billion which has been invested in our 2020 school building program is providing construction jobs around New South Wales. There have been some great achievements in education so far this Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2615

year, including our learning from home hub and our HSC hub. I am incredibly proud of the phenomenal effort from principals, teachers and school support staff right across the State. MARINE ESTATE The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:14:41): I direct my question to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales. Has the Department of Primary Industries fisheries division recently embarked on a five-year statutory review of the Marine Estate Management Act to question all marine park advisory committees, including their staff, for input into the review? Why was the public excluded from this process, considering the number of people who are directly impacted by marine estates, and given its current form is limited to a very small group? Will the Minister advise the House why this discussion paper is not available for public review, given the fact that a primary function of the Act is to foster consultation with the community in relation to the management of the marine estate and in preparation of the NSW Marine Estate Management Strategy? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:15:33): I thank the honourable member for his question to the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, whom I represent in this place. As the question contained great detail on the aspects of a fishing review— The Hon. Mark Banasiak: A marine estate statutory review. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: A marine estate statutory review. I thank the honourable member for his assistance. Because the question is detailed, I will seek advice from the Minister and respond to the member as soon as possible. STATE ECONOMY The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:16:20): I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Given that Federal Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann gave an economic and budget update in Australia's Senate on 23 July on Australia's financial situation, will the Minister provide a similar update, as the Treasurer's representative in this Chamber, to inform members and the community on the deficit and the unemployment projections by December? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:16:51): These are questions on repeat. We have had this question before and now it has been repeated. It is the same old, tired approach to asking questions. The Hon. Mick Veitch: There is a standing order about debating the question. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You are not allowed to debate the question. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I know, it is just a tired approach to asking questions. The State budget, as all members are no doubt aware, has been delayed. The Hon. : Glad you noticed. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I am glad you noticed. The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Rose Jackson to order for the first time. She will cease interjecting. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: The impact on the economy is self-evident. In fact, on the last occasion that this House sat the Treasurer made a statement on the economic outlook for the State. The circumstances are that we continue to live through the second phase of that. We are potentially dealing with the consequences of the pandemic in Victoria. No-one can underestimate the impact of the pandemic on the New South Wales economy. NSW Treasury is actively working with the government agencies to deliver fiscal stimulus. That is all playing into where we will arrive when the Treasurer delivers the budget later this year. Treasury estimates that the shutdown will result in a significant contraction in gross State product [GSP] in 2020, with the economy expected to contract by almost 10 per cent in the first half of the year. GSP is expected to improve as the shutdown unwinds, but enduring negative effects are expected over the four years to 2022-23. Household consumption and service exports have been heavily affected, particularly tourism and international education. Treasury estimates that as a result of COVID-19 New South Wales unemployment is forecast to peak at 7¾ per cent in the near term and remain elevated for some time. The economic shutdown is also expected to have a significant impact on State taxes, such as stamp duty, payroll tax, GST and agency-own revenue—for example, public transport fares. I would have thought that was pretty self-evident. This is in addition to the impact of a devastating summer of bushfires, which was not anticipated at the time of the 2019-20 Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2616

half-yearly review. The answer is that the Treasurer will deliver a budget and at that time members will have an opportunity to ask questions. [Time expired.] The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:20:02): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in relation to his reference to the delay in the budget? What will the date of the budget be and will the Minister guarantee that it will not be further delayed? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:20:30): The date of the budget is a matter for the Treasurer. That is as it should be. The Hon. Walt Secord: He has got a bit on his plate at the moment. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: It is a matter for the Treasurer. In fact, given all that is happening, we ought to be supporting the Treasurer in making sure that the State is put in the best financial position it can possibly be in. I will not give any guarantees to the shadow Treasurer. I think Marcus Paul called the Hon. Daniel Mookhey the "shadow Treasurer" the other day. I did not know where that slip of the tongue came from. It is interesting that the media is now suggesting we have a new shadow Treasurer. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will provide us with details of the new portfolios. The important answer to this question is that the Treasurer will decide the date. It is a matter for him. He will advise the other place in due course and I will be happy to advise this place in due course. DROUGHT AND RURAL AND REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH The Hon. WES FANG (16:22:22): My question is addressed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. How is the New South Wales Government supporting regional and rural communities to deal with the mental health challenges that continue to arise in those areas still affected by drought? The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:22:50): I thank the Hon. Wes Fang for his question. It was terrific to be with him in Wagga Wagga recently to make a mental health announcement with the Deputy Premier. Despite recent rains, New South Wales is still dealing with the effects of the worst drought on record. Farmers, workers, regional businesses and communities have all felt the crippling effects of this drought and are still doing it tough. One in four Australians experience a mental illness each year and these mental health challenges are even more common in rural and regional areas affected by drought. That is why the New South Wales Government is extending the Emergency Drought Relief Package, with $11.93 million committed for 2021. The drought relief package funds a number of initiatives, including drought peer support workers and counsellors to deliver farmgate counselling services, and the drought resilience community fund, which has delivered over 100 community events and programs promoting mental health that have reached over 11,000 community members. It has been particularly difficult not to be able to run community support events in those areas during COVID. The extended drought relief package will also provide $1 million to the New South Wales branch of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to train community pharmacists in regional areas to identify and assist patients with mental health issues. The mental health community pharmacy training program is an excellent way to build an extra layer of mental health support that is in easy reach of the community. Pharmacists are often the most visited healthcare professionals. They are trusted and very highly qualified. The training will include a focus on depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide prevention, trauma management and mental illness in men. I thank the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for its good development work to provide its members with this important extra skill and for the focus on offering more support to the community. The guild will deliver face-to-face and online training through a minimum of 100 workshops to over 5,000 pharmacists and staff across rural and regional New South Wales during 2021. The support of pharmacists will help normalise the need for mental health support and increase community acceptance. Often in rural and regional communities, particularly in communities where access to GP services is more difficult than in the city, people will go to their pharmacist to ask questions. More importantly, if someone presents to their pharmacy, the pharmacist will often know that person and the GP intimately. The crucial thing here is that the pharmacist and the pharmacy staff will often know whether something is not quite right. They know whether Mr Jones, who has come in with the same script that he has been seeking to be filled for the past 10 years, is not quite right and they can ask him. They have those skills and can liaise directly with GPs. That will be particularly important for us in rural and remote areas, where stigma about mental illness can prevent people from seeking help. We want everyone to feel they can put up their hand. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2617

FIREFIGHTER SAFETY EQUIPMENT The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (16:26:00): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware that following the Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs inquiry into the Rural Fires Amendment (NSW RFS and Brigades Donations Fund) Bill 2020, which I chaired, serious deficiencies were found in the distribution of fire appliances and the general standard and maintenance of these appliances resulting in the deaths of firefighters? Given that our fire season increases due to a lack of commonsense bush management and the current bushfire season is fast approaching, what has the Government done since last season's catastrophic fires to ensure that New South Wales fire brigades and volunteers have the right fire appliances and the safety mechanisms in place to protect them and their communities? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:26:55): I thank the Hon. Robert Borsak for his question. It is a pertinent question by virtue of some of the commentary around the bushfire season that is already starting to emerge from the member for Bega about bushfire preparation and making sure that we are prepared and doing all things necessary to make sure that bushfire prevention is envisaged and addressed. Clearly, I did not take part in the inquiry that the Hon. Robert Borsak participated in and I am not presently aware of the recommendations that were made. But some of the recommendations, as he has outlined, address the necessity for ensuring that the Rural Fire Service and Fire and Rescue NSW have the proper protective equipment necessary, which has been identified for the purposes of making sure that we are properly prepared for the next bushfire season. The question is well founded. It is a relevant question, given that we are now in the month of August. The first bushfire we had last year was in September, so the question is well founded. In the circumstances, it is important that I raise the matter with the Minister and come back to the member with a more fulsome answer to his question in relation to the level of expenditure that we should be engaged in for the purposes of making sure that all our fire services are well equipped and that we are prepared for the fire season in the ways that we should be. I endorse some of the observations made by the Minister for Transport and Roads in respect of making sure that we are well prepared for the bushfire season. To the extent that all those things are necessary, they should be embraced by every member of this place—Government and Opposition alike. It is important that a proper and full answer is provided to the member. EDUCATION REFORM The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (16:29:26): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Given that the Minister has said that the Government will adopt the Masters' review proposal for untimed student progression, how will it work in practice? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:29:50): I thank the honourable member for his question about the Masters' review as it relates to untimed syllabuses. As the member would be aware, there was obviously quite a bit in Professor Masters' report about the importance of ensuring that children have the capacity and understanding before they move on to the next level of learning. The member is right: It was a recommendation that the Government supported, but it asked the NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA] to do more about how that would work in practice and in a local context in New South Wales. We are waiting for that advice from NESA so that we can have further consideration of that suggestion in the review. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (16:30:40): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate on her answer in relation to the advice that NESA will provide? When is that advice expected, and will it include clear and explicit guidelines for teachers, given they are almost being asked to provide a personal syllabus for each student? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:31:06): I have made it clear to NESA—and I have had conversations with the Chair, Peter Shergold, and Paul Martin, who runs NESA for us—that important work has to take priority. We have said with the curriculum review that we want to start the work straightaway in decluttering the curriculum and the range of recommendations that come. I will get monthly updates from NESA on the work that it is doing in the review. I understand the member's point about supporting teachers throughout this process. The board of NESA, membership of which I made changes to not long ago, involves people who are current principals and who have significant teaching experience across all three sectors, which is really important. We must ensure that the advice coming from Government is based on their expertise because, as the member says, we will need to look at how we implement that in the classroom. The reality is that, on any day, teachers are standing in front of 20-odd students, who have differing levels of ability, and are finding ways to Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2618

teach to the syllabus that takes that into account. The whole point of the curriculum review process is ensuring that we declutter the curriculum and better support our teachers in what they are doing, but also that we ensure our students have a fundamental grasp of the basics, particularly early on because we know—and the research shows—that if a student is behind they continually fall behind throughout their schooling, which is not good for anybody. We must look seriously at how to support teachers. As I said, I look forward to getting monthly updates from NESA on its work around not just the recommendation in the curriculum review but also the entire work by Professor Masters. The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:32:58): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elaborate on the NESA monthly reports? In particular, will there be a report on the fact that untimed syllabuses or progression points have not been implemented successfully in any education system anywhere in the world? Why should our students be guinea pigs for this unproven sociological theory? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:33:13): I thank the member for his second supplementary question. I know that he has strong views about this area and he has put a few questions on notice to me about it. The Hon. Mark Latham: More to come. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: Fantastic! I always enjoy having a healthy dialogue about education with the member. As he has pointed out, we have asked NESA and the board to provide more specific advice to look at what we can do in a New South Wales context, which I believe was alluded to in an answer that I gave to the member. I look forward to hearing the feedback from NESA in due course. COVID-19 AND BUSINESS CONNECT The Hon. (16:33:46): My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. How is the New South Wales Government assisting small businesses throughout New South Wales at this challenging time through its Business Connect service? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:34:06): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in small business. One of the things that is really important during the pandemic that we are currently going through is getting advice. Many government grants and schemes are available. Sometimes we can be overwhelmed by the amount of information that is available. That is why Business Connect, which the Government has funded, is such an invaluable resource. Business Connect provides high-quality professional business advice and skills training events across every local government area in New South Wales. Business Connect advisers are supporting small businesses affected by COVID-19, summer bushfires and drought with practical advice and referrals to other government support. The New South Wales Government has injected additional funds into Business Connect to help small and medium businesses navigate the challenging times. So far, 39 new advisers have been deployed across New South Wales to bring the total number of advisers to 123. I am pleased to share some key statistics for 2019-20. There have been over 168,000 hours of one-on-one advice and event support to over 13,000 small businesses, including over 2,400 webinars and events; 56 per cent of businesses supported were in regional areas, accounting for over 101,000 hours; and small businesses engaging with the Business Connect program created around 6,711 new jobs. A number of the new Business Connect advisers have experience in running their own businesses in industries dramatically affected by COVID-19, including five advisers in the arts and creative industries and five in tourism. Many small businesses have been helped to pivot their operation during the restriction period. Now, as restrictions ease, the challenge is to evolve to operate in a COVID-safe environment. Free advice from a Business Connect adviser can make all the difference. For example, Nataleen Habib, the owner of the Concept Beautie business in Wollongong, is a TAFE beauty therapist teacher with a wealth of knowledge after 20 years in the beauty industry. During COVID-19, Nataleen contacted her local Business Connect adviser, Deborah Sams, to work on strategies for her business to survive during the lockdown. As a result of Business Connect support, Nataleen diversified her service offerings by creating do-it-yourself videos for social media marketing. Concept Beautie opened its doors after three months and trade is picking up again. On this side of the House, we are all about keeping businesses in business and workers in jobs. [Time expired.] COALMINING Ms (16:37:16): My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, representing the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade. Why has the recently released Future of Coal Statement, which explicitly acknowledges the long-term uncertainty regarding the future demand for coal, singled out the historic town of Wollombi, known for its tourism Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2619

and wine industries, as a potential site for future coalmining while the regions directly surrounding it have been ruled out? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:38:00): I thank the member for her very specific question asked of me, representing the Deputy Premier, about a report on coalmining. I am happy to take the question on notice and come back to her with a response from the Deputy Premier. LAND TAX The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:38:15): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Given that the Minister revealed only $2.7 million out of $440 million of the land tax relief scheme had been spent to June, will he update the House on how much of the scheme has now been spent? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:38:47): I thank the member for his question. The Land Tax Relief scheme is part of the New South Wales Government's implementation of the plan agreed to by the National Cabinet for assisting landlords and tenants to work together to negotiate the challenges to normal rental arrangements brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The philosophy endorsed by the National Cabinet is that in this time of national crisis we must all share the burdens and cooperate together so we can emerge on the other side ready to recover. For commercial tenancies we implemented the Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Regulation 2020. To assist those tenants and landlords who cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement we have expanded the mediation services offered by the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. Additionally, the New South Wales Government is making a contribution to offset some of the cost to landlords of agreeing to rent reductions, with a 25 per cent reduction of their 2020 land tax up to the value of the rent reductions provided. Initial take-up of the land tax relief offered was slower than anticipated. After extensive consultation with stakeholders, including with the Property Council of Australia, the Real Estate Institute and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, some changes have been made to the scheme. In recognition that many landlords and tenants have not yet finalised negotiations for rent reductions, the closing date for applications has been extended to 31 December 2020, to allow time for more landlords to apply. Additionally, the evidential requirements have been simplified to make the application process more accessible; for example, it is no longer required to provide bank statements from tenants— The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I have been quite patient. It was a direct question. We are now close to two minutes into the answer. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I was getting to it. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I have asked simply for the Minister to update the House on how much of the $440 million has been spent. The Minister is now straying into matters of the evidentiary nature of application processes, which is perhaps not directly relevant to my question. The PRESIDENT: The difficulty I have is that I was not given a copy of the question, which would help, but I did hear the Minister say he was getting to it. May I suggest that the Minister get to it. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Just bear with me. Additionally, the evidential requirements have been simplified to make the application process more accessible; for example, it is no longer required to provide bank statements from tenants to establish that they have been impacted by COVID-19 in order to access the scheme. It is still early days and too soon to assess the full extent of the take-up. However, as at 24 July—this is assisting the member—some 2,662 applications for relief have been finalised, with over $15 million in land tax relief being granted for rent reductions on 3,245 properties, of which 34 per cent were residential properties and 66 per cent were commercial properties. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:42:12): I ask a supplementary question. I am sure the senior Minister expected one. Will the senior Minister supplement his answer by elucidating how much of the $15 million of the $440 million available under this scheme is residential and how much of it is commercial? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:42:35): With respect, I answered that question. The PRESIDENT: The Minister can answer the supplementary question the way he wishes. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: With respect, I did in fact provide exactly that detail—34 per cent was for residential properties and 66 per cent was for commercial properties. One of the things that I think is really important to understand is that there is, in many respects, an ongoing process in relation to the negotiation of rent reductions and the like. That is why it was important to provide that background to extending the time to Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2620

31 December; it is so that more applications can be made and more negotiations can take place on rent reductions because there is no doubt that there is an ongoing impact on tenancies, an ongoing impact on businesses and an ongoing impact on landlords and tenants. The effect of extending the date is a product of saying, "Get those negotiations done"; the Government is prepared to give land tax refunds to landlords who give concessions. We are encouraging landlords to give those concessions. There is a link here to the previous questions that related to Bizconnect. By getting proper advice tenants are able to know what schemes they can access for the purposes of dealing with their landlords and the like. The connection between businesses that are in financial trouble and negotiating reductions in rent and being able to say to landlords, "There is an opportunity for you to get a refund of land tax which you have paid", is an important component of the advice that people should be getting about— [Time expired.] The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (16:44:53): I ask a second supplementary question. Is the Minister really confirming that the Government has spent only 3 per cent of this fund? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:45:06): I thank the member for the second supplementary question and I repeat: As at 24 July, $15 million in land tax relief had been granted. But the context is that— The Hon. John Graham: Are you confirming it is 3 per cent? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: —we have also extended the opportunity to make application for land tax relief. There are lots of landlords who will still be considering rent reductions. The PRESIDENT: The Minister will resume his seat. The Clerk will stop the clock. First, I again remind honourable members about safe distancing. Members should be sitting at the markings on the benches. If there is only one marking, two members should not be sitting there. I also ask members in the public gallery to separate a little bit. I asked the Minister to resume his seat because he was asked a second supplementary question then basically it has been one word from the Minister, one word from the Hon. John Graham and it is impossible to follow. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: The point of the supplementary question is well made. This is an incentive to landlords to provide rent reduction. To the extent that that money is available, we have extended the opportunity for landlords to make application, but commensurate with the making of the application is to offer rent reductions to tenants. In some ways the failure to take up the land tax relief may well be a product of tenants not having sufficient knowledge of the opportunity to get rent relief. I say to all businesses that are impacted by this pandemic to please get advice because the advice will show not only the opportunity to get rent reduction but also the opportunity for landlords potentially to get land tax relief. The Government makes this package of money available but it is dependent upon compliance with the scheme for the purpose of getting rent relief and, correspondingly, the land tax relief which will go with that. CLOSING THE GAP The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:47:50): My question is addressed to the Aboriginal affairs Minister. Will the Minister update the House on the renewed National Agreement on Closing the Gap? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:48:24): I would be very happy to update the House and the Hon. Trevor Khan on that. Over a decade on from the first national Closing the Gap agreement initiated by the Government of Prime Minister Rudd in 2008, I am pleased to let the House know that the New South Wales Government has agreed to a new plan. On 22 July the Premier signed the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This is a 10-year agreement developed jointly by governments and the Coalition of Peaks, implementing a renewed effort across the nation to address the disparities between Indigenous Australians and the rest of the nation. This new agreement marks a changing point in Australia's approach to Indigenous disadvantage as we develop a plan working in cooperation with Aboriginal peak bodies. It is no secret that previous agreements and efforts towards Closing the Gap have never fully achieved the results we have all hoped for. All of us know and acknowledge the deep challenges faced by Aboriginal Australians and understand that there are no shortcuts and no quick fixes to any of these issues. In December 2018 COAG agreed that change was needed and began the process to develop a new national agreement in partnership with representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This new agreement concentrates on shared responsibility and collaboration between governments and Aboriginal bodies to deliver the outcomes desired by Aboriginal people. In August 2019 I attended the Joint Council of Indigenous Affairs Ministers and representatives of the Coalition of Peaks in Adelaide, where three new priority reforms were agreed to for Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2621

inclusion in a national agreement. They are: shared decision-making, building the community-controlled sector and transforming mainstream institutions. The national agreement is actually centred on these priority reforms as much as the revised targets and accountability mechanisms. The national agreement will be implemented through plans developed by each jurisdiction. New South Wales' plan will be developed within the next 12 months in partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations and other Aboriginal leadership groups. It is through this renewed joint plan that we hope to see better progress towards our targets and deliver the results that Indigenous Australians need. STATE INSURANCE REGULATORY AUTHORITY Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:51:24): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Damien Tudehope representing the Minister for Customer Service, Victor Dominello. Given that Trevor Matthews was on the AMP board during and prior to the banking royal commission that revealed AMP's fee-for-service scandal and recommended charges be considered against AMP for lying to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC], does the Minister think it is appropriate that Mr Matthews remain on the board of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:51:56): As I am not the decision-maker in relation to that, my opinion may not necessarily be given great weight. The Hon. John Graham: It is always welcome though. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: In the circumstances, if findings have been made by ASIC in relation to a particular board member I think, first and foremost, that would be a matter, first, for the person who was the subject of the particular complaint about whether he should remain a board member; and, secondly, for his fellow board members— Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: I did not suggest that findings were made against the member of the board. The findings were made against the organisation. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I thank the member for that clarification about findings against the members of the board. Anything I say from this point forward might be taken as evidence against me so I will take the question on notice and provide a full answer in due course. COVID-19 AND SMALL BUSINESS The Hon. (16:53:31): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Given that as of mid-June the Government had spent only $350 million of the $750 million Small Business Grant scheme, will the Minister update the House regarding how much of the scheme has been spent as at the end of July? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:54:09): I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for his question. This is one of the really good schemes that the Government has embraced to assist small businesses to get to the other side. The correspondence we get about the effectiveness of those small business grants is an indicator of how important they are to the business community. The grant was targeted at small businesses with between 0.5 and 19 full-time employees and payroll under the current payroll tax threshold of $900,000. Those small businesses are benefiting from an automatic 25 per cent waiver of their payroll tax for the 2019-20 year. The Small Business COVID-19 Support Grant was due to close on 1 June—as the member may be aware—but was extended until 30 June to allow those eligible small businesses that had not yet taken advantage of the support to apply. Nearly $536 million in grants has been approved or is in progress for over 54,000 small businesses employing over 152,000 employees. A new Small Business Recovery Grant of $3,000 became available on 1 July 2020 to help small businesses—including non-employing sole traders—to safely relaunch their operations. The grants can be used to cover marketing and advertising expenses, make fit-out changes and train staff in how to work safely under the current health conditions. As of 3 August 2020, over $70 million has been approved or is in progress for over 23,500 small businesses with nearly 69,000 employees. As restrictions are progressively eased, we are turning our attention from response to recovery and looking at how best we can support small business to reopen and welcome more customers while remaining COVID safe. The industry breakdown of the grants reflects the impact of COVID-19, with 16 per cent going to small businesses in the food and beverage industry, 10 per cent to personal services, 9 per cent to professional services and 6 per cent to store-based retail. The $10,000 support grants have been—or will be—used for unavoidable expenses such as utilities, telecommunications, insurance and professional advice. Significantly, 8 per cent of the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2622

total approved or in progress—that is, nearly $43 million—has or will be used to pay wages of employees who are not covered by the Commonwealth's JobKeeper program. The $3,000 restart grants have been used for marketing, communications and advertising, cleaning products and services, business advice including continuity and planning, equipment needed to give effect to the COVID safety plan, digital solutions, staff training in COVID-19 safety plans, counselling and the like. The $3,000 grant remains open for applications until 16 August 2020. COVID-19 AND TEACHERS The Hon. LOU AMATO (16:57:14): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister tell the House how the New South Wales Government is supporting teachers to implement best practice in the classroom? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:57:37): I thank the Hon. Lou Amato for his question. There might be some deja vu in relation to an earlier answer I gave. Evidence shows that high-quality professional development helps teachers to continue to strengthen their teaching practice and improve student learning outcomes. Because of its importance, we want to ensure there are robust processes for endorsing providers and courses so that only the highest quality professional learning is accredited. That is why I have announced we are tightening the restrictions for professional development for teachers to be accredited. As I said earlier in question time, I have asked the New South Wales Education Standards Authority—or NESA—to undertake an immediate review of its processes for assessing and endorsing professional development providers and their courses. The review will look at the processes for assessing and endorsing professional development providers to ensure that course content is taken into consideration specifically. From 2021, each individual course will need to demonstrate a genuine focus on improving teaching in the classroom through best practice to receive NESA accreditation. Currently, NESA only accredits providers of professional development, but does not accredit individual courses, leaving it to teachers and principals to select from myriad courses out there. As some members will know, teachers are required to take on 100 hours of professional development over five years and 50 hours are required to be undertaken in courses that have been accredited by NESA. It is crucial that this time is spent productively, with teachers engaging in activities that help their practice. I want to make sure that our teachers are able to access the best professional development courses possible, providing them with ongoing improvement in their vital role as educators for the students of New South Wales. As of 23 June this year there are 782 providers with over 42,000 active courses, as well as 92 providers that are currently endorsed but do not have active courses on offer. It is anticipated that the review will reduce the number of courses on offer while also increasing their quality, helping schools and teachers identify which courses will help them improve the support and education that students receive in the classroom. We want to ensure that all professional development—whether it be on teaching, reading or supporting student mental health—is evidence-based best practice. That includes core curriculum content, professional learning on best practice in supporting student wellbeing and support for students with disabilities. We are focused on the quality of education in our schools and have set targets for schools to meet. It is my expectation that the professional development courses will assist teachers in helping our schools meet those targets. We are also working with universities to lift standards in initial teacher education, but professional learning does not stop when teachers graduate. We want to ensure that external content is not just tangentially aligned to one of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, but also provides significant value to teachers and students. The current bar for teachers' professional learning is not high enough. The review will ensure that professional development delivers relevant content that is evidence-based and grounded in best practice. The review will be completed by the end of this year, with the new standards to apply from 2021. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice. COVID-19 AND PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (17:00:40): Earlier in question time the Hon. Penny Sharpe asked me a question about minimising the risk of COVID-19 transmission among public sector employees. If she needs more information I would be happy to get it for her. The New South Wales Government has instituted a number of measures to protect staff from COVID-19. The controls put in at the workplace will vary depending upon the type of work being undertaken and the risks involved. Agencies will apply a hierarchy of controls to address the risk of COVID-19 transmission by employees, which may include redesigning the nature of work to Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2623

avoid the risk of contact. That could include working remotely or varying the working arrangements to minimise working onsite. It may also include establishing barriers such as plastic screens for public sector employees in customer-facing roles; reconfiguring the workplace and administrative controls, such as adherence to physical distancing at the workplace; and the use of personal protective equipment [PPE] such as face masks and gloves. Agencies will continue to work with employees and health and safety representatives to determine what a healthy and safe workplace looks like, given COVID-19, and make the appropriate arrangements on a collaborative basis. Agencies will provide PPE when employees are required to use such equipment. I thank our tireless workers, particularly those on the front line, who are doing their utmost to protect the community. Supplementary Questions for Written Answers LAND TAX The Hon. MICK VEITCH (17:02:23): My supplementary question for a written answer is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. With regard to the Minister's response to the question by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, will the Minister advise how many applicants to the land tax relief scheme were found to be ineligible and how many applications were deemed unsuccessful? Questions Without Notice: Take Note TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. : I move: That the House take note of answers to questions. EDUCATION REFORM The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:03:01): During question time the Opposition asked a series of questions about the curriculum review and the Minister spruiked it as being the biggest overhaul to the New South Wales curriculum in 30 years. The Minister also said that it will be a key part of the Government's response to declining standards in New South Wales schools. Yet the Government is unable to explain how the central recommendation, which was adopted by the Government, will work in practice. How will untimed student progression work in our schools? There is a very short time frame to implement it. Kindergarten kids should be beginning to learn the new English and maths curriculum within two years, and it has been promised that the entire new curriculum will be rolled out across the school system within just four years. The Hon. Mark Latham beat me to the jump for the second supplementary question to the Minister. As he has noted, we will be the first in the world to adopt such a system. And yet, in the House, the Minister simply flicked it off to the NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA]. Interestingly, she also flicked off another review of the professional development programs that teachers will be undertaking to NESA. There is a question about how much NESA is going to be able to do. There is a question about what additional resources the Government is giving to NESA to ensure that it is not a rushed process, that it is a thorough and serious investigation, and that it will mean that our kids are being taught world's best practice—not being the world's first guinea pigs. It is worth noting that after two years of consultations and more than 5,000 submissions, the Government cannot explain how untimed student progression, which is the key recommendation that the Opposition asked questions about today, is going to be implemented. Professor Masters has been spruiking that idea for years, yet he cannot tell us how it will work in practice. It is worth looking at what the Government did not support in the review that Professor Masters put forward. Professor Masters recommended that all students should learn a second language. We know the benefits of learning a second language; it turns on parts of the brain that are turned on only by learning a second language and through music. Yet it was one of two recommendations that the Government decided it did not want to implement. It is Education Week and the reality is that the Government has presided over a decade of decline in our New South Wales schools. The review is supposed to address it, but it poses more questions than answers. We will continue to ask those questions. TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION REFORM The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:06:01): I take note of answers given in question time by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning about professional development. I also take note of the written answer given to my question on notice No. 1576. The Chamber has heard the jaw-dropping information that the school system in the State has 42,000 professional development courses available and none of them have been individually checked and verified for their content. The 782 providers are accredited by the NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA] but none of the content of those 42,000 courses is known. It is not known to the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2624

Minister, the Premier or to people in the education hierarchy. Why do we have 42,000? Would we not need a couple of hundred? Best practice teaching courses certified by the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation are the things that work in the classroom—stick to that. The 42,000 courses highlight the core problem in New South Wales schools, which is the lack of quality control—in fact, any kind of control by the Minister and the Government. I give an example of how these things are manipulated. An outfit called MultiVerse received NESA approval for three courses: playing with clay, drawing and storytelling, and painting. What did it actually teach in professional development? It taught a course called 'My Friend Has Two Mums': Gender and Sexuality in Early Childhood, with modules in queer thinking in early childhood, queer pedagogies, intersex identities and living non-binary. That is a long way from playing with clay and painting. It shows that with an absence of quality control, Safe Schools has come back into the New South Wales classroom through professional development. Teachers are being schooled by the Teachers Federation, MultiVerse and several other organisations in how to work gender fluidity teaching back into their classroom practice. Anyone who thinks that the sexualisation of three- and four-year-olds is a healthy practice needs to think again. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: That is not what is happening. That is absolutely not what is happening. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: That is what is happening. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You have no idea what you're talking about. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. MARK LATHAM: The honourable member should do some research, have a look at the MultiVerse anti-bias textbook and do some homework. If you want to teach three- and four-year-olds sexualisation, do it in your own time. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: That is not what they are being taught. The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I will tell you what they are being taught. Page 60 of the anti-bias textbook of MultiVerse reads as follows: When children are involved in family role playing, don’t be afraid to challenge gender and sexuality stereotypes. It also asks readers to present the possibility of boys marrying boys and girls marrying girls to the children exploring their understanding of the world. Those are three- and four-year-olds in child care and preschool settings. That is sexualisation of children who are three and four. Anyone who is sick enough to take little kids playing in a preschool— The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Point of order— The Hon. MARK LATHAM: —and try to manipulate their sexuality— [Time expired.] The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Anthony D'Adam has taken a point of order and has the call. I remind members that when a point of order is taken and I give the call, the member speaking must resume their seat immediately. The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: My point of order is that the Hon. Mark Latham should direct his comments through the Chair and not to another member of the House. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. I remind members that time for contributions to the take-note debate is limited and members should not interject. When contributing to the take-note debate, members should not direct comments to other members to encourage interjections. EDUCATION WEEK The Hon. LOU AMATO (17:10:10): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning to my question about Education Week. The annual statewide celebration of New South Wales public education runs from Monday 3 August to Friday 7 August with the theme of "Learning together". At 10.00 a.m. on Monday 3 August Education Week was launched with a live-streamed video. In this challenging year of bushfires, floods and COVID-19, Education Week has three key messages. As stated on the education department's website, they are: Schools are the cornerstone of communities Parents and carers are our partners in learning. Schools and families benefit from strong, respectful relationships where responsibility for student learning is shared. Change and resilience Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2625

Our teachers and students are lifelong learners, collaborating in a positive learning environment to achieve their best. Learning together makes us strong and creates resilient communities. Connect better and learn together Our school staff are dedicated professionals who know, value and care for all students. Technology enables learning together anywhere, any time. I encourage all members to celebrate their amazing school communities by posting about them on social media using the hashtag #EdWeek20. LAND TAX The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:11:47): As shadow Treasurer I note the lack of answers from the Minister for Finance and Small Business. Opposition members have asked repeatedly about the state of this State's finances. The Minister was unable to provide the date on which the budget will be delivered in November. When asked about land tax and his Government's timid response to businesses during these difficult times, the Minister said that only $15 million had been allocated out of a fund of $440 million—some 2,662 applications, which is only 3 per cent of the fund. Rather than blame his Government, the Minister's response was to blame the tenants and landlords for being unable to access the program. As I said earlier and have said many times, this Government is very timid in its response compared to other jurisdictions such as Western Australia and Queensland. The Minister said that the State is looking down the barrel of 7.75 per cent unemployment. Those figures are dramatically understated. He pointed also to tourism and education being very hard hit and there being a 10 per cent contraction in the economy. The Minister is sticking to those figures. Members know that overnight in Victoria one-quarter of Australia's economy shut down. The State is facing tougher times than the Government will admit. Its timid and slow response has contributed to community harm during this crisis. Overnight in Victoria 250,000 jobs were lost. The provision of only $15 million—3 per cent of a $440 million fund is woeful and inadequate. The Government is failing to support our economy, which is in a difficult situation. If it does provide support, the Government badges it as a program that is more generous than it is. When people speak out, the Government blames those trying to access the programs. TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17:14:08): I take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning in response to the Hon. Mark Latham's questions about course approvals by the NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA]. As a former teacher, I spent eight years creating professional development courses for colleagues. When I submitted the course content to NESA I assumed that NESA judged the quality of the courses and their suitability for registration to satisfy participating teachers' professional development hours. Eight years later I discover that 50,000-odd teachers have been wasting their time submitting content to NESA that it did not even look at. NESA blindly approved the courses. What was the point of that? Teachers could have done so much more with their time instead of jumping through NESA's imaginary hoops. It is ridiculous. On top of that, funding of professional learning in schools equates to possibly two days per teacher per year. How are teachers supposed to achieve 100 hours of professional learning in two days per year over five years? The maths does not add up. Professional learning is not funded sufficiently and there is no oversight. Given the Minister's response, I would not trust this Government to tell me the time in a room full of clocks let alone manage the professional learning of teachers in this State. It is an absolute disgrace. DROUGHT AND RURAL AND REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION REFORM The Hon. WES FANG (17:16:03): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women about the fantastic mental health community pharmacy training program. I joined the Minister at the launch of that program in Wagga Wagga. All members know that New South Wales is doing it tough at the moment as a result of drought, bushfire and COVID. The mental health community pharmacy training program is part of the Government's $11.93 million Emergency Drought Relief mental health package and benefits everyone living in regional New South Wales. In rural and regional areas, pharmacists and pharmacy staff are often the first people who come into contact with people experiencing poor mental health. The Government partnered with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, a registered training organisation, to develop and roll out the training program that will benefit many of those in rural and regional communities, such as the Riverina where I live. In 2020-21, the mental health community pharmacy training program will deliver a minimum of 100 face-to-face and online training workshops to over 5,000 pharmacists and staff across eight Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2626

drought-affected rural and regional local health districts in New South Wales. I am pleased that the rollout of this program will help our rural and regional communities during this trying time. I also take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning about the curriculum review. The contribution of the "shadow shadow shadow" education Minister, "contrary Courtney" was typically negative— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: I acknowledge that members try to not take points of order during the take-note debate. As the Hon. Wes Fang well knows, an accusation about a member must be made by substantive motion. The PRESIDENT: I remind members that any imputations about, or reflections on, another member must be made by substantive motion. The Hon. WES FANG: I withdraw my comment about the Hon. Courtney Houssos and say that the contribution of the Hon. Courtney Houssos was entirely negative in response to what is a substantial and transformative program in the education portfolio. I ask her to get on board and to support the Government's initiative. [Time expired.] COVID-19 AND SMALL BUSINESS The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (17:19:20): I take note of an answer given by the Minister for Finance and Small Business to a question regarding Business Connect. The Minister spoke of the excellent work being done by Business Connect advisers and gave just one example, Concept Beautie. I speak about two other businesses helped by Business Connect advisers, including Blend Providore in Tathra. After the fires in Tathra, Bronnie at Blend Providore was determined to make a comeback for her fine foods and coffee business. Initial support from Business Connect aimed at recovery, including making a connection to a philanthropic organisation that helped replace damaged stock. Business Connect then provided ongoing business coaching which has led, amongst other things, to a revamped business model for the cafe. Bronnie has kept busy during the COVID-19 restrictions using online and takeaway services, before welcoming tourists back since the recent long weekend. With the valued advice from Business Connect adviser Paul Coker, Blend Providore has been able to stay open and retain all its 20 or so employees, despite bushfires and COVID-19. I also mention Tim Wimborne and Meraiah Foley who, on their property in Braidwood, are one of the few producers in Australia of native mountain pepper, a unique product offering. They worked with a Business Connect adviser to develop their target market, branding, packaging and website development for this unique product offering in New South Wales. I am pleased to advise that Tim and Meraiah applied for the $10,000 bushfire grant and have since remodelled their business so successfully that turnover has increased during the COVID-19 disruption. TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (17:21:16): I begin by acknowledging an answer that I thought would have generated some discussion in the take-note debate. The topic has been referred to again and again in this House as so important that a select committee was established to look into it but, apparently, it was not important enough for even one comment in the take-note debate. It is, of course, the Powerhouse Museum. On 4 July an announcement was made that the Powerhouse Museum would remain in Ultimo. Oh happy day, because we will now deliver two world-class museums—one in Parramatta and one in Ultimo. The Minister has always said that a cultural institution—and a presence—would be kept in Ultimo. He has not only delivered on that but also kept a world-class institution in both Ultimo and Parramatta, which is exactly the appropriate outcome. The Minister should be applauded because there will still be a massive, new museum investment in Parramatta—as there should be. It will be the largest new museum in the State. Across both sites we will see the stories of Australia's industrialisation and innovation in technology, fashion and design because this Government offers the best to all of Sydney. We listen to the people and we do what is right to preserve culture and heritage in this State. We also look to the future. We look to innovation and progress, and to making the most outstanding cultural institution that, I suspect, this State has seen for generations in western Sydney. That is as it should be. We are incredibly excited about the stakeholder consultation that will occur ahead of the final business case to look at what will happen with the Ultimo site. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use what has been fantastic in the past, to look at the brilliant facility and its extraordinary objects, this incredible heritage and how we can purpose that for the future. I take note of one other answer, which was from the education Minister about Education Week. My parents were public schoolteachers—my father was a principal for many years and my mother was a kindergarten teacher and a teacher-librarian. There is no greater public service and greater public calling that one can provide than Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2627

being a teacher. There is nothing more important that this House can do than to honour, acknowledge, applaud and thank our teachers. We do that through Education Week each year. It is an appropriate way to finish off this take-note debate. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Deferred Answers COVID-19 AND SCHOOLS In reply to the Hon. WALT SECORD (2 June 2020). In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (2 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I can confirm that the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee advice is clear, schools do not need to conduct wide-scale temperature checking of students as there is limited evidence to demonstrate the value of such checks. The Department of Education has published advice for schools on the use of temperature monitors as part of their local first aid arrangements. Should a staff member or student become unwell during the day or develop symptoms of illness, their temperature can be screened as part of the first aid response while arrangements are made for them to be collected by a parent or carer. The department provided every school with a thermometer in a first aid room supply pack, which was distributed to all schools by the end of week two of term 2. The department does not hold data on how many schools may be using temperature monitors. COVID-19 AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PERSONNEL In reply to Reverend the Hon. (2 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I acknowledge the vitally important work being undertaken by NSW Health staff in this challenging time. The dedication and hard work of staff is appreciated and is making a difference to people's lives in terms of health protection, treatment and care. Local health districts and specialty health networks have undertaken workforce surge planning to ensure an adequate supply of workforce is available should they be required, and that workloads of frontline nurses and paramedics are manageable and sustainable during the pandemic. The New South Wales Government has allocated almost $60 million to provide free accommodation for frontline health workers which is being used to provide doctors, nurses, paramedics and other hospital and ambulance staff with the option of staying in out-of-home accommodation during the pandemic. Free parking at public hospitals has also been provided to rostered staff, including doctors, nurses and allied health workers. WILDLIFE TRADE In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (2 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: Questions regarding biosecurity and safe food matters should be referred to the Minister for Agriculture and Western NSW. I would also advise the member to write to and seek clarification from the relevant Federal Ministers with regard to matters of international trade. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE In reply to the Hon. ROD ROBERTS (2 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The economic and fiscal shock associated with COVID-19 has been significant. The decision to pause public sector wages growth is necessary to protect public sector jobs and support new job creation in the private sector, in response to the impacts of COVID-19. The latest jobs data from the ABS shows 221,400 people have been put out of work and wages are falling across the State since COVID-19 first reached New South Wales. Pausing pay rises will enable the Government to focus on preserving existing public sector jobs while also stimulating job-creation as New South Wales confronts the prospect of a deep recession and contraction of the economy. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2628

The Government remains committed to responsible financial management. This is demonstrated by the fact that New South Wales is rated triple-A by both major credit ratings agencies. CLETUS O'CONNOR SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS In reply to the Hon. WALT SECORD (3 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: As advised in the answer provided on 3 June 2020, it is not appropriate for the Department of Education to make unsolicited direct contact with former students to inquire whether they are survivors of sexual abuse and whether they wish to take action about traumatic events in their past. It is a choice for a survivor whether they wish to take action about traumatic events in their past, as it may cause further trauma if such matters are raised with them through a direct approach by the department. Survivors of abuse connected to government schools are entitled to make a claim, either under the National Redress Scheme, or by civil action. More information about the National Redress Scheme can be found at www.nationalredress.gov.au or a survivor (or their lawyer) can call the National Redress Scheme line on 1800 737 377. The National Redress Scheme has been an important initiative to provide redress to survivors while seeking to avoid or reduce re-traumatisation of survivors. The department believes survivors and follows the NSW Government Guiding Principles for Government Agencies Responding to Civil Claims for Child Abuse for dealing with historical abuse matters. The department investigates allegations against current employees and has rigorous independent processes to do so, in conjunction with NSW Police and the Children's Guardian. In relation to former employees, the department has no investigative powers. I confirm the claims against O'Connor have been reported to the NSW Police Force and any questions regarding investigation should be referred to the Minister for Police. SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACTORS In reply to the Hon. MARK BANASIAK (3 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised that each cleaning service provider engaged by the Department of Education and Public Works Advisory to prevent COVID-19 infection in schools, has confirmed it is using an effective 2-in-1 cleaning product that meets current Australian Standards. A range of other cleaning products are also used on school sites, such as Taskforce and Virex, which are on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for use against COVID-19. SCHOOL STUDENT REPORT CARDS In reply to the Hon. WALT SECORD (3 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Department of Education has developed a modification to the current policy for mid-year reporting. Schools are required to provide a written report (print or digital format) to parents about students' learning in Semester 1, 2020. Principals have the flexibility to modify reports based on adjustments to learning during this time. This report should provide a summative account of student progress and achievement on learning covered during Semester 1, at school and at home, with information about what might need to be done to support their child's learning growth. Reporting to parents should focus on the learning that has taken place so far this year, which includes individual student progress and achievement of the learning provided both at school and at home, with guidance to move the student's learning forward. The grading of students using the five-point A to E scale is not required; however, the word descriptors of the five-point achievement scale may be used through teacher comments to provide a consistent language for reporting progress and achievement on the learning students have undertaken. These changes apply to Semester 1, 2020 only. Student reports for Semester 2 will need to be delivered using the A to E grading. Additionally, report samples and guidelines have been provided to support schools in developing Semester 1 reports for parents/carers. The samples are based on reports being developed by schools. The guidelines include specific advice for:  Years K-6  Years 7-10  Years 11-12  EAL/D students K-10  reporting on learning outcomes for students whose learning is impacted by disability. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2629

The department does not hold data on the specific number of schools continuing to use existing reports for Semester 1, 2020. FIREARMS REGISTRY In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (3 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: The Firearms Registry is unable to provide a response to the question as framed. This would require a manual count of the approximate 70,000 Notices of Purchase documents received per annum and for the time periods requested. This would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. The systems and process relevant to firearms related transactions is currently being reviewed and system enhancements are currently under development to support firearms licence dealers and licence holders. DISABILITY ADVOCACY SERVICES In reply to Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (3 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: In December 2019 the New South Wales Government publicly reaffirmed its commitment to advocacy following the release of the review into the sector by NSW Ageing and Disability Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald, AM. The New South Wales Government extended funding to 31 December 2020 to provide certainty for the sector while the Government considered the report. The NSW 2020-21 Budget was subsequently deferred due to the COVID-19 Pandemic response. No announcements can be made on advocacy funding beyond 31 December 2020 until the NSW 2020-21 Budget is delivered later in the year. GAMING MACHINE TAX In reply to Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (3 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised that:  The New South Wales Government has asked peak bodies for clubs and hotels about how clubs and hotels are redirecting gaming machine tax deferrals to retain staff;  The peak bodies for clubs and hotels have informed their members to use deferred tax amounts to retain staff;  The tax deferrals have helped many clubs and hotels to stand down rather than terminate their staff;  In particular, by providing enough funds to pay wages, the tax deferral has helped save many clubs and hotels from permanently closing in the period between the shutdown and the start of JobKeeper payments;  With the loosening of restrictions, the deferrals will continue to provide clubs and hotels with enough cashflow to retain staff. CLETUS O'CONNOR SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS In reply to the Hon. PENNY SHARPE (4 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised the Department of Communities and Justice is unable to identify information related to Cletus O'Connor. BUSHFIRES AND FORESTRY INDUSTRY In reply to Mr (4 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised the NSW Environment Protection Authority has obtained verbal and written advice from a range of experts, including internal and external experts and other government agencies, on a range of subject matters. The advice includes privileged legal advice and it is not proposed to release expert advice at this time. Questions regarding the safety of logging in burnt areas of South Brooman State Forest are a matter for the Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2630

COVID-19 AND SYDNEY GAY AND LESBIAN MARDI GRAS In reply to Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (4 June 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: NSW Health carefully interviews each person diagnosed with COVID-19 in New South Wales. The incubation period for COVID-19 (time between exposure and onset of symptoms) is typically five or six days and ranges up to 14 days. Social distancing has been encouraged at all events. There is still no indication that attendance at the Mardi Gras contributed to the COVID-19 epidemic in New South Wales. EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRES In reply to the Hon. GREG DONNELLY (4 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: From 12 March 2020 to 4 June 2020, the department received 21 waiver applications for educator-to-child ratios at centre- based services (regulation 123, Education and Care Services National Regulations). As at 4 June 2020, three of those applications have been approved (one of which has since expired), one application has been invalidated, and 17 applications have been withdrawn. All waiver applications relating to COVID-19 are considered on a case-by-case basis and are being fast-tracked, subject to there being no increased risk to the safety of children or staff. Fees for waivers are being waived or refunded. The department is aware of the challenges for early childhood education and care services in accessing essential supplies since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to this issue, the department established a dedicated COVID-19 Response Team to respond to enquiries from services, to provide information and support to enable them to stay open where possible and appropriate. This includes the provision of essential supplies to services with no access to cleaning products, including hand sanitiser, soaps or gloves. GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (16 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: Minister Dominello acting on behalf of Minister Anderson: The New South Wales Government is committed to a sustainable greyhound racing industry that puts welfare as its top priority. The Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission [the Commission] has established a Race Injury Review Panel [the Panel] to provide a mechanism for the systematic review of serious and catastrophic injuries to greyhounds racing on New South Wales tracks. The findings of each review will be provided to the greyhound's owner/s and/or trainer, Commission staff, Greyhound Racing NSW, greyhound racing clubs and any other party considered relevant. The panel will meet monthly, and its findings published on the Commission's website twice a year. MR DAVID SHOEBRIDGE In reply to the Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: I urge anyone who has evidence of any individual potentially breaching the Crimes Prevention Act 1916 or any public health order to report that information to the NSW Police or call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. STATE ECONOMY In reply to the Hon. WALT SECORD (16 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government is always looking at ways to improve the tax framework to better support job creation and give local businesses more freedom to grow. That is why the Government has sought to reduce the payroll tax burden on businesses by increasing the payroll tax threshold progressively to $1 million. The threshold was increased from $750,000 to $850,000 on 1 July 2018 and to $900,000 from 1 July 2019, with the threshold lifted to $1million from 1 July this year, a year earlier than originally planned. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2631

With the final increase to the threshold now in place, businesses are expected to save up to $5,450 a year in payroll tax. I note the NSW Labor Party did not take this policy to the 2019 election, meaning that, if elected, thousands of businesses would have missed out on the opportunity to hire more staff and invest back into their businesses. The New South Wales Government has further acted to support businesses during this global health pandemic, with measures in place to provided much needed cash flow and allowing businesses more scope to retain employees. Measures include:  An automatic 25 per cent reduction in the annual payroll tax liability for any business with a payroll of $10 million or less for 2019-20. This measure will provide up to $450 million in tax savings for these businesses.  The deferral of payroll tax payments for all businesses, including those with payrolls over $10 million, for six months (up to $4 billion deferred). Thanks to the progressive raising of the payroll tax threshold only as at 30 June 2020 there were only 51,915 customers registered for payroll tax in New South Wales. Most of these (27,980) only pay annually. With the date for annual reconciliation extended from 28 July 2020 to 30 October 2020 for all customers, the full impact of the 25 per cent waiver and the six month deferral will not be known until after that date. Additionally all customers will have the option of entering into an instalment plan for any amounts outstanding after the annual reconciliation. For the May 2020 period, of the 23,935 customers usually required to pay monthly, the vast majority (17,791) chose to take advantage of the deferral option while the remaining 6,144 customers chose not to defer and either made a payment or lodged a nil return for the period. ILLAWARRA SHOALHAVEN ECONOMY In reply to the Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16 June 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: The premise of your question proceeds on a false premise. The New South Wales Government has made significant commitments regarding transport connectivity throughout New South Wales, including as part of the Future Transport 2056 strategy, the Western Sydney Rail Needs Study, the 20-year Economic Vision for Regional NSW, and the commitment to develop a blueprint for the delivery of a Fast Rail network to connect New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is delivering the single largest infrastructure program of any Government in Australia, valued at $100 billion. WATER SECURITY In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (17 June 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: In regional New South Wales, the pricing of water and sewerage services are determined by local water utilities in accordance with the New South Wales Government's Best Practice Management Guidelines. Best practice water and sewerage service pricing requires that utilities provide strong pricing signals to customers that encourage the efficient use of water. It is also important that utilities achieve full cost recovery for the services they provide. The New South Wales Government provides technical and financial support to regional New South Wales's local water utilities to help to ensure that the services provided meet the expectation of customers. The $1 billion Safe and Secure Water Program is one way that the New South Wales Government provides this assistance to regional NSW's local water utilities. The Program co-funds water and sewerage projects that will improve public health, water security and environmental outcomes for communities in regional NSW. Since the establishment of the Program, more than $685 million in funding has been approved to well in excess of 150 projects. On top of this investment and since the start of the drought, the New South Wales Government has committed more than $275 million in drought response funding to town water infrastructure and emergency water carting. STUDENT ELECTRONIC DEVICES In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (18 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: In response to the question from the Hon. Courtney Houssos: The Department of Education has provided New South Wales schools with access to hundreds of thousands of computers. In the past nine months the department has supplemented existing school supplies with more than 52,400 new computers. Individual schools are best placed to know the learning needs of their students. During the COVID-19 pandemic schools planned their learning from home taking into account what access students had to devices and the internet at home. Schools provided loaned devices, offered offline learning packages or used a mixed delivery approach depending on the needs of the students. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2632

To minimise the COVID-19 pandemic impacts on learning, teachers will continue to assess students and make any necessary adjustments to learning plans. Schools are responsible for the management, allocation and mapping of resources at a local level. STUDENT ELECTRONIC DEVICES In reply to the Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (18 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: In response to the question raised by the Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Due to the COVID-19 crisis, there is a state-wide shortage of available devices, and as such the department prioritised Stage 6 HSC students as devices became available. Schools were also asked to loan their own devices to students in need. Laptops and iPads were deemed to be unsuitable for learning from home in Cabbage Tree Island during the pandemic, due to internet connectivity at the time. Most members of the Cabbage Tree Island community rely on prepaid 4G mobile data. NBNCo has advised that infrastructure is now in place for 40 fixed wireless connections for residents so they may access the internet from home more easily. NBNCo will work with retail service providers participating in the COVID-19 Education Assistance Package to connect low-income families with home-schooling needs. Cabbage Tree Island Public School has full internet and Wi-Fi accessibility. The 42 students enrolled at the school have access to both laptop and desktop computers during the school day. The department provided nine iPads on 19 May 2020 and an additional 40 laptops on 1 July 2020. WATER SHARING PLANS In reply to Mr JUSTIN FIELD (17 June 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: The benchmark for assessment under section 10.28 is the environmental water protection provided for under State water management law immediately before the commencement of the Basin Plan. That is, 22 November 2012. The removal of a third definition of Planned Environmental Water does not reduce the legal protection of environmental water and does not change the intent or the operation of the current planned environmental water rules. AGED-CARE SECTOR In reply to Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (18 June 2020). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government supports the Australian Government's announcement of extra funding for the aged care sector to assist in responding to the COVID-19 epidemic. Monitoring the expenditure of that funding is a matter for the Australian Government, which has complete funding, policy and regulatory responsibility for the aged care system. INFORMATION SHARING In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (18 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government is always looking at ways to improve its information sharing capabilities, including by identifying and reducing both animal cruelty and other forms of violence. I understand there is strong collaboration between New South Wales law enforcement agencies and the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, and that these organisations regularly share intelligence, capabilities and expertise. Written Answers to Supplementary Questions ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BOARD OF NSW In reply to the Hon. MARK LATHAM (18 June 2020). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised that the Anti-Discrimination Board [ADB] records approximately 1,000 complaints each year. A manual check to identify individuals who have lodged multiple complaints would entail a considerable diversion of time and resources. The ADB would be required to: Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2633

1. manually check all complaints recorded in each of the past five years, to identify complainants in multiple matters; and 2. identify the number of complaints lodged by individuals in a particular year by regrouping any related complaints arising out of a single allegation. Further, some provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (such as sexual harassment and victimisation) carry individual liability as well as being the responsibility of employers. This may result in a single lodged complaint comprising multiple complaints and involving multiple respondents. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (18 June 2020). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Department of Education has not signed any contracts for this prefabricated model of school builds beyond the current five projects in the pilot program—Jordan Springs Public School, new primary school on Farmlands Drive at Alex Avenue in Schofields, new primary in Catherine Field, new primary school in Wagga Wagga and new primary school in Leppington. However, the department is currently engaging with industry to further the development and increase the capacity of New South Wales manufacturers to deliver school builds using this method of construction and manufacturing. [During the giving of notices of motions] Notices PRESENTATION The PRESIDENT: Because of the COVID situation, I will consider allowing members to give all their notices of motions at one time. I will confer with members to gain their views. Later, The PRESIDENT: I will trial asking each member to give all their notices of motions together. Later, The Hon. Mark Banasiak: Point of order: The Hon. Robert Borsak has the same right as all other members of the House to have his notice of motion heard in peace and quiet. The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Wes Fang will not interject during the giving of notices of motions. Later, The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: The Hon. Robert Borsak well knows that if he wishes to make a comment about a member in the other place he must do so by way of substantive motion— The Hon. Penny Sharpe: That is what he is doing; it is a substantive motion. The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will conclude his point of order and then I will rule on it. I do not need any assistance. The Hon. Wes Fang: Reading the whole motion onto the record at this time is inflammatory. Given that time is short, the member should be asked to bring his remarks to a close. The PRESIDENT (17:53:09): There is no point of order. The Hon. Robert Borsak is making imputations and remarks about another member by way of substantive motion. He is in fact referring to the substantive motion. That is the first point. Secondly, as much as I would greatly appreciate a member indicating that a motion is lengthy and making a copy available at the table, that is not something I can direct a member to do. How a motion is given is completely at the discretion and the will of the member. The Hon. Robert Borsak will conclude giving his notices of motions. Rulings FORMAL BUSINESS The PRESIDENT (18:07:08): As notices of motions continued after question time, the deadline for formal business will not be applied. Instead, requests for formal business will be received 30 minutes after the last notice was given this evening so members can forward those notices by 6.37 p.m. this evening. Unless I receive any objection from any honourable member by 9.30 a.m. tomorrow, I propose to follow the same procedure with the notices of motions—that is, when a member is given the call to give a notice of motion, I will ask the member to give each and every one of their notices of motions so that we can deal with the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2634

matters. It is a far more COVID-safe way of proceeding and I believe it is a faster way of proceeding. I do not believe any member will be prejudiced. I still propose to deal with notices of motions by calling Opposition, crossbench and Government, in that order. Committees SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE HIGH LEVEL OF FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE IN CUSTODY AND OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF DEATHS IN CUSTODY Chair and Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations for membership of the Select Committee on the High Level of First Nations People in Custody and Oversight and Review of Deaths in Custody: Government: Mr Khan Mrs Ward Opposition: Mr Searle Ms Sharpe The Greens: Mr Shoebridge Crossbench: Mr Roberts The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 18 June 2020 the Hon. Damien Tudehope nominated himself as Chair of the Select Committee on the High Level of First Nationals People in Custody and Oversight and Review of Deaths in Custody. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 8 July 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Farlow in place of Mr Farraway. STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 8 July 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Farraway in place of Mr Farlow. SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND OTHER CHANGE ON THE FUTURE OF WORK AND WORKERS IN NEW SOUTH WALES Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 3 August 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Fang in place of Mr Farraway. REGULATION COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 3 August 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Franklin in place of Mr Farraway. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 5 - LEGAL AFFAIRS Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 24 July 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Buttigieg in place of Mr Moselmane. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2635

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 24 July 2020 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Opposition of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr D'Adam in place of Mr Moselmane. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE Reference Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I inform the House that, in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of committees, the Public Accountability Committee resolved on 3 July 2020 to adopt the following terms of reference: (1) That the Public Accountability Committee inquire into and report on the integrity, efficacy and value for money of NSW Government grant programs, and in particular: (a) the range and availability of funding programs, including but not limited to: (i) discretionary grants funds such as the Premier's Discretionary Fund and the Deputy Premier's Miscellaneous Grants; (ii) local government funding such as the Stronger Communities Fund and Stronger Country Communities Fund; (iii) arts funding such as the Regional Cultural Fund; (iv) sports funding such as the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund and the Regional Sports Infrastructure Fund; and (v) Jobs for NSW funding, including the review into Jobs for NSW. (b) the manner in which grants are determined, including: (i) the oversight of funding determinations; (ii) the transparency of decision making under grants schemes; (iii) the independence of the assessment of projects; (iv) the role of members of Parliament in proposing projects for funding; and (v) the scope of Ministers' discretion in determining which projects are approved. (c) measures necessary to ensure the integrity of grants schemes and public confidence in the allocation of public money, and (d) any other related matter. (2) That the Committee report by 31 March 2021. Bills CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (WATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY) BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (18:09:36): On behalf on the Hon. Bronnie Taylor: 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 present the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 to the House. This bill will strengthen the transparency and accountability of parliamentary disclosure requirements by including water assets as a form of pecuniary interest requiring disclosure. Water is one of our most valuable assets and the New South Wales Government has a responsibility to the people of New South Wales to ensure that it is managed in an equitable and transparent manner. Parliamentarians also have a responsibility to the people of New South Wales that they are reporting all pecuniary interests in line with the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983. Water assets, including water access licences, their share component, water allocations and other contractual delivery rights, are extremely valuable assets that can be traded on the water market. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2636

Members of Parliament that may hold these assets are not currently required to disclose these assets or dealings on these assets as with their other disclosure requirements under the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983. This bill will amend the Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Regulation 1983 to clarify that Parliamentarians are required to disclose their interest in water assets. Specifically, this bill will require: • The disclosure of the licence number and share component of any water access licence, or a contractual right to receive water from an Irrigation Corporation, and the water entitlements associated with that right in which they had an interest at any time during the primary/ordinary return period and the nature of the interest in the water licence, • Any relevant Australian Business Number attached to each water access licence or right, and • That members notify the Parliament via their pecuniary interest register within 14 days of trading water for any purpose, including any monies made and the change to the net impact of their water holdings. This bill requires only declaration of rights held by a member of Parliament, and does not include water rights held by a Minister on behalf of the Crown. The bill also excludes rights that are held only by a Member acting in their capacity as the executor or administrator of a deceased estate where they are not the beneficiary under the will or intestacy. Members will also be exempt where they are acting in their capacity as a trustee (where the member acquired the interest in the ordinary course of any occupation of the Member which is not related to this or her duties as a Member). These new requirements for disclosure will greatly increase transparency of water interests. Any breaches of the new requirements will be subject to the rules as those that already apply under existing disclosure requirements. I will now turn to the detail of the bill. The bill includes one Schedule. Schedule 1[5] inserts clause 8A in the Regulation. This clause requires a Member to disclose in a primary return and an ordinary return, the water access licence number and share component of each water access licence in which the Member has an interest and the nature of that interest. The clause also requires a Member to disclose each right to receive water from an irrigation corporation under a water supply contract or other contract to which the Member was a party at specified times and the nature of the Member's interest in each right. There are five major irrigation corporations in New South Wales, where water users do not hold a separate water access licence, rather the water users will have a contractual right to receive water from the irrigation corporation, which the corporation will supply from its own licence. The irrigation corporations in New South Wales are: • Coleambally Irrigation Cooperative Ltd • Jemalong Irrigation Ltd • Murray Irrigation Ltd • Murrumbidgee Irrigation Ltd, and • Western Murray Irrigation Ltd If the Member has an ABN, or disclosure is required because of the members connection with an entity that has an ABN, the proposed clause requires the Member to disclose the relevant ABN. The declaration of an ABN will provide additional transparency about company ownership of water rights related to a member of Parliament. Schedule 1[3] inserts clause 6C in the Regulation. This Clause requires Members to notify the Parliament via their pecuniary interest register within 14 days of trading water for any purpose, including any monies made and the change to the net impact of their water holdings. Water trading activity is defined in Schedule 1[1] of the bill to mean specified dealings with water access licences and water allocations under the Water Management Act 2000 and disposition of property that affect a person's right to receive water from an irrigation corporation under a water supply contract or other contract. In common language, the buying and selling of water licences, allocations, and delivery rights. Importantly, this will capture interstate transfers and trades. Disclosures under this Clause will need to include the following information: • the date, purpose and nature of the water trading activity, • the impact of the activity on (or creation by the activity of) any interests required to be disclosed by the Member under proposed clause 8A, • and details of any financial benefit to the Member resulting from the activity. Finally, Schedule 1[6] inserts proposed clause 18A in the Regulation. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2637

This clause enables the bill's outcome by requiring the Clerks of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly to compile and maintain registers in respect of the water trading returns lodged by Members pursuant to clause 6C. This bill will clarify and strengthen the transparency and accountability of parliamentary disclosure requirements by defining water access licences and rights as a form of pecuniary interest requiring declaration. The bill also requires continuous declaration of water trading activity. This bill is in addition to broader Government reforms undertaken to increase the amount of publicly available information on our water and its availability, allocation and use. The outcome of the bill is to clarify and expand the existing arrangements for disclosure of water assets by Parliamentarians. Water is one of our most precious resources and an increasingly valuable asset. It is important that the Government leads the way in taking a transparent approach to water management and dealings. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (18:10:04): I make a brief contribution to debate on behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and, in particular, on behalf of my colleague in the other place the member for Murray. Our party opposes the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 in its entirety. It does nothing to improve water transparency and was an ad hoc response to a bill introduced by the member for Murray in the other place. Indeed, there is a clause in this Minister's bill that further restricts access to the water register. The bill also gives the Minister the power to withhold water access to a member of Parliament and the ability for them to trade or even buy water. This would set a dangerous precedent, allowing a Minister of the Crown to withhold vital natural resources to a citizen of this State. Only the Minister for Water, Property and Housing and her department could dream up something like this. I would not expect anything less from this Minister—the same Minister who has appeared before me in budget estimates on many occasions and managed to obfuscate and dance around every issue. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The Hon. Mark Banasiak is reflecting on a Minister in the other House and he should not be doing that during his contribution. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Taylor Martin): I uphold the point of order and draw the member back to the substance of the debate. The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: For the past year the member for Murray, Helen Dalton, has pleaded with the Minister for more water transparency in this State. Those pleas have fallen on deaf ears and, on one occasion, she was shown the door and booted out of the Minister's office. We had Kevin Humphries as water Minister. Then Katrina Hodgkinson took over. Could it get any worse? Yes it could, because along came Niall Blair. Many members in this and the other place would have thought they had hit rock bottom, but obviously not. This is a do-nothing bill that achieves nothing, and I look forward to the Government's support tomorrow when we deal with the proper water transparency bill that I introduced recently. The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (18:11:55): I make a brief contribution on behalf of the Labor Opposition to debate on the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020. The object of the bill is to amend the Constitution (Disclosure by Members) Regulation 1983 by requiring members of Parliament to publicly disclose their interests in water access licences and share components of water licences and contractual rights to receive water from irrigation corporations. It also requires members of Parliament to publicly lodge returns disclosing water trading activity within 14 days of becoming a party to the activity. Furthermore, it provides for the compilation and maintenance of registers of water trading returns by the Clerks of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. Finally, it makes a series of consequential amendments. There is a lot of history to this. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has had three bills on the issue and the Government has been playing catch-up. The goal here—I think honourable members will agree—is that more transparency on water is a good thing. The key question is: How do we devise a workable system? Labor did not oppose the bill in the other place but we did seek to move a range of amendments to improve it. Since that debate, two critical things have happened. The upper House committee inquiry included a submission from our Clerk of the Parliaments raising fundamental concerns about the workability and practice of the conditions outlined in the Government bill, and we should not dismiss that contribution lightly. We should pay close attention to the advice provided in that submission. In addition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report has confirmed that more transparency is required around the issue of water. It believes this starts with members of this Parliament. Pick your own adventure on how we progress on water transparency but Labor feels that the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has done it better. The architecture it establishes is more workable and we believe it is the better way. Labor will oppose this bill tonight. We support more transparency but we just believe the Shooters, Fishers Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2638

and Farmers Party bill is a better way to do it than the legislation the Government has cobbled together in response to the pressure it has been under. The Hon. (18:14:28): I support the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020. As a member of Portfolio Committee No. 4, I have had the chance to look in more depth at the bill at a committee level over the past few weeks. The Hon. Robert Borsak: And Orange. The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: I am doing a pretty good job out there. The findings of the committee, importantly, recognised broad support for greater transparency with respect to both water ownership and trades. This bill provides just that: greater transparency. By clarifying the disclosure requirements of members of Parliament and clearly defining what water licences and rights require declaration as a pecuniary interest, the bill addresses the concerns raised around water transparency. Further to this, it goes one step further by requiring the continual declaration of water trading by members of Parliament. This will create greater, up-to-date transparency in the water market that will not only help future decision-making processes but also instil greater trust between water decision-makers and the broader public. That is a key measure in the bill and was widely supported by those who made submissions to the committee. The committee highlighted that there is significant tension between transparency and privacy, which much be addressed. The bill addresses that tension by allowing the responsible Minister to keep certain details on the register confidential for privacy reasons. This ensures that the legislation does not infringe on the privacy of mum-and-dad farmers, avoiding Aussie Farms 2.0. This provision is also consistent with the interim Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] report, which on page 391 states: The ACCC's preliminary view is that publishing identifying details will not solve market problems. More specifically, however, it goes on to state that such requirements would have several drawbacks and negative unintended consequences. It indicates that the Government's privacy provisions are required to ensure that we do not breach privacy laws, individuals are not approached and pressured to enter into trades and individuals are not targeted by other individuals who are happy or unhappy with their farming or their general practices. It is also worth pointing out that as part of the committee process we heard from numerous groups both by way of submissions and as witnesses at the public hearings. There was support for measures to ensure that a member of Parliament's water holdings had the same disclosure requirements as is required of other assets. Findings from the online questionnaire were similar, with many believing the greater level of transparency provided by this bill will improve public trust when it comes to water policy. Many witnesses—including representatives of Namoi Water, Gwydir Valley Irrigators, Griffith City Council in the electorate of the member for Murray, Lachlan Shire Council, the NSW Irrigators' Council, NSW Farmers and the Ricegrowers Association of Australia Pty Ltd—told the committee that they supported greater transparency while ensuring there were no unintended consequences and no compromise to the privacy of farming families. The NSW Irrigators' Council Interim Chief Executive Officer, Claire Miller, summed up the importance of protecting the privacy of smaller operations by stating: The risk there is that [mum-and-dad farmers] start getting letters and pressure in the mail from brokers and others wanting them to sell their water, as they can visibly see how much water they have, so starting to put pressure on them or holding back prices ... Several other witnesses shared those concerns and supported the transparency measures in the bill. The bill finds the balance. It takes the perception of secrecy out of water ownership and trading while taking appropriate measures to protect the privacy of the backbone of our regional communities and our nation's economy, including mum-and-dad farmers. I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (18:19:30): I contribute to debate on the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020. I will be very brief. One Nation fully supports the need for transparency in water ownership, management and rights within our State. However, it will not support the bill tonight. The Government has thrown the bill together in a desperate attempt to counter the good work of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. I note the comments made by the Hon. Sam Farraway about the unintended consequences of Aussie Farms 2.0. It is my understanding that websites like that have now been extinguished as a result of Federal legislation. If there is any so-called farm invasion, I draw the attention of members to the Right to Farm Bill 2019 that we passed some months ago, which will offer protection to mum-and-dad farmers. For that reason, I will not support the bill. I look forward to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party bringing its bill forward tomorrow. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (18:20:40): On behalf of The Greens, I express opposition to the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020. Our State's regional water has been managed by the National Party for nine years. In that time we have seen continuous scandal and corruption while the health Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2639

of the mighty Murray-Darling Basin has deteriorated rapidly. The bill is the first time the National Party has acted to increase the transparency of water trading in New South Wales. It has come about as a direct response to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party's Water Management Amendment (Water Rights Transparency) Bill 2020, which goes much further. Everybody in the Chamber knows that The Greens and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party do not have much in common at all. But what they do have in common is an absolute disgust with the cosy relationship between the big irrigators, the National Party and the water Minister, which has led to a disgraceful mismanagement of the State's water over many years. Rather than supporting a potentially good bill—and The Greens look forward to debating and supporting that bill tomorrow—the Government has decided to copy just one element of the bill, rather than introduce its own. That element is the requirement of members of Parliament to publicly disclose their interests in water access licences, share components of water access licences and contractual rights to receive water from irrigation companies. It is a desperate attempt by the National Party and water Minister Melinda Pavey to appear to take action while avoiding doing anything about the corruption that is at the heart of the management of the State's water resources. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The member is very clearly reflecting on a Minister in another Chamber and she should not be doing that during her contribution. She should be called to order. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: To the point of order— The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: You are saying she is corrupt. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I am not suggesting that the water Minister is corrupt. The management of the State's water resources is corrupt. In fact, it is already before ICAC. There is nothing about the water Minister. I am suggesting that the management of the resources— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Taylor Martin): I uphold the point of order. I did not hear exactly what was said about the Minister, but I draw the member back to the argument she is making. I ask her not to make those accusations through her contribution to the second reading debate. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will move on. The bill fails to capture the holdings of members' spouses, which means that members can easily transfer their interests and water licences to their partners to avoid scrutiny. The bill requires members to declare water trading activity to the Clerk of the House in which they sit within 14 days of any trade. It is curious that this differs from members' disclosure requirements for every other asset class, which are declared at the beginning of their term in Parliament and every six months after that. It would seem that this reporting requirement would impact only one member—that is, the member for Murray, whose water transparency bill triggered this one. The requirement also creates a potential opportunity for water speculators, who could use that data to their advantage in their trading activities, potentially driving up the price of water further. That is interesting, given that tomorrow we will debate a water bill that requires members of the public to have the water register that the Ken Matthews report recommended in relation to water transparency. I look forward to supporting that and discussing that in more detail. Mr JUSTIN FIELD (18:24:44): I speak on the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020. I will not take too much of the time of the House. I address my concerns about the lack of transparency and the need for real change, which has been foreshadowed in the debate by a number of members. I join with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, One Nation, The Greens and the Labor Opposition in indicating that I will not support the bill, not because I do not support transparency when it comes to water, but because we need real transparency. We need real reform. If members do not realise that regional New South Wales is screaming about the management of water in the State, they are missing the point. Members only have to look at the state of the rivers and at those landholders and farmers who have been missing out in recent years—and not just because of the drought. We all acknowledge how challenging that has been. But in many parts of the State, it is as much a man-made drought as it is a natural drought because of the mismanagement of water. People are concerned that they are getting the short straw and the way to fix that is to open the books. Let us be transparent. Let us not pit farmer against farmer and neighbour against neighbour in a valley. We protect everyone when there is oversight about who owns what, who is trading what, and which companies and foreign entities own our water and are making decisions about the agricultural future of the State. I will address more details of this issue in the discussion tomorrow. In her second reading speech in the other House, the Minister claimed the bill will strengthen transparency. How will it strengthen transparency? The person it is aimed at has already declared on the public record the water they own and how they manage their water interests. Good on the member for Murray for doing that. We have already established that that obligation Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2640

has always been there for MPs. What is the bill doing? It is doing nothing. Let us not allow it to be a fig leaf that hides The Nationals' failure on this issue. Members might want to look at the testimony of the former water Minister from the other place, Mr Kevin Humphries, when he appeared before the inquiry. What he had to say reflects on the current water Minister's bill. He said that those two bills: … to be honest, are just a tick-tack political bunfight pointscoring exercise that I think is just a waste of time … The bill put forward by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party is a genuine attempt to try to address the real issues in regional New South Wales about who owns water, where they own it, how it is being transferred and traded, and how it is changing the face of agriculture in New South Wales. I join with those here who have raised very credible points in opposing the bill. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (18:27:47): On behalf on the Hon. Bronnie Taylor: In reply: I acknowledge all members for their contribution to debate on the bill. The bill will clarify and strengthen the transparency and accountability of parliamentary disclosure requirements by clearly defining what water licences and rights require declarations of pecuniary interest. It will require continuous declaration of water trading activity. It will also provide the foundation for amendments to the existing public registers in a way that does not infringe on the privacy of mum-and-dad farmers, as the Hon. Sam Farraway said in his contribution. The Hon. Penny Sharpe talked about transparency. It is important to put on the record that the Government acknowledges that it needs to improve transparency within the water sector in New South Wales, but it is important for the Government to make such decisions with the privacy of regional communities as the number one priority. The Government must also work with other basin States and the Commonwealth on ensuring that any changes to the public register are consistent across States and are developed using all of the available expert advice— including advice from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which has just published an interim report into the issue of water transparency. It is important to acknowledge some of the good work that the Government has already done to strengthen the publicly available water registers further. Just last month the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment released a new trade dashboard that provides publicly available information on water trading, including water allocation, volume of water being traded and prices paid, consolidated into one online platform. That information-sharing supports increased market confidence, up-to-date water trading information and transparency of the market. As politicians debating these matters, it is critical that we hold ourselves to the highest standard and put the public interest first. The rules on disclosure of members' water rights and trades must be clear and robust, and must not inadvertently remove privacy protections from mum-and-dad farmers. The Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 provides those clear and robust rules whilst laying the foundation for sensible amendments to be made to the public water register based on expert advice and collaboration with the Commonwealth and our fellow basin States. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Taylor Martin): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The House divided. Ayes ...... 15 Noes ...... 20 Majority ...... 5

AYES Amato Cusack Fang Farraway (teller) Franklin Harwin Khan Maclaren-Jones (teller) Martin Mason-Cox Mitchell Nile Taylor Tudehope Ward

NOES Banasiak Borsak Boyd Buttigieg (teller) D'Adam (teller) Donnelly Faehrmann Field Houssos Hurst Jackson Latham Mookhey Moriarty Roberts Searle Secord Sharpe Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2641

NOES Shoebridge Veitch

PAIRS Farlow Graham Mallard Primrose

Motion negatived. STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COVID-19 HOUSING RESPONSE) BILL 2020 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, on behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand an order of the day for a later hour. Motion agreed to. The PRESIDENT: I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m. Second Reading Speech The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (20:03:40): 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. It is six months—almost to the day—since Australia recorded its first case of COVID-19. When it first emerged, very little was known about the virus. That has meant our efforts to fight it have had to evolve gradually and incrementally—a work in progress, constantly improving and refining, and never complete. At every step we have listened, we have learned and we have acted. Each measure we have introduced has been built upon the last. And we have refined our response, working with the community to make it more effective as time goes by. In six months we have come a long way—and that is a credit to everyone in the state who has done their bit, adapting to an extremely challenging set of circumstances. But there is still a long way to go—and this bill reflects our commitment as a Government to keep going. In responding to COVID-19, our efforts have focused on two main areas. Firstly, safeguarding the health of the community. And secondly, supporting the economy through its biggest challenge in a century—by keeping people in jobs and businesses in business, and supporting the safe reopening of our economy. The bill before the House today represents another important step on each of those fronts. It will support our efforts to keep the most vulnerable members of our community safe—by facilitating the Commonwealth Government's aged care retention bonus. And it will stimulate jobs and help to drive our economic recovery with targeted support for the residential construction sector. The bill will achieve these outcomes by reducing the tax burden on employers in the aged care sector and on the construction of new homes. In this way the bill will ensure that taxes are not a barrier to either quality care for our older citizens, or to the recovery of the economy in the months and years ahead. Before addressing the detail of the bill, it is important to provide some economic context. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2642

As members are well aware, the COVID-19 pandemic is having a profound effect on the global, national and New South Wales economies. The Australian economy fell 0.3 per cent in the March quarter, its first decline in nine years. Restrictions introduced to reduce the spread of COVID-19 are expected to cause a further drop in activity in the June quarter. This is expected to drive the Australian economy into a technical recession for the first time in 29 years. In May, the RBA forecast that the national economy would decline around 10 per cent from peak to trough. Since then, more stable conditions led to a more optimistic outlook. However, with a renewed outbreak in Victoria weighing on the national economy, there is still significant uncertainty about what the economic fallout will be. The national economic downturn is being felt here in New South Wales too. At the time of the Half Yearly Review, the New South Wales economy was on track to grow by 1¾ per cent over 2019-20 and return to trend growth of 2½ per cent by 2021-22. Following a severe bushfire season, and now COVID-19, the state economy is now expected to contract by around 10 per cent over the second half of the 2019-20 fiscal year. In practical terms, the economic impact has put thousands of businesses under intense pressure, and cost hundreds of thousands of New South Wales citizens their jobs. From March to May this year, the number of people employed in New South Wales fell by a staggering 269,300. The easing of restrictions led to an increase of 80,800 jobs in June—but there are still 188,500 fewer people in work since March, just in our state. Almost half a million individuals in New South Wales are receiving JobSeeker—up 92.2 percent since March. And over 335,000 businesses in New South Wales are relying on JobKeeper to get them through, supporting an estimated one million workers. One sector that faces significant challenges—and which will be crucial to our state's economic recovery—is construction. The construction sector is the third largest industry in terms of Gross Value Added in New South Wales. It contributed $48 billion to the New South Wales economy in 2018-19 and accounted for 7.7 per cent of New South Wales GSP. The sector employs around 376,100 workers in New South Wales—the fourth largest employer of all industries in the State. This crucial industry that employs so many people in New South Wales has been hit especially hard by COVID-19. Construction accounts for the highest share of businesses across all industries on JobKeeper in New South Wales—around 16 per cent of the total. As of last week, more than 54,000 construction businesses in New South Wales had applications for JobKeeper payments processed. While these businesses are trying to stay afloat, tens of thousands of construction jobs have disappeared. ABS Payroll data suggests that almost 4 per cent of construction jobs in New South Wales have been lost between March to June 2020, with further falls anticipated over the next 12 months. This short term pain is compounded by a difficult outlook for the sector. Dwelling investment is expected to contract by around a quarter between June 2019 and December 2020. In light of these challenges, this bill proposes measures to support housing construction activity in the near to medium term, when the labour market in New South Wales is expected to be weak. The proposed measures can be readily implemented and will support direct and indirect jobs in both metropolitan and regional areas. They won't just support jobs directly in the construction industry—the benefits will flow into the broader economy—because for every person employed in residential construction in New South Wales, ABS data suggests that a further 2.2 people are employed on average in supporting industries such as building materials, business services and distribution. I now turn to the detail of the bill. Firstly, this bill will support housing construction and housing affordability by further reducing taxes on the purchase of new homes by first home buyers. Stamp duty will be cut for first home buyers of new homes valued between $650,000 and $1 million. A first home buyer will pay no stamp duty when they purchase a new home valued up to $800,000, and a concessional rate of duty when purchasing a new home valued between $800,000 and $1 million. Purchases by first home buyers of existing homes valued below $650,000 will continue to be exempt from duty. This increased concession will be in place for 1 year, beginning from 1 August 2020. Stamp duty will also be cut for first home buyers of vacant land, with exemptions applying for land valued up to $400,000, and concessions applying for land valued up to $500,000. This increases the current support, which provides an exemption for land valued up to $350,000, and concessions for land valued up to $450,000. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2643

By targeting new homes, this measure will support demand for new construction, which will have flow-on effects on jobs, spending and the economy more broadly. This concession is limited to 1 year to provide timely support for the construction industry. The one-year limit will maximise this stimulus effect by encouraging buyers to take advantage of the concession sooner. Under this new policy, a first home buyer will save up to $31,335 when they purchase a new home worth up to $800,000. First home buyers of new properties valued between $650,000 and $1 million will be better off under this policy. Other first home buyers will continue to receive the existing duty exemption for purchases of new and existing homes valued up to $650,000, and concessional duty for purchases of existing homes valued up to $800,000. This new measure builds on our Government's efforts to help more people in New South Wales get the keys to their first home. When we increased and expanded our first home buyer concessions in 2017, the challenges our state was facing were very different. Improving housing affordability was one of the Government's top priorities—and I am pleased to note that since July 2017, more than 93,000 first home buyers have taken advantage of the first home buyer assistance scheme. Collectively, they have saved more than $1.4 billion in stamp duty. These new measures will open the door of home ownership to even more people in New South Wales. But even more importantly in our present circumstances, this new tax-cut will support jobs in a sector that is vital to our economy— at a time when too many people in New South Wales find themselves out of work. The second change this bill relates to rental housing. The bill will take an important step in removing barriers presented by state taxes to the construction of build-to-rent developments. Build-to-rent housing refers to high-density developments built with the intention of creating high-quality rental housing for those who want it. Because they are built with the specific purpose of providing rental accommodation, build to rent developments offer greater security for tenants, because they are better able to accommodate long-term leases. They also provide a counter-cyclical source of housing supply, and improve housing diversity—offering more choice for New South Wales citizens in finding a place to call home. This form of housing has been hugely successful in other nations, but it is almost non existent here in New South Wales. One of the barriers to build-to-rent development is the current structure of land tax in New South Wales. This structure, with a high tax-free threshold, makes it far more profitable for a developer to sell off individual units to small private landlords than to operate a professionally managed large-scale rental development. To mitigate this tax discrepancy, this bill introduces a 50 per cent discount to land valuations for the purposes of calculating land tax, for new build-to-rent developments, until 2040. By limiting the benefit to new developments, this measure will help support new construction and development during this difficult time. Providing these benefits until 2040 provides a substantial period of certainty for investors, while providing a greater benefit for those who start sooner. The bill will also effectively extend the existing carve-outs of developers from foreign investor surcharges to include build-to-rent. This is consistent with the Government's existing position that while the surcharges should generally apply to foreign owners of residential land, they should not inhibit new housing supply from coming online. The bill also implements integrity measures to prevent this tax discount from being used for tax avoidance. A developer that subdivides land within 15 years of first gaining this tax benefit will be required to repay the benefit with interest. Finally, the bill provides for further details of the build-to-rent land tax policy, to be set out in guidelines, to be administered by the Chief Commissioner of Taxation—including technical details of what constitutes a build-to-rent development. Both the first-home-buyer and build-to-rent land elements of the bill are designed to drive the creation of new housing for the people of New South Wales. They will contribute further to improving housing affordability over the medium term. And they will support job creation in the near future—to help get New South Wales working again. As our state begins the careful process of getting back into work—it is necessary to remain vigilant against the virus that has taken such a tragic toll around the nation and the world. We know that COVID-19 poses a greater threat to certain vulnerable demographics—particularly our older citizens. We can only open our economy safely if we take the appropriate steps to keep these vulnerable groups as safe as possible from the effects of the virus. That means ensuring the aged care sector has enough skilled workers to meet the rigorous demands of working with older citizens in the time of COVID-19. This is a significant challenge. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2644

Aged care staff are on the front line and are subject to self-isolation requirements or are unable to attend work because of COVID-19. To support the continuity of the aged care workforce, the Commonwealth Government is funding the Aged Care Workforce Retention Grant Opportunity program. Under the program, the Commonwealth will make two payments of up to $800 per employee to aged care employers. The retention bonus payments will then be passed through to staff. The first payment will be made to employers from July 2020 and the second payment from September 2020. Under current New South Wales payroll tax laws, these payments would be regarded as wages when passed on to employees. This would mean aged care employers would be required to pay tax on the retention bonuses, leaving them out of pocket. Clearly that is not the intention of the Commonwealth grant. Accordingly, Schedule 4 of the bill provides an exemption from payroll tax for these payments to remove the disincentive for aged care employers to participate in the program. Members will recall passing legislation earlier this year to provide a similar payroll tax exemption for additional wages paid under the JobKeeper Payment scheme. Again, this change will have a double benefit. It will benefit the elderly citizens who rely on the efforts of aged-care workers every day. And it will sustain workers and jobs during at a time when every job opportunity is priceless. The changes in this bill are relatively small in scale. But they will form part of our state's much bigger effort to meet the extraordinary challenge that lies before us—to safely reopen our economy, and rebuild an even stronger, more resilient New South Wales. This bill complements the plan launched by the Premier—to regenerate our economy through six key focus areas:  a $100 billion infrastructure pipeline  accelerated planning processes and precinct development  education and skills  digitisation  advanced manufacturing and local supply chains  and reform of federal financial relations. These major initiatives will be implemented one step at a time. That is how we must approach the road ahead. We know it will not be easy. We know that recovery will not happen overnight. But if we keep working—keep adapting—and keep responding to the challenges as they arise, we will succeed. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. WALT SECORD (20:03:48): As the shadow Treasurer, I lead for Labor on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (COVID-19 Housing Response) Bill 2020. The long title of the bill is: "An Act to make miscellaneous amendments to certain State revenue legislation in connection with stamp duty concessions under the First Home Buyers Assistance scheme, concessional land tax treatment for certain build-to-rent properties and payroll tax exemptions for payments under the Commonwealth's Aged Care Workforce Retention Grant Opportunity program; and for related purposes." First, I thank the Treasurer and his ministerial staff for a briefing on the legislation slightly more than a week ago and for discussions earlier today about the legislation. In keeping with our informal arrangements during the pandemic, Labor agreed to a bipartisan briefing and we gave the Opposition's in-principle support. During this pandemic my colleague the shadow Minister for Finance and Small Business, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, and the Leader of the Opposition, Jodi McKay, pledged to provide bipartisan support to initiatives that protect the economy and save jobs. As I have often said, Labor's approach during the pandemic has been jobs, jobs and even more jobs. It has also been about protecting jobs and protecting families, hopefully helping them to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. For the record, we entered the current COVID situation with a weak economy due to the Berejiklian Government's mismanagement of the State's finances. Overnight, more than 250,000 workers lost their jobs in Victoria, flights have been cancelled, and today Victoria is struggling. Victoria's crisis is Australia's crisis as Victoria accounts for a quarter of our nation's economy. That is why New South Wales must do everything in its power to avoid a similar lockdown. That is why everything we do must be about masks, masks and more masks so that we can protect jobs, jobs and more jobs. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2645

As my colleague the shadow health Minister and Leader of Opposition Business in the Legislative Assembly, , has indicated, Labor will provide its support to the legislation. However, Labor will move about three amendments to improve the legislation further. Labor's amendments will relate to social and/or affordable housing and to the hiring of apprentices during the construction of this new form of housing. I will speak briefly later on those amendments. I acknowledge that the Government is not overjoyed by the amendments but, from our discussions several hours ago, it will not object to them. On that note, I thank the shadow health Minister and Leader of Opposition Business in the Legislative Assembly for his assistance and I also thank the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who helped to prepare Labor's response. For the record, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey was unable to attend the briefing, but he had a very good reason for not attending: He was deeply involved in the examination of the icare matter. I endorse his diligence in holding the Treasurer and the board of icare to account. I think we will hear much more about that unfolding controversy. I hope I am not speaking out of school, but the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and his staff member Ellyse Harding have been working diligently for a year on that matter. On a related note, I have to say that it is a pleasure to work with the Hon. Daniel Mookhey as part of Labor's economic team. On 23 July the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and I had the honour to address the NSW Jewish Communal Appeal via Zoom on our economic response to the COVID crisis. It is part of an ongoing series of talks we hope to undertake with important community stakeholders in the coming weeks, subject to the COVID restrictions. I now turn to the object of the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (COVID-19 Housing Response) Bill 2020. The object of the bill is to amend State revenue legislation in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic response as follows: (a) the Duties Act 1997 is amended to increase duty concessions available under the First Home Buyers Assistance scheme for certain agreements and transfers that are entered into during the period beginning on 1 August 2020 and ending on 31 July 2021, (b) the Duties Act 1997, the Land Tax Act 1956 and the Land Tax Management Act 1956 are amended— (i) to provide a land tax concession to apply until 2040, being that the value of land on which certain build-to-rent properties are constructed is, for the purposes of assessing land tax, to be reduced by 50%; and (ii) to provide for exemptions from and refunds of surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge land tax payable in respect of land on which build-to-rent properties are situated; (c) the Payroll Tax Act 2007 is amended to provide that certain wages paid or payable to employees that are funded by the Commonwealth program known as the Aged Care Workforce Retention Grant Opportunity are to be exempt from payroll tax. I hope the bill will support housing construction and housing affordability in New South Wales, and create jobs, as the Treasurer has promised. I note that on 23 July the Federal Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, said in an economic update that Australia is experiencing the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. At the time, he confirmed an $85.8 billion deficit for the last financial year, and an estimated $184 billion deficit for the next financial year, with that figure reflecting the $289 billion that the Morrison Government has allocated to stimulus measures, including JobKeeper. He went on to say that he expected unemployment to peak at 9.25 per cent in the December quarter as 870,000 Australians lost their jobs between March and May. Mr Frydenberg made these comments before the recent second wave of COVID-19 infections in Victoria so we may have to brace for even tougher news if that continues. I turn now to the specific details of the bill. I refer to the changes to the first home buyers assistance. An amendment to the Duties Act 1997 will increase duty concessions available under the First Home Buyers Assistance Scheme up to $800,000 for a new home. It will increase the threshold for no transfer duty and concessional transfer duty on new homes and vacant land purchased by first home buyers. Under the First Home Buyers Assistance Scheme, first home buyers receive a transfer duty concession if the home or vacant land they purchase falls under certain price thresholds. The amendment temporarily increases the concessions by raising the price thresholds for new homes and for vacant land from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. The price thresholds remain the same for the purchase of existing homes. There is no change. I refer to the build-to-rent proposal. This new classification of housing has been developed in response to the pre-COVID housing affordability crisis. It is based on the premise that home ownership is too expensive for young people. It has existed in the United Kingdom for the last 10 years and international long-term investors are now trying to enter the New South Wales market. It is simple: It is an entire building, usually in a central location, where all the properties are on long-term rental contracts. In December 2019 an international investor briefed the Opposition about the model and committed to providing a pipeline of some 6,500 units in Australia. At the time the investor indicated that land tax was the biggest obstacle to the investor and superannuation funds becoming involved in the model. Land tax is calculated as a percentage of a landowner's total taxable land value. This amendment reduces, by 50 per cent, the land value of eligible build-to-rent properties for land tax calculation until 2040. It will apply only where construction of the build-to-rent property commenced on or after 1 July 2020. The Treasurer's office has indicated that the bill will prevent build-to-rent properties that receive the land tax reduction from being subdivided within the first 15 years. If a build-to-rent property is subdivided within 15 years of when the land tax reduction is first applied, the owner will be liable to repay the benefit of the reduction received so far with interest. Furthermore, the legislation Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2646

will provide an exemption from surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge and land tax for build-to-rent properties that are eligible for the land tax reduction. This will allow an owner to claim this benefit as an exemption or refund. Further eligibility requirements on what constitutes an eligible build-to-rent property will be set out in guidelines that will be approved by the Treasurer at an unspecified date. It would be nice if the finance Minister could give an indication of a timetable in his reply. The Treasurer's office has indicated that this is expected to include provisions around compliance with relevant planning and development standards, minimum lease conditions that must be offered to tenants, minimum numbers of units, and the ownership and management of the build-to-rent property. I turn now to changes relating to payroll tax exemptions and the aged care sector. Under the bill, the New South Wales Government is waiving the increased payroll tax burden placed on aged care providers. This is due to the Commonwealth Government funding two aged care retention bonus payments for eligible workers providing services in residential and in-home care. The funding will be provided under the Aged Care Workforce Retention Grant Opportunity to aged care employers to pass on to these workers as wages, one in July 2020 and one in September 2020. The Aged Care Workforce Retention Grant provides two payments of up to $800 for residential aged care workers and up to $600 for aged care home care providers. Applications can be made for full-time, part-time and casual workers on a pro rata basis. The program was announced by the Morrison Government on 20 March 2020 and the Federal Government claims it will provide $234.9 million to the sector through the COVID-19 aged care workforce retention payment. I have an interest in aged care as I was chief of staff to the Minister for Aged Care when I was in Canberra during the Rudd Government. I saw the best and the worst of the aged care sector during that time. I developed a deep appreciation for the faith-based sector—the Baptist, Jewish, Anglican, Uniting and Catholic organisations that provided world-class facilities for those in their care. I also encountered people such as Bryan Lippman, who worked with homeless and alcoholic men needing aged care in Melbourne. In New South Wales there are 860 aged care facilities. Without this exemption, the aged care employer would need to pay payroll tax on the bonuses paid to workers. A similar exemption was provided for additional wages under JobKeeper. In June 2020 the Federal Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Richard Colbeck, confirmed that the payments would be taxed. It is pleasing that the New South Wales Government is fixing this Federal Government stuff-up. At the time the taxation was criticised by the Health Services Union's General Secretary (New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory branch) Gerard Hayes, the United Services Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. Mr Hayes said the payment was too narrow and should be extended to other aged care workers, including administrative staff and cleaners. I agree with Mr Hayes. Those workers in the aged care sector are working their guts out and their services are essential to keep aged care functioning safely. I also note that my colleagues the shadow health Minister, Ryan Park, and the shadow seniors Minister, Jo Haylen, have written to both the New South Wales health Minister, Brad Hazzard, and the Federal aged care Minister, Senator Richard Colbeck, expressing similar concerns. I wish to end with some general comments about the Berejiklian Government's response to the COVID-19 crisis from an economic point of view. These are relevant to the bill before us. Generally the Berejiklian Government's response has been timid. It did not address any of the previous deficiencies identified by the poor take-up and narrow focus of the Government programs. The Treasurer claimed that he wanted to embark on major reform, but there has been only a minor adjustment to stamp duty. It is like announcing that he will be building a new home when they are merely painting the front door. On 21 July Labor called on the Berejiklian Government to review the effectiveness of its so-called support programs for businesses—especially small businesses—after it was revealed that the State-based programs had very low take-up rates. Earlier today in question time the Minister for Finance and Small Business revealed that only $15 million had been spent out of a $440 million fund. That is only 2,662 applications and the program has been extended to 31 December 2020. To give a perspective, this is just over a 3 per cent take-up rate. In addition, less than half of eligible New South Wales businesses were provided with payroll tax relief and the undersubscribed Berejiklian Government schemes also include several other programs it has been forced to rebadge. It has also been forced to extend the Small Business Grant Scheme. Sections of the community missed out on Federal assistance after changes to the JobKeeper and JobSeeker programs, including casual employees, university staff, the arts sector and sole traders. The worst part of the whole response by the Berejiklian Government is that the Treasurer continually announces reviews but does not make any major proposals or put forward any real plans. The only plan we have had from this Government so far is the clumsy one by the Minister for Finance and Small Business, where he plans to have his Canberra colleagues jack up the GST to 15 per cent. What a terrible idea. It is the last thing we need. Returning to the bill, I note the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2647

Government has indicated that it will not be dividing or voting against the amendments. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the Committee stage. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:18:31): I speak on behalf of The Greens on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (COVID-19 Housing Response) Bill 2020. I would love to believe that this bill will create jobs and increase productivity in New South Wales because answers are sorely needed in this crisis. But sadly the Government's response so far has been lacking in imagination regarding the effective long-term management of our economy. The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to make it more palatable. I note at the outset that the first home owner concessions and the measures to exempt the aged care workforce retention grants from payroll tax are not problematic from the perspective of The Greens members. It is the build-to-rent aspects of the bill that we strongly object to. Long before COVID-19 the financial services sector in Australia was lobbying to establish build-to-rent as an asset class in Australia. Specifically Australian institutional investors have long argued that impediments to foreign investment in the sector need to be removed in order to make the asset class viable. In fact, according to some institutional investors, apparently up to 75 per cent of foreign capital is required in order for this asset class to thrive in Australia. In the US, build-to-rent has solidified as an investment class in the past 20 years. Institutional investors now hold over 17 per cent of America's apartment rental stock while private companies hold 8 per cent. One-quarter of US apartment rentals are in the hands of institutions and private corporations whose objective is to make a profit. The likes of Mirvac have long argued that Australia needs two essential tax reforms to push the sector forward. One is the surplus tax on foreign investors, which is addressed in schedule 2 and the other is land tax, which is also addressed in the bill. Last year Mr Adam Hirst, general manager of Mirvac's build-to-rent department, was reported as saying: … the real thing for the government at all levels is to make a decision on whether corporate housing, institutional rental housing is an asset class they want. If they get past that and make that decision … the key is really unlocking the capital. I agree that if we want that asset class then we need to unlock that capital. Mr Hirst posed a threshold question: Is corporate housing and institutional rental housing an asset class that we want in New South Wales? The build-to-rent concept focuses on increasing the supply of rental housing through improving investment options and outcomes for institutional investors such as large banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds, where often the beneficial holder is far removed from the day-to-day management of the property. It is not about increasing the housing opportunities for tenants and for individuals in New South Wales. Those investors are investing in this asset class purely for profit, as they are set up to do. Removing tax barriers will increase returns for investors and make that asset class more attractive as a result. The nature of corporate institutional landlords is that they are seeking to maximise their profits. That will always mean that the experiences and rights of tenants are subservient to the profits of the investors. Experience overseas shows high rates of corporate and institutional landlords evicting tenants en masse and then maximising rent increases across the board. Without very strong safeguards for tenants those schemes will result in higher rents and lower housing security. Given this Government's track record of favouring the profits of large corporations over the rights and needs of individuals in this State, The Greens have no faith in the Government instituting the necessary protections required to make something like this work in the interests of New South Wales or that it will continue to do so in the future. Having said that, The Greens believe that housing is fundamentally a human right and not an asset class. The increasing commodification of housing in Australia and the concentration of housing in private hands is directly related to high levels of housing stress and ever-increasing levels of wealth inequality in the State. COVID-19 has shown up the faults in government policy that favours big operations and the markets above all else. It has shown us very clearly that the Government needs to step in to provide essential services. Housing is an essential service. I remind members that this week is Homelessness Week. Now is the time to be rolling out public housing stock, not worsening our long-term economic outlook by condemning future generations to ongoing housing stress and a lack of housing security. Build-to-rent is not an asset class that we want. It is for that reason that we will be opposing the bill in its current form. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (20:24:10): In reply: I thank the shadow Treasurer and Ms Abigail Boyd for their contributions. The PRESIDENT: I remind the Minister to ignore interjections. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Notwithstanding that they each have made valuable contributions, I have to say that I do not agree with a lot of Ms Abigail Boyd's contribution, but she is entirely consistent in terms of the policy positions that she adopts. I make this observation: Increasing housing supply delivers on the Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2648

obligation to provide housing. I would have thought that was self-evident. Her concern is that she does not want anyone to make any money out of it. The fact of the matter is that we are in an environment where we are seeking private enterprise to assist and work with the Government to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs, as the shadow Treasurer rightly indicated, with a view to getting people into work. By working in the construction industry they will deliver the housing solutions that Ms Abigail Boyd wants. The bill represents further efforts by the Government to safeguard the health of the community and to support the economy. It will support our efforts to get the most vulnerable members of our community safe by facilitating the Commonwealth Government's aged care retention bonus. I note that we have unanimous support in relation to those provisions. It will stimulate jobs and help to drive our economic recovery with targeted support for the residential construction sector. The bill achieves those outcomes by reducing the tax burden on the construction of new homes and on employers in the aged care sector. The bill will support housing construction and housing affordability by further reducing taxes on the purchase of new homes by first home buyers. Stamp duty will be cut for first home buyers of new homes valued between $650,000 and $1 million. A first home buyer will pay no stamp duty when they purchase a new home valued at up to $800,000 and a concessional rate of duty when they are purchasing a new home valued between $800,000 and $1 million. Other first home buyers will continue to receive the existing stamp duty exemption for purchases of existing homes valued at up to $650,000 and concessional duty for purchases of existing homes valued at up to $800,000. Stamp duty will be cut for first home buyers of vacant land, with exemptions applying to land valued up to $400,000 and concessions applying to land valued up to $500,000. This indicates a commitment to increasing housing supply and assisting people who are trying to get into the market for the first time. First home buyers of new properties valued between $650,000 and $1 million will be better off under this policy. By targeting new homes the measure will support the demand for new construction, which will have flow-on effects for jobs, spending and the economy more broadly. The new measure builds on the Government's efforts to help more people in New South Wales get the keys to their first home. But even more importantly in our present circumstances, the new tax cut will support jobs in a sector that is vital to our economy at a time when too many people in New South Wales find themselves out of work. I join with the shadow Treasurer in his commitment to creating jobs. The second change the bill will implement relates to rental housing. The bill will take an important step in removing barriers presented by State taxes to the construction of build-to-rent developments, which are built with the intention of creating high-quality rental housing, offering greater security to tenants because they are better able to accommodate long-term leases. I am a big protagonist of long-term leases as providing security for tenants— Mr Justin Field: Are you a proponent or a protagonist? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I am a protagonist for—a supporter of—long-term leases. Often part of the problem with the rental market is that people have to jump, chop and change on a regular basis. We will have circumstances where tenants can have long-term leases and we anticipate that those leases will be up to 15 years in duration. The bill introduces a 50 per cent discount to land valuations for calculating land tax for new build-to-rent developments until 2040. By limiting the benefit to new developments, that measure will help support new construction and development during the pandemic. Providing those benefits until 2040 provides a substantial period of certainty for investors while providing a greater benefit for those who start sooner. The bill also effectively extends the existing carve-outs of developers from foreign investor surcharges to include build-to-rent. That is consistent with the Government's existing position that while the surcharges should generally apply to foreign owners of residential land, they should not inhibit new housing supply from coming online. The bill also implements integrity measures to prevent the tax discount from being used for tax avoidance. A developer who subdivides land within 15 years of first gaining the tax benefit will be required to repay the benefit with interest. The bill also provides for further details of the build-to-rent land tax policies to be set out in guidelines to be administered by the Chief Commissioner of Taxation, including technical details of what constitutes a build-to-rent development. Both the first home buyer and the build-to-rent land tax elements of the bill are designed to drive creation of new housing for the people of New South Wales. They will contribute further to improving housing and affordability over the medium term and they will support job creation in the near future to help get New South Wales working again. I conclude by addressing the Commonwealth aged care retention bonus program. The third change the bill will implement relates to the payroll tax treatment of the Commonwealth's aged care retention bonus payments. Aged-care staff are on the front line and are subject to self-isolation requirements if they are unable to attend work because of COVID-19. To support the continuity of the aged-care workforce, the Commonwealth Government is funding the aged-care workforce retention grant opportunity program. Under the program, the Commonwealth Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2649

will make two payments of up to $800 per employee to aged-care employers. The retention bonus payments will then be passed through to staff. The bill provides an exemption from payroll tax for those payments to remove the disincentive for aged care employers to participate in the program. Members will recall passing legislation earlier this year to provide a similar payroll tax exemption for additional wages paid under the JobKeeper payments scheme. Again, the change will have a double benefit. It will benefit the elderly citizens who rely on the efforts of aged-care workers every day and it will sustain workers and jobs during a time when every job opportunity is priceless. In conclusion, the changes in the bill form part of the State's significant effort to meet the extraordinary challenge that lies before us to safely reopen our economy and rebuild an even stronger, more resilient New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. In Committee The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. I have two sheets of amendments: Opposition amendments on sheet c2020-115A and The Greens amendments on sheet c2020-108F. The Committee will deal with the Opposition amendments first. The Hon. WALT SECORD (20:34:30): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2020-115A in globo: No. 1 Build-to-rent property to be constructed using certain workers Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E(2). Insert after line 17— (b1) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that a significant proportion of the labour force hours spent on the construction of the building involves or involved work performed by persons whom the Chief Commissioner considers belong to any one or more of the following classes of worker— (i) apprentices or trainees, (ii) long-term unemployed workers, (iii) workers requiring upskilling, (iv) workers with barriers to employment (such as persons with disability), (v) Aboriginal jobseekers, (vi) graduates, and No. 2 Build-to-rent property guidelines to promote affordable and social housing Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E. Insert after line 38— (3A) The guidelines must include policies to promote the development of new affordable housing and social housing in build-to-rent properties. No. 3 Build-to-rent property guidelines to promote affordable and social housing Page 11, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E. Insert after line 36— (10A) In this section— affordable housing has the same meaning as in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. social housing means residential accommodation provided by a social housing provider within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. In my office the amendments are referred to informally as the "Saxena amendments", named after my hardworking staff member Sachin Saxena—some Opposition members may add "long-suffering". I digress. My comments will be brief given that the amendments have been adapted slightly following lengthy discussions with the Treasurer's office. The amendments are balanced and reflect common sense. I am aware that the Government is not enamoured with them. However, the Government— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Can count! The Hon. WALT SECORD: But the Government has seen that they are sensible and balanced. I acknowledge that the New South Wales Urban Taskforce and the Property Council of Australia have made representations to me. I have reassured them that the amendments are sensible and have been adapted to the COVID environment. Members should encourage new forms of construction, first home buyers and jobs in that Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2650

sector. This should be about jobs, jobs and even more jobs. It is hard to understand why anyone would oppose a legislative requirement that employers engage Aboriginal jobseekers, young apprentices, trainees, long-term unemployed people, workers requiring upskilling or workers facing barriers to employment. Furthermore, it is difficult to object to including in the guidelines policies to promote social and affordable housing. I am advised that the Government has accepted the amendments, albeit belatedly and begrudgingly. I commend to the Committee Opposition amendment No. 1 headed "Build-to-rent property to be constructed using certain workers". Those workers are apprentices or trainees, long-term unemployed workers, workers requiring upskilling, workers with barriers to employment such as persons with disability, Aboriginal jobseekers and graduates. Opposition amendment No. 2 is about inclusion of policies in the guidelines that promote the development of new affordable housing and social housing. They will be approved by the Treasurer at a later date. The third amendment inserts definitions of "affordable housing" and "social housing" in line with definitions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 respectively. I commend the Opposition amendments to the Committee. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (20:37:38): The shadow Treasurer is correct in saying that the Government does not like the amendments. The Government is predisposed to oppose them but we will not force a division on them. I place on record the reasons for the Government's in-principle opposition to the amendments. The Government's overriding disposition is that the amendments are too prescriptive and complex, and are not consistent with the core intent of the bill. The amendments will require a significant proportion of construction work on build-to-rent developments to be undertaken by certain classes of workers, such as apprentices and long-term unemployed workers. While that may be laudable, it may well add to the cost of the development. In fact, one thing I say about the aspirational legislative exercise that the Opposition has embarked upon here is that through its procurement arm—certainly in relation to construction procurement— the New South Wales Government already has many requirements exactly like that. We are a model procurement body. In the circumstances, we would like other organisations to adopt similar provisions to those that the Government has adopted relating to Indigenous employment, small business employment engagement and the like. However, ideologically, the Government is not in the business of telling companies whom they must employ and how to employ them. We accept that they will work to provide a product and provide jobs, and that is part of the mantra of the bill—we are providing jobs. Hopefully, unemployed people will generally be given jobs because of the nature of this legislation and the incentive and stimulus that is provided. The provision as it stands mandates those things to be included in the bill, and I understand Labor's ideology behind it. However, in the circumstances the Government does not think it should be imposed upon people who are seeking to provide a stimulus and we are seeking to achieve that through the bill. Revenue NSW will also have administrative costs and the amendments may well discourage the take-up of the scheme. The amendments could also carry risks to the quality of construction by encouraging the use of less skilled workers, which is a serious risk. The bill is not the appropriate vehicle to address the supply of affordable housing in New South Wales. Increasing housing may well have the effect of including more affordable housing but the bill is a revenue stimulus bill and it is not the appropriate vehicle for delivering on that aspiration. The bill aims to reduce the tax discrepancy between build-to-rent and build-to-sell properties. The Government promotes the supply of social and affordable housing through its planning policies and direct investment in new social housing construction, which is the appropriate vehicle for delivering those outcomes—not through interfering in a COVID-stimulus bill or a revenue bill. Although the bill is a revenue stimulus bill and gives those tax concessions, the appropriate vehicle for delivering the targets of affordable housing should be planning instruments. However, as a display of goodwill by the Government and for the purpose of making sure that we deliver on every opportunity to provide jobs in this climate, we will oppose, but not divide on, the amendments. Mr JUSTIN FIELD (20:42:36): It is curious to me that the Minister for Finance and Small Business is drawing a distinction by saying that the Government will not divide on the amendments, although it opposes them. At the end of the day, the Government will need to deliver on the legislation that is passed by this Parliament. The effect of the Minister's comments is that the amendments will become law. The Government has clearly indicated its intention to support the amendments and it will obviously support them in the other House as well. The question to the Government then becomes: How will it direct the chief commissioner in the delivery of— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I do not want to restrict debate unnecessarily but the question before the Committee is whether the amendments are supported. This is not a second reading debate so I ask that members contemplate the amendments. Mr JUSTIN FIELD: I understand entirely. I will put it in the context of being asked to support the amendments. I have not made a decision as to whether I will support them, but I ask members to consider whether Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2651

we should, given it is clear that the Government does not support the amendments yet will be required to deliver on them. I am not going to make that case because I think the amendments improve some of the questions on this particular aspect of the bill. It would be beneficial for the Government—because it is, in effect, green lighting the amendments—to explain how a significant proportion might be defined and, with regard to amendment No. 2, how the guidelines would be developed to ensure that they promote affordable housing and social housing in build-to-rent properties, because through the legislation and the amendments we are being asked to trust that the guidelines will be developed to deliver those things. There is also the assumption that the guidelines will ensure that the security of tenancies is met. In suggesting that guidelines can be created to deliver on that, I ask the Government: Who will it consult about that? Whose input will be sought? How exactly will the Government implement that in guidelines when the Minister has already made the case for the tenuous nature of this subsidy and its ability to unlock this asset class for the purposes of investment. We are starting to see some real challenges to the core principles of the legislation, which is highlighted through Labor's amendments. I have some questions about how the legislation will deliver on the Government's intentions, and I will address that further in response to The Greens amendments. It is important for members to consider the way the Government has presented its response to the Opposition amendments. Given that response, I fear that if we look in a couple of years time at how this policy area was delivered through the objectives of the bill we might find that the Government chose to largely ignore the Opposition amendments. That is certainly the suggestion given by the Minister in his response. The Hon. WALT SECORD (20:46:09): I give this commitment to Mr Justin Field: The Opposition will be rigorous and will be onto the Government if it does not keep to the spirit of affordable and social housing as enshrined in the legislation. We recognise that within the COVID context we are headed towards record levels of unemployment and we have an obligation to look at ways to stimulate the economy and create new forms of housing. I recognise that this is new territory, but it has existed for 10 years in North America— The Hon. Damien Tudehope: New York. The Hon. WALT SECORD: —particularly in New York and also in Toronto. Last year I received a comprehensive briefing on this so, yes, I have concerns about it. But we have an obligation to provide jobs for people in the construction industry and this will unlock investment. I understand and acknowledge Mr Justin Field's concerns. The CHAIR: The Hon. Walt Secord has moved Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2020-115A. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:47:47): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-108F in globo: No. 1 First home buyers assistance scheme Page 3, Schedule 1[2], proposed section 74(5), line 19. Insert "and includes a home that has been renovated and in respect of which a BASIX certificate is issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the renovation" after "Act 2000". No. 2 First home buyers assistance scheme Page 4, Schedule 1[3], proposed section 78AA(7), line 47. Insert "and includes a home that has been renovated and in respect of which a BASIX certificate is issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the renovation" after "Act 2000". The amendments relate to the first part of the bill that gives concessions to first home buyers. We talked about new homes, which were justified by the Government on the basis of creating new construction jobs. Similarly, houses that have been renovated to bring them up to the standard of new homes when it comes to issues such as energy efficiency will also create construction jobs. We argue that it makes sense to also include a provision in the First Home Buyers Assistance Scheme that effectively equates new homes with ones that have been renovated to a new standard. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Ms Abigail Boyd has moved The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-108F. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:49:45): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 on sheet c2020-108F in globo: No. 3 Build-to-rent properties Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2652

Pages 5 and 6, Schedule 1[6], line 5 on page 5 to line 43 on page 6. Omit all words on those lines. No. 4 Land Tax Act amendments Pages 8 and 9, Schedule 2, line 1 on page 8 to line 35 on page 9. Omit all words on those lines. These amendments seek to remove the concessions given to foreign owners in relation to build-to-rent properties. I set out the reasons for this during my contribution to the second reading debate. Specifically, if 75 per cent of profits go offshore, as has been flagged as the likely outcome of allowing build-to-rent schemes to go ahead, that profit-making activity is certainly not going to benefit the local economy to the extent we would like. For that reason, and for the reasons we strongly oppose the build-to-rent concept as it is laid out in the bill, we commend the amendments to the Committee. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Ms Abigail Boyd has moved The Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 on sheet c2020-108F. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:51:01): I move The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-108F: No. 5 Build-to-rent properties—regulations Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E(2)(c), lines 19 and 20. Omit "guidelines approved by the Treasurer". Insert instead "regulations made". The amendment is pretty straightforward. At the moment, we have a provision in relation to guidelines being created that will outline a lot of requirements for build-to-rent properties. As members know, guidelines are not disallowable by Parliament whereas regulations are. I refer to the joint Legislation Review Committee's latest digest, which was published today. It makes the point that good legislation would have this in regulations as opposed to guidelines. For that reason, we propose that the build-to-rent property guidelines become regulations. Mr JUSTIN FIELD (20:52:00): I support the amendment moved by Ms Abigail Boyd. The Government has not made the case for how the bill as it is written will deliver on the objectives that it has laid out. It puts a lot of reliance on regulations. It is not a question of whether it supports construction jobs, and I appreciate that is mostly what this is about. The bill is being dressed up as delivering substantially for those who are renting. How it will deliver or improve security of tenure and how it will add to housing supply in the rental market? There is the assumption that if we build more houses and specify that they are for the rental market then somehow it will put downward pressure on rents and improve security of tenure for renters. I do not think that is founded in the evidence we have seen about how the property market works. The bill relies a lot on the regulations for delivery. How long will the minimum lease period for tenants be? I do not think that is spelt out. How will the bill guarantee security of tenure? How will it ensure that if someone signs a long lease then mobility expectations are considered. As we have pointed out, we are in COVID times and people might have to change their circumstances relatively quickly. How are the regulations going to ensure that people cannot only have security of tenure but also exercise their own judgement in life about how best to meet the needs of their family? None of that is spelt out in the bill. We are being asked to take a lot on faith through the generation of guidelines. We see time and again with legislation that there is a lot of reliance on guidelines. It goes to the fundamental question of the bill delivering on its objectives as laid out by the Government with the support of the Opposition. Put it on the table. Consult with the bodies that have a genuine interest in this area. If we want this asset class to work and deliver—not just unlock investment but deliver for those people who rely on the rental market—let us make sure that the rules around how it is going to operate are developed in a transparent manner that can be scrutinised by Parliament as regulations. That will ensure there is more engagement with the key stakeholders who will be affected by the bill. It is a good ask and makes sense if we want to achieve the objectives of the bill. I support the amendment. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Ms Abigail Boyd has moved The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet c2020-108F. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Committee divided. Ayes ...... 6 Noes ...... 30 Majority ...... 24

AYES Boyd (teller) Faehrmann Field (teller) Hurst Pearson Shoebridge Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2653

NOES Ajaka Amato Banasiak Borsak Buttigieg Cusack D'Adam Donnelly Fang Farraway (teller) Franklin Graham Harwin Houssos Jackson Latham Maclaren-Jones (teller) Martin Mason-Cox Mitchell Mookhey Nile Primrose Roberts Searle Secord Sharpe Taylor Tudehope Ward

Amendment negatived. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (21:05:59): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 6 to 15 on sheet c2020-108F in globo: No. 6 Build-to-rent properties—guidelines Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E (2) (c), line 20. Insert "and made publicly available" after "approved". No. 7 Build-to-rent properties—current tenants Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E (2). Insert after line 20— (ca) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that at least 80% of the occupied dwellings in the building were, in the previous 12 months, occupied by long-term tenants and the weekly rent paid by each of those tenants was no more than 30% of the tenant's weekly gross household income, and No. 8 Build-to-rent properties—future tenants Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E (2). Insert after line 20— (cb) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that at least 80% of the occupied dwellings in the building will, in the following 12 months, be occupied by long-term tenants and the weekly rent paid by each of those tenants will be no more than 30% of the tenant's weekly gross household income, and No. 9 Build-to-rent properties—lease agreements Page 10, Schedule 3[2], proposed section 9E (2). Insert after line 20— (cc) the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that— (i) tenants in the building are not required to pay rent that is more than 30% of the tenant's weekly gross household income, and (ii) leases are for a fixed term of 1 year, 2 years, 5 years or 10 years, and (iii) for a lease agreement with a fixed term of 3 years or more, the lease includes a term that entitles the tenant to terminate the lease agreement after 12 months by giving at least 4 weeks' notice in writing to the landlord, and No. 10 Build-to-rent properties—regulations Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E (3), line 22. Omit "guidelines may include provisions with respect to". Insert instead "regulations may provide for". No. 11 Build-to-rent properties—guidelines Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E (3) (a) (iii), lines 29 and 30. Omit all words on those lines. No. 12 Build-to-rent properties—guidelines Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E (3). Insert after line 35— (ba) publication of information on the implementation of this section, including in relation to compliance by persons owning land to which this section applies, No. 13 Build-to-rent properties—tenant consultation Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E. Insert after line 38— (3A) Without limiting subsection (3) (a), a building is taken to be a build-to-rent property only if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure proper consultation with, and representation of the views of, tenants of the building on matters relating to the management of the building. No. 14 Build-to-rent properties—regulations Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2654

Page 10, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E (5), line 42. Omit "A guideline". Insert instead "The regulations". No. 15 Build-to-rent properties—definitions Page 11, Schedule 3 [2], proposed section 9E. Insert after line 36— (10A) In this section— long-term tenant of a dwelling means a tenant who has occupied the same dwelling for at least 3 years or, if the building is less than 3 years old, since the building was first open for lease. rent has the same meaning as in the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. The remainder of the amendments that we are proposing tonight are really to ensure that the stated purpose of this legislation is upheld. I acknowledge the work of my colleague in the other place Ms Jenny Leong, the member for Newtown, as well as the work of the Tenants' Union of New South Wales for helping us to put forward these important amendments which ensure that tenants have long-term housing security and affordability at a time when people cannot afford to be out on the street. Amendment No. 7 helps to define exactly what we mean when we talk about affordable housing. We are using the definition used by FACS, which is that the weekly rent paid by tenants cannot be more than 30 per cent of their weekly gross household income. We believe that to be a far more equitable measure than the measure contained in the definition that is currently included in the Labor amendment. There is also a provision for ensuring the long-term nature of the tenancies. If in fact we have a scheme which is intended to provide long-term security for tenants on the understanding that apparently institutional investors are more passive and less likely to want to take an active role in evicting tenants—although overseas experience tells us that that is not necessarily correct— then the Government should not object to including specific requirements around these built-to-rent properties for leases to be offered for a period of time and a certain percentage of the tenants in that building to in fact be long-term tenants so that they benefit from the really generous tax concessions being offered here. In relation to amendment No. 13, again taking the vibe of the Treasurer's second reading speech, if we are intending to benefit and bolster tenants' rights over their homes, an amendment that requires arrangements to be in place to ensure proper consultation with those tenants should not be objected to by the Government. Finally, in the absence of regulations replacing guidelines, if those guidelines are to be produced we should include a statement saying that they are published and publicly available, and that is also included in our amendments. I commend the amendments to the Committee. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Ms Abigail Boyd has moved The Greens amendments Nos 6 to 15 on sheet c2020-108F. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House with amendments. Motion agreed to. Adoption of Report The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (21:12:43): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2655

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The Government is pleased to introduce the Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020. This bill establishes the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales. My Government's focus is to improve the customer experience for all users of the system and reduce any process trauma for injured people navigating disputes in the workers compensation and motor accidents schemes. In 2018, the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice found it can be confusing for people navigating disputes in these schemes. The Committee recommended consolidating the workers compensation and CTP dispute resolution systems into a single personal injury tribunal, by expanding the jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Commission but retaining two streams of expertise. On 7 August 2019, Minister Dominello announced that the New South Wales Government supported in-principle establishing a consolidated tribunal with separate workers compensation and CTP insurance divisions. This bill delivers on this Government's response to that recommendation. This bill creates an independent, consolidated and modern Personal Injury Commission headed by a judicial officer with the jurisdiction of the existing Workers Compensation Commission and the State Insurance Regulatory Authority's motor accident dispute resolution services, delivered in specialist and expert workers compensation and motor accident Divisions. The reforms could benefit individuals injured at work or on the road in up to 17,000 cases lodged annually. In 2019 around 7,000 applications were lodged in the Workers Compensation Commission and around 10,000 CTP applications were lodged. In 2019, more than 110,000 claims were made across all the schemes. A single Personal Injury Commission will bring several benefits over the status quo. First, it will offer customers a "one-stop shop". Currently, injured people and customers face dealing with multiple dispute resolution entities in the schemes. The Workers Compensation Commission deals with workers compensation disputes. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority deals with motor accident disputes through the Dispute Resolution Service in the 2017 CTP scheme and the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service and Medical Assessment Service in the 1999 CTP scheme. Now, they will go to one Commission. There will be greater visibility of a single Commission through a single contact point for Commission services. When injured people need to access to these services, they will not be confused about where they need to go. Injured people of New South Wales navigating disputes in the schemes are currently faced with different forms, procedures and customer journeys across these schemes. Users of a new single Commission will benefit from less forms, less complexity, harmonised process and better access to dispute resolution across all schemes. Currently, the Workers Compensation Commission engages with workers compensation stakeholders. The State Insurance Regulatory Authority engages CTP stakeholders in CTP dispute resolution. One Commission will reach out to all these stakeholders. These include those who represent people injured on our roads and in our workplaces, the legal profession and insurers. Stakeholders will benefit from the reduced time and complexity of dealing with a single Commission. Second, service delivery will be a key focus of the new Commission. There will be a single, digital registry which phases out paper applications, provides customers with visibility over their disputes and quickly informs them of outcomes. The current Workers Compensation Commission and the State Insurance Regulatory Authority's dispute resolution services hear matters at various locations across New South Wales. The new Commission will consolidate and build on these regional access points to ensure equitable access throughout New South Wales. Third, there will be more certainty, efficiency and streamlined dispute resolution. Members will apply contemporary dispute resolution practices and will meet standards of timeliness and quality as set by the new Commission. There will be more public confidence in independent decision making in the motor accident scheme by moving it from a function of the regulator, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority, to an independent commission headed by a President who is a judge of a court of record. Currently, customers experience different approaches to the publication of decisions in the different schemes. The Commission will publish its decisions across all schemes, in accordance with the Commission rules - guiding and assisting parties to a dispute, promoting public confidence and transparency in Commission decision-making and reducing disputation. Fourth, customers will benefit from operational harmonisation and improvement in a single Commission. There will be reduced duplication of processes, for example, the new consolidated appointment framework for all members and office holders. A single consolidated Commission will deliver economies of scale and operational efficiency gains, including shared accommodation, use of facilities and infrastructure, common administrative processes, shared expertise and knowledge, co-ordinated training initiatives for members and staff and better use of human resources. Fifth, a single Commission will enable better data collection, reporting and evaluation of dispute resolution data across all schemes. Improved customer insights will enable the Commission to deliver more efficient and focussed services. The Commission's dispute management system will allow it to manage resources across all schemes, minimising delays and streamlining dispute resolution. Finally, the structure of the Commission will allow it to not only deliver quality services now but provide it with a sound foundation to grow and respond to future changes and demands. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2656

In developing a model for the Commission, my Department consulted with key stakeholders in the workers compensation and CTP schemes including insurers, peak legal profession bodies, the medical profession, decision-makers in the existing schemes, injured parties and key government agencies. Stakeholders strongly preferred a model with minimal changes to current dispute resolution processes and limited disruption to the schemes. The bill adopts this approach by broadly maintaining current workers compensation and motor accident dispute resolution pathways and placing these into specialist workers compensation and motor accident divisions. Importantly, no changes have been made to the underlying substantive law concerning entitlements of injured people to damages or other compensation or assistance under the workers compensation legislation and the motor accident legislation. This Government is committed to maintaining affordable green slip insurance premiums. We engaged independent actuaries to estimate the cost impacts of the reforms. I am pleased to report that the Commission established by this bill will have minimal impact on green slip premiums. I now turn to the provisions of the bill. The bill comprises seven parts and there are five schedules to the bill. Parts 1 to 7 of the bill include the objects, establishment, membership and constitution of the Commission, specific provisions about merit reviewers, mediators and medical assessors and common practice and procedure provisions that apply to both divisions of the Commission. The schedules to the bill contain provisions relating to the savings and transitional arrangements and members. Schedules 3 and 4 are the two important division schedules setting out the necessary constitutional and procedural differences for the two specialist divisions to operate fairly and efficiently. Finally, Schedule 5 contains the necessary consequential amendments to certain legislation, including the motor accidents legislation and the workers compensation legislation. The Commission will be established on 1 December 2020, or a later day proclaimed by the Governor if required. I now wish to highlight some of the principal features of this reforming bill. Consistent with the objects of the bill this new independent Personal Injury Commission is to be accessible and responsive to the needs of all users, encourage early dispute resolution and resolve the real issues between parties, justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible. A key object of the bill is to ensure that it promotes public confidence in its decision making and in the conduct of its members. A rule committee will make rules to regulate the Commission's practice and procedure. Establishing a rule committee strengthens the Commission's independence and ensures appropriate representation from both schemes. The bill creates an aligned and integrated membership structure and for the appointment of members, medical assessors, merit reviewers and mediators. In leading the Commission, the President is responsible for directing the business of the Commission, managing members, facilitating the adoption of good administrative practice in the Commission, giving directions about practice and procedure and appointing decision-makers and mediators. Division Heads will be responsible for managing the business of Commission in their respective Division under the President's ultimate direction. They will play an important role in ensuring there is specialised jurisprudence, knowledge, practice and procedure appropriate to the different divisions. The bill allows the president and division head to delegate functions. This gives flexibility and efficiency in managing the business of the Commission. Medical assessors, merit reviewers and mediators are not members of the Commission but exercise functions as conferred on them by the bill and the enabling legislation under the general control and direction of the President. A public servant principal registrar role has been created to assist the president in managing the business and affairs of the Commission. This role is like that of the principal registrar of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. While the president and the division heads will be responsible for leading the members of the Commission, broadly, the principal registrar will oversee the Commission's day-to-day operations, including its staff, registry, budget, and digital platform and ensure the Commission maintains a high level of customer focus. This overall structure divides the independent decision-making functions of the Commission from administration delivered by the Registrars and other public service employees. Mr President, this is a key feature of the Commission's independence and is a model consistent with that of other consolidated tribunals in Australia. Significantly, the bill brings greater alignment to medical assessments. Medical assessors will conduct medical assessments in either or both divisions of the Commission. A single panel of medical assessors will create greater opportunity for developing and sharing expertise and driving quality and consistency. There are no changes to the underlying tests and methodologies for the assessment of medical disputes. For example, causation tests— which are different in workers compensation and CTP—will not change. The bill also harmonises the composition of medical appeal and review panels by adopting a Workers Compensation Commission model across both divisions. Panels are constituted by a member of the Commission and two medical assessors. This multidisciplinary approach aims to bring medical and administrative decision-making expertise to these important appeal and review decisions. In Burns v Corbett (2018) 352 ALR 386 and Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby (2018) 99 NSWLR 1, the Court of Appeal held that State legislation which confers power on a state body will contravene the federal Constitution if the body hears and determines disputes including a matter identified in section 75 or section 76 of the Constitution; is not a "court of a State"; and is exercising judicial, and not administrative, power in hearing and determining the dispute. It is anticipated that a small number of applications to the Commission may involve Federal jurisdiction. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2657

Division 3.2 of part 3 of the bill and consequential amendments to the District Court Act 1973 give affected parties a forum in which to resolve their dispute. These provisions allow certain persons, with leave of the District Court, to commence proceedings in the District Court for the determination of applications that the Commission, or decision-makers appointed by the president, cannot determine because they involve the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. Part 3 provides for how the Commission is to be constituted to determine proceedings. Part 5 sets out the common practice and procedure for the Commission whilst retaining some necessary differences for the two Divisions. The provisions in Part 5 are subject to the enabling legislation which provides the framework for scheme entitlements, benefits and dispute resolution pathways. Further, the division schedule may make special provision for the constitution of the Commission when exercising certain functions and may also provide for the registrar to exercise division functions. Existing rights to legal representation in the schemes have been retained in the Commission. A person who is a party to proceedings before the Commission is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner or an agent as provided for in part 5, division 5.3 of the bill. This bill is a major reform in personal injury dispute resolution. It creates a modern, multi-scheme Personal Injury Commission. It strikes the right balance in consolidating these two personal injury schemes into the one Commission but recognises and preserves their important legal and scheme design differences. It allows for the Commission to evolve over time and develop greater alignment of processes. It creates a Commission to deliver today but with the inherent structural foundation to respond to the future. I commend this bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (21:13:08): I lead for the Opposition in this House on the Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020. At the outset I place on record my appreciation for the contributions of the member for Canterbury, who led for Labor in the other House, as we went about the task of consulting with a variety of people across the community to gauge their attitude towards the bill as a precursor to engagement in this House and in the other place. The bill makes a multitude of changes to the dispute resolution process for both workers compensation and compulsory third party [CTP] insurance. The objects of the bill are to establish the Personal Injury Commission, to provide for its functions and to repeal and make other consequential amendments to certain other legislation. The PRESIDENT: I remind members of the social distancing measures. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I acknowledge that the bill arises from inquiries undertaken by the Law and Justice committee in the previous Parliament, in which I had the opportunity to participate when I was a member of that committee. At its core the bill establishes a Personal Injury Commission which takes the dispute resolution system in the current compulsory third party system and the dispute resolution system in the Workers Compensation Commission [WCC] and puts them into one body. This was a proposal that had been campaigned for by a bunch of different people in this Parliament as well as externally. At the time, when Labor had resolved its position at that committee, we did not support that recommendation. Nevertheless, we said that if this recommendation was to proceed certain conditions should be met; namely, that a divisional structure be maintained between workers compensation and the compulsory third party scheme. Since the report of that committee and through the development process of this bill, it has become clear that the principle that the Government has adopted is what is called a lift-and-shift model in which the Government is seeking to co-locate the existing dispute resolution functions in the same body and to maintain a form of divisional structure. I say at the outset that Labor is not seeking to impede the passage of the bill through this House but we have multiple amendments that we will move in the Committee stage, which reflect the lift-and-shift principle and, in our view, will strengthen the bill as well. Ultimately we will judge the Personal Injury Commission according to its results and how it performs over time. This is not an initiative that the Labor Party endorses or is seeking to oppose; we will judge it according to what difference it makes to injured motorists and injured workers over time and we reserve the right to come back to this Parliament in either opposition or government and make improvements as necessary. That is my way of saying that it is the Government that has pushed this forward, perhaps in partnership with other parties in this Parliament, and it is for the Government and those parties to take responsibility for this commission and to be judged accordingly for its results. I turn now to the provisions of the bill. The Personal Injury Commission Bill proposes the consolidation of the compulsory third party insurance and workers compensation dispute systems in a single commission. It follows a 2018 recommendation from the upper House Law and Justice committee statutory review of the workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance schemes. I cannot recall who was the chair of that committee at the time but I acknowledge the work of the committee. Currently the State Insurance Regulatory Agency [SIRA] administers dispute resolution in the compulsory third party insurance scheme. The Workers Compensation Commission [WCC] undertakes dispute resolution in the workers compensation scheme. SIRA's principal task is regulating insurance markets in New South Wales, with dispute resolution as an adjunct function. The Workers Compensation Commission is a specialist tribunal with deep expertise in complex medical and legal disputes. In Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2658

2019 the two schemes received more than 110,000 claims; most were in the workers compensation scheme. Of those, 17,000 were disputed—7,000 in the WCC and 10,000 in the CTP. The Law and Justice committee recommendation stated: That the NSW Government consolidate the workers compensation scheme and CTP insurance scheme dispute resolution systems into a single personal injury tribunal, by expanding the jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Commission, but retaining two streams of expertise. In the committee Labor did push for the streamed structure. The workers compensation scheme is a complex system, much different to CTP, and therefore requires a depth of expertise in its dispute resolution. Each scheme holds different cultures, processes and relationship dynamics. For instance, a motor accident is commonly a one-off event between strangers, whereas a workers compensation claim or dispute can be a prolonged injury, physical or psychological, with an interpersonal relationship of employer and employee and contractors involved. Labor strongly believes that expertise based on the WCC needs to be retained through separate divisions. We hold concerns about the commitment to keep that structural separation in place and, as I said, we foreshadow amendments to ingrain the separation. The bill establishes a rule committee to develop the practices and procedures for proceeding before the commission and before medical assessors, merit reviewers or mediators. In his second reading speech in the other place, the Minister refers to the need for a rule committee to ensure independence of the commission and representation from each division. While we accept this rationale, Labor wants to ensure that the rule committee is balanced and includes a range of stakeholders that hold knowledge and expertise in the commission's jurisdiction. I understand that other members may well move amendments to entrench the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service [ILARS] in the workers compensation division. Labor strongly supports that amendment. We have drafted amendments of our own to that effect and we will decide whether we need to move them, depending on the outcome of the committee debate when we reach it. Labor will also move to improve reporting and review structures of the bill. I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity, as has the member for Canterbury in the other place, to engage with multiple stakeholders who have contacted our office with their ideas on how to strengthen the bill. I acknowledge the contribution of Unions NSW, particularly its workplace health and safety committee that draws together 16 various affiliated unions, representing a cross-section of up to 400,000 workers in New South Wales. I thank representatives from the Law Society of New South Wales, especially Tim Concannon for his contribution. I thank the New South Wales Bar Association and its president, Tim Game, SC. I had the opportunity to meet with doctors and I also appreciated the insight and contribution of the Australian Industry Group, especially regarding the complexity of workers compensation claims from the employer perspective and the strong desire for a divisional structure with in-depth expertise of returning an injured worker to health and to work at the lowest cost to employers. This is of course an objective that Labor supports. Labor has appreciated the cross-party nature of the development of the amendment structure and I acknowledge the professionalism of the Minister's office in engaging with us and providing the Opposition with information and briefings to allow us to determine which amendments to support. I thank Mr David Shoebridge's office and his staff for matching Labor's professionalism and insight. This has allowed us to work through a set of amendments for the Committee stage that allows us to meet our objective of securing the expertise of the workers compensation system. The Minister observed that we must have the ability to work cooperatively as a Parliament when the need arises. The bill is not a Government initiative; it is the Government putting forward the argument. They are the Government's principles and the Government's structures. We are not providing any endorsement for those principles or structures. We will judge them according to the results but we do not oppose the second reading of the bill in this House. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:21:30): The Greens support the Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020. The bill follows a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which reported in February last year. One of the key recommendations from its review of both the workers compensation and the motor accidents compensation schemes—which it is required to do as the parliamentary oversight committee under the State Insurance and Care Governance Act—was that there should be a consolidated personal injury tribunal in New South Wales. One of the reasons I find myself in State politics is my concern about the damage I have seen this Parliament do to the rights of injured workers. I was working as a solicitor for a firm called Taylor & Scott Lawyers, which did a significant amount of workers compensation law. That was not my job; I was primarily an industrial and employment and discrimination lawyer. Nevertheless, the Carr Government savaged and attacked workers compensation laws in this State. It did so despite widespread union opposition. There was a boycott and a picket by tens of thousands of union members outside Parliament. I recall Bob Carr forcing his Cabinet to break the picket line, walking directly through it to vote and water down significantly the rights of injured workers in this State. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2659

I was sent by the law firm to have discussions with different parties to attempt to save some of those rights. The Labor Party offices were closed to any union representatives. Labor members did not want to speak to them. The Coalition was broadly on board with cutting benefits. I did seek an audience with the Christian Democratic Party, leading to my first mention in Parliament when I was attacked by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for seeking to retain workers compensation benefits. The one party that showed genuine concern and compassion was The Greens. I met Lee Rhiannon and her staffer John Kaye, who showed genuine compassion and an understanding of the history. From that moment on I had a far greater interest in The Greens, who already accorded with my deep concerns about nature and inequality. But it was workers compensation that attracted me to the party. It was the first time I had sought to engage with State politics and I have been concerned ever since about the damage that this Parliament has done to workers compensation rights. Since my election to Parliament I have taken a personal interest in the work of that oversight committee—the law and justice committee—and the work it does oversighting workers compensation laws and motor accident laws. It is a matter I care about deeply because I have seen the impact on injured workers—and injured motorists but primarily injured workers—when the system does not work. I have seen the personal damage done to them, their families, their lives, their livelihoods and their sense of worth and wellbeing when they are not treated with dignity and not given fair compensation. One of my great concerns is the continued watering down of the rights of injured workers. I have sought to combat continued efforts to remove the fundamental structures that ensure those rights are determined fairly in accordance with law and in a tribunal that respects the rights of injured workers to have their say, to properly test their case and to have their benefits determined in accordance with equity, decency and the law. At different times those rights have been seriously diminished. One of the constant challenges to having a fair, equitable and decent tribunal or court determine people's cases is having them in some small, bespoke, boutique tribunal that can be defunded and degraded over time. Over time, this impacts people's rights to a fair determination of their case. We can avoid that by having a broader, consolidated personal injury commission to consider not just workers compensation rights but a broader class of compensation claims for personal injury. I philosophically support the concept of a consolidated personal injury commission with more than one set of stakeholders protecting its jurisdiction and ensuring it is fair so that injured people get their day in court when the case is determined. So I have been philosophically supporting the concept of a personal injury commission, and my support has grown over time because I see the benefit of having more than one set of stakeholders wanting the tribunal to succeed and giving all claimants a fair day in court. It is not without some reservation that I support the establishment of a new tribunal. The Workers Compensation Commission currently protects certain rights—I think somewhat imperfectly. But the right to a fair hearing is reasonably protected in the Workers Compensation Commission. That right is not currently protected when it comes to statutory claims under the motor accidents scheme. All those statutory claims are currently determined by bureaucrats from the State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA] through dispute resolution services that are determined by purely administrative processes under the State Insurance and Care Governance Act and the Motor Accidents Act. This means there is no independent tribunal determining those statutory claims under the motor accidents legislation. One of the primary benefits of this legislation is that those statutory claims will now be determined by a genuinely independent tribunal, the head of which will have judicial independence ensuring that that tribunal will not be a purely administrative body like the State Insurance Regulatory Authority. This is the body that currently determines statutory claims under the Motor Accidents Act. The Government has committed to a lift-and-shift model, meaning that the current dispute resolution systems in the Workers Compensation Commission will carry over in their current form to a separate division in the Personal Injury Commission. That is important because it provides certainty and ensures the current rights workers have to a relatively fair trial in the Workers Compensation Commission are retained in a separate division in the Personal Injury Commission. That political commitment has been matched by the drafting of the bill, which ensures that that is the case. We will see a substantial improvement in the independence of the determinations of statutory claims under the motor accidents Act because it will get a separate, independent division of the Personal Injury Commission to determine those claims. In considering their response, The Greens have consulted broadly with unions across the board, including Unions NSW, and a wide variety of law reform advocates and organisations such as the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Law Society. As always, The Greens have been grateful for the expertise and frontline experience of the compensation officers at the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. I commend the depth of knowledge and capacity that the organisation has, and its generosity in sharing its experience to ensure that the rights of its members and of injured workers across the board are protected in any legislative change. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2660

Greens members have spoken with doctors. Some of the most persuasive conversations we have had have been with individual injured workers who have had experience of the system, who know what it is like to be treated unfairly and what it means to have an independent arbiter to determine the case. The broad range of consultations means that The Greens have had ongoing discussions with the Government and the Minister's office. I echo the comments of my colleague the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. Those conversations and negotiations have been respectful and professional. Greens members have had ongoing negotiations and discussions with colleagues from the Opposition. Again, I echo the sentiments of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and say on record that his office has been professional and engaged on the matter. Hopefully, between us, we have come up with a set of amendments that will allow the bill to proceed and succeed, and that will ensure that some of the key elements that were of concern to stakeholders are properly addressed. I will raise three of them that will be considered in The Greens amendments. One of the first and most important considerations is ensuring that the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office [WIRO] is not only retained as an independent ombudsman for the workers compensation scheme but is also afforded greater protection by being given statutory independence and being created as an agency. It is obvious that the independence of an ombudsman-like office is necessary. To date, it has not had statutory independence, but we have had those broad-ranging discussions and we have an agreed set of amendments that will produce that statutory independence for WIRO. I believe it will change its title from WIRO to the Independent Review Office because it will have an ombudsman-like role over not only the workers compensation scheme but also the motor accident scheme. Under the motor accident scheme, it will provide the kinds of benefits to injured motorists that it is currently and unambiguously providing to many thousands of injured workers. Another key and necessary amendment that we have negotiated is ensuring that the current scheme for the payment of injured workers' costs under the workers compensation system is not just retained but also entrenched in law. It is called the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service [ILARS] scheme. The ILARS scheme was a kind of compromise solution to some of the changes that were made to workers compensation in 2012, towards the end of a very damaging set of law reforms that took away many rights of injured workers. Amendments were moved by a certain crossbench member in this House that removed any right to the recovery of costs in the workers compensation scheme. If it were left alone, it would have almost entirely removed the ability of injured workers to fairly claim compensation. There was a great deal of agitation in response to it. A private member's bill was brought by my office. There was a great deal of agitation from the union movement and, indeed, from many members of the Government who saw that it would have unintended consequences. The response was the establishment of the ILARS scheme. That was done under an administrative arrangement, so it has never had legislative backing, but is operated by WIRO. The office provides grants of funding to injured workers' lawyers when it believes there is a meritorious claim or a fair argument to be run. The ILARS scheme has seen a radical reduction in legal costs and a very high proportion of the cases that are funded succeed. It is broadly celebrated by injured workers advocates and lawyers who specialise in that area as an essential element to a fair compensation scheme in New South Wales. We have negotiated amendments, which we will address briefly in Committee, that will entrench those ILARS provisions into the legislation. That will ensure that they are maintained and strengthened by being given legislative force and by having the guidelines under which costs are determined to become instruments that are disallowable in this House. A number of other discussions relating to the composition of the rules, committee, divisional structures and the like need to be had. Many of those amendments will be progressed by the Opposition in Committee. The ultimate test of whether the reforms work will be the experience of injured workers and injured motorists in the commission. Inevitably, there will be some friction as a new commission and tribunal is established. Across the Parliament, from all engaged political parties, we are now seeing a commitment to ensuring that when someone is injured, whether in a motor accident or at work, they do not become the victim of a second-rate legal system. We are seeing a commitment to ensuring that people do not become victims of a brutish cost-cutting exercise that removes their right to have their day in court and in a fair tribunal, where a genuinely independent judge, tribunal member or arbitrator can determine their claim fairly. In the past few weeks we have seen just how vicious such schemes can be. The behaviour of insurers, and even government regulators and entities, can be such that injured workers in particular are treated quite brutally. At the end of the day, their ultimate defence is being able to have a decent, fairly paid lawyer who can present a case to a genuinely independent decision-maker. I hope that is what we achieve with the bill. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (21:37:43): In reply: I thank the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and Mr David Shoebridge for their contributions and for their commitment to the scheme that the Government is proposing. I acknowledge the observations by both members that the proof of the effectiveness of the changes is not so much in the words but in the way the scheme operates. That is how the legislation will effectively be judged in the future: by the effectiveness of its operation. That is a fair observation. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2661

It is always incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation that is fair and that also gets the system of delivering quick, affordable and proper justice right. I know that some amendments will be moved in Committee. It is important that we address the issues raised by those amendments. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Taylor Martin): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. In Committee The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Committee is considering the Personal Injury Commission Bill 2020. There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. I have The Greens amendments on sheet c2020-095F, Opposition amendments on sheets c2020-100E, c2020-99C, c2020-098C and c2020-097B, Christian Democratic Party amendments on sheet c2020-103A and Government amendments on sheets c2020-110, c2020-107 and c2020-112A. Certainly a lot of work has been done. I will proceed according to the running sheet. We will deal first with The Greens amendments on sheet c2020-095F. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (21:42:00): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1 to 17 on sheet c2020-095F in globo: No. 1 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 2, clause 2. Insert after line 7— (1A) Schedule 4A commences on the establishment day. No. 2 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 3, clause 5(1). Insert after line 17— Independent Review Officer means the Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer appointed under Schedule 4A. No. 3 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 5, clause 7(2). Insert after line 29— (b1) appointment as the Independent Review Officer, No. 4 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 5, clause 7. Insert after line 32— (2A) To avoid doubt, the provisions of clauses 2–4 of Schedule 4A apply in relation to the appointment of the Independent Review Officer before the establishment day even though those provisions have not commenced. No. 5 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 32, Schedule 1, clause 2(1). Insert after line 10— current WIRO means any person who, immediately before the establishment day, was the Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. No. 6 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 32, Schedule 1, clause 4(1). Insert after line 37— (e1) Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, No. 7 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 35, Schedule 1, line 1. Insert "WIRO," after "concerning". No. 8 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 35, Schedule 1. Insert after line 2— 7A Transfer of current WIRO The current WIRO is taken, on and from the establishment day, to have been appointed as the Independent Review Officer under this Act. No. 9 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 35, Schedule 1. Insert after line 26— 11A Effect of Division in relation to transfer of Independent Review Officer Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2662

(1) A person who is appointed as the Independent Review Officer by operation of this Division is taken to hold office as the Independent Review Officer for the balance of the term to which the person was appointed to the abolished office. (2) A person appointed as the Independent Review Officer by operation of this clause is taken to have been appointed on a basis other than full-time if the person's abolished office was not held on a full-time basis. (3) The Governor may issue an appropriate instrument of appointment to a person appointed as the Independent Review Officer by operation of this Division. (4) A person's appointment as the Independent Review Officer is effective whether or not an instrument of appointment is issued under subclause (3). (5) This Division does not— (a) apply to a person who is appointed under this Act as the Independent Review Officer before the establishment day, or (b) prevent a person who becomes the Independent Review Officer by operation of this Division from— (i) being appointed, with the consent of the person, to a different or additional office or position in the Commission under this Act, or (ii) vacating office or the position, subject to subclauses (1) and (2), in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (6) In this clause— abolished office, in relation to a person appointed as the Independent Review Officer by operation of this Division, means the office held by the person immediately before the establishment day. No. 10 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 35, Schedule 1, clause 12, line 27. Insert "of medical assessors, merit reviewers and mediators" after "transfers". No. 11 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 46. Insert after line 15— Schedule 4A Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Part 1 Introduction 1 Definitions In this Schedule— claimant means a person who makes or is entitled to make— (a) a claim within the meaning of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, or (b) a claim within the meaning of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, or (c) a claim within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. compensation legislation means— (a) the workers compensation legislation, and (b) the motor accidents legislation. employer has the same meaning as in the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. ILARS means the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service established by Part 5 of this Schedule. ILARS guidelines—see clause 10. insurer means a licensed insurer under any of the compensation legislation. Nominal Defendant means the Nominal Defendant within the meaning of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 or Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. Nominal Insurer means the Nominal Insurer within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Part 2 Administrative arrangements 2 Appointment of Independent Review Officer (1) The Governor may appoint a Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2663

(2) The Independent Review Officer holds office for such term not exceeding 5years as may be specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible (if otherwise qualified) for reappointment. (3) The office of Independent Review Officer is a full-time office and the holder of the office is required to hold it on that basis, except to the extent permitted by the Governor. (4) The Independent Review Officer is entitled to be paid— (a) remuneration in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975, and (b) such travelling and subsistence allowances as the Minister may from time to time determine. (5) The office of Independent Review Officer is a statutory office and the provisions of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 relating to the employment of Public Service employees do not apply to that office. 3 Vacancy in office of Independent Review Officer (1) The office of Independent Review Officer becomes vacant if the holder— (a) dies, or (b) completes a term of office and is not reappointed, or (c) resigns the office by instrument in writing addressed to the Governor, or (d) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit, or (e) becomes a mentally incapacitated person, or (f) is convicted in New South Wales of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more or is convicted elsewhere than in New South Wales of an offence that, if committed in New South Wales, would be an offence so punishable, or (g) is removed from office under this clause. (2) The Governor may remove the Independent Review Officer from office— (a) for misbehaviour, or (b) for incapacity, or (c) if the Independent Review Officer is absent from duty for a period in excess of his or her leave entitlement as approved by the Governor unless the absence is caused by illness or other unavoidable cause. (3) The Independent Review Officer cannot be removed from office under Part 6 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013. (4) If the office of Independent Review Officer becomes vacant, a person is, subject to this Act, to be appointed to fill the vacancy. 4 Appointment of acting Independent Review Officer (1) The Minister may, from time to time, appoint a person to act in the office of the Independent Review Officer during— (a) the illness or absence of the Independent Review Officer, or (b) a vacancy in the office of the Independent Review Officer. (2) The person, while so acting, has all the functions of the Independent Review Officer and is taken to be the Independent Review Officer. (3) The Minister may, at any time, remove a person from office as acting Independent Review Officer. (4) An acting Independent Review Officer is entitled to be paid such remuneration(including travelling and subsistence allowances) as the Minister may from time to time determine. 5 Staff (1) Persons may be employed in the Public Service under the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 to enable the Independent Review Officer to exercise the Officer's functions. Note. Section 59 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 provides that the persons so employed (or whose services the Independent Review Officer makes use of) may be referred to as officers or employees, or members of staff, of that Officer. Section 47A of the Constitution Act 1902 precludes that Officer from employing staff. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2664

(2) The persons so employed are to be employed in a separate Public Service agency and may (together with the persons referred to in subclause (3)) be referred to as members of staff of the Independent Review Officer. (3) The Independent Review Officer may also— (a) arrange for the use of the services of any staff or facilities of a Public Service agency or a local or public authority, or (b) engage persons as consultants to the Independent Review Officer or to perform services for the Officer. Part 3 Functions 6 Functions of Independent Review Officer The Independent Review Officer has the following functions— (a) to deal with complaints made to the Independent Review Officer under this Schedule, (b) to inquire into and report to the Minister on any matters arising in connection with the operation of this Act or the compensation legislation as the Independent Review Officer considers appropriate or as may be referred to the Independent Review Officer for inquiry and report by the Minister, (c) to encourage the establishment by insurers and employers of complaint resolution processes for complaints arising under the compensation legislation, (d) to manage and administer ILARS (including by issuing ILARS guidelines), (e) any other functions as may be conferred on the Independent Review Officer by or under this Act or any other Act (including the compensation legislation). 7 Requirement to provide information (1) The Independent Review Officer may require an insurer to provide specified information that the Independent Review Officer reasonably requires for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the Independent Review Officer. (2) It is a condition of an insurer's licence that the insurer comply with a request for the provision of information under this clause. (3) The Independent Review Officer can decline to deal with a complaint if the claimant who makes the complaint fails to comply with a request to provide information to the Independent Review Officer. (4) The Authority, the Nominal Insurer and the Nominal Defendant must provide the Independent Review Officer with such information as the Independent Review Officer reasonably requires and requests for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the Independent Review Officer. Part 4 Complaints 8 Complaints about insurers (1) A claimant may complain to the Independent Review Officer about any act or omission (including any decision or failure to decide) of an insurer that affects the entitlements, rights or obligations of the claimant under the compensation legislation. (2) The Independent Review Officer deals with a complaint by investigating the complaint and reporting to the claimant and the insurer on the findings of the investigation, including the reasons for those findings. (3) The Independent Review Officer's findings can include non-binding recommendations for specified action to be taken by the insurer or the claimant. (4) The Independent Review Officer is to deal with a complaint within a period of 30 days after the complaint is made unless the Independent Review Officer notifies the claimant and the insurer within that period that a specified longer period will be required to deal with the complaint. (5) The Independent Review Officer may decline to deal with a complaint on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious or should not be dealt with for such other reason as the Independent Review Officer considers relevant. Part 5 Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service 9 Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service (1) There is to be an Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service managed and administered by the Independent Review Officer. (2) The purpose of ILARS is to provide funding for legal and associated costs for workers under the Workers Compensation Acts seeking advice regarding decisions of insurers for those Acts and to provide assistance in finding solutions for disputes between workers and insurers. 10 Guidelines concerning ILARS Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2665

(1) The Independent Review Officer may issue guidelines (ILARS guidelines) for or with respect to the following— (a) the approval of lawyers to be granted funding under ILARS (including qualifications and experience for approval), (b) the allocation and amount of funding for legal and associated costs under ILARS. (2) The Independent Review Officer may (wholly or partly) amend, revoke or replace ILARS guidelines. (3) ILARS guidelines may adopt the provisions of other publications, whether with or without modification or addition and whether in force at a particular time or from time to time. 11 Publication and Parliamentary scrutiny of ILARS guidelines (1) ILARS guidelines are to be published on the NSW legislation website and take effect on the day of that publication or, if a later day is specified in the guidelines for that purpose, on the day so specified. (2) Sections 40 (Notice of statutory rules to be tabled) and 41 (Disallowance of statutory rules) of the Interpretation Act 1987 apply to ILARS guidelines in the same way as those sections apply to statutory rules. 12 Review of ILARS by supervisory committee of Legislative Council (1) The committee of the Legislative Council designated for the purposes of section 27 of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 is to enquire into and report on the whether ILARS should be extended to claimants for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Note. Section 27 of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 provides for the Legislative Council to designate a committee of the Council to supervise the operation of the insurance and compensation schemes established under the workers compensation and motor accidents legislation. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice was the designated committee at the time of the enactment of this Act. (2) The enquiry and report are to be undertaken by the designated committee as part of its next review of the operation of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 following the commencement of this Schedule. Part 6 General 13 Annual report (1) As soon as practicable after 30 June (but before 31 December) in each year, the Independent Review Officer is to prepare and forward to the Minister a report on his or her activities for the 12 months ending on 30 June in that year. (2) The report is to be tabled in Parliament and for that purpose the Minister is to lay the report or cause it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report. (3) The Minister is to give the Authority and insurers an opportunity to comment on the report before it is tabled in Parliament and may include with the report when it is tabled a statement as to the comments of the Authority and insurers. (4) The report is to include the following information— (a) the number and type of complaints made and dealt with under this Schedule during the year, (b) the sources of those complaints, (c) the number and type of complaints that were made during the year but not dealt with, (d) the operation of ILARS, (e) any other information as the Independent Review Officer considers appropriate to be included or as the Minister directs to be included. (5) Matters included in a report must not identify individual claimants. 14 Delegation of functions The Independent Review Officer may delegate the exercise of any function of the Independent Review Officer (other than this power of delegation) to— (a) any member of staff of the Independent Review Officer, or (b) any person, or any class of persons, authorised for the purposes of this clause by the regulations. No. 12 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 47, Schedule 5. Insert before line 31— Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2666

5.4A Government Sector Employment Act 2013 No 40 Schedule 1 Public Service agencies Insert in alphabetical order in Part 3— Office of the Compensation Claims *Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Independent Review Officer Officer No. 13 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 56, Schedule 5.5[90]. Insert after line 34— (b1) the remuneration of the Independent Review Officer (within the meaning of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020) and staff of the Independent Review Officer and costs incurred in connection with the exercise of the functions of the Independent Review Officer arising under this Act, No. 14 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 62, Schedule 5.6[67]. Insert after line 28— [67A] Section 212(3)(c3) Insert after section 212(3)(c2)— (c3) the remuneration of the Independent Review Officer (within the meaning of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020) and staff of the Independent Review Officer and costs incurred in connection with the exercise of the functions of the Independent Review Officer arising under this Act, No. 15 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 64, Schedule 5.10. Insert after line 35— [3A] Section 4(1), definition of "Independent Review Officer" Omit the definition. Insert instead— Independent Review Officer means the Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer appointed under Schedule 4A to the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. No. 16 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 65, Schedule 5.10. Insert after line 20— [8A] Chapter 2, Part 3 Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer Omit the Part. No. 17 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer Page 65, Schedule 5.10[9], line 22. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead— Insert "arising under the Workers Compensation Acts" after "functions of the Independent Review Officer" in section 35(2)(c). [9A] Section 35(2)(e1) Omit the paragraph. Insert instead— I will be brief because I addressed the bulk of the amendments in my second reading speech. Amendments Nos 1 to 10 effectively establish the Independent Review Office, or the Independent Review Officer, in place of the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office, or the WIRO. That will allow the Independent Review Officer not only to undertake the current tasks of overseeing the workers compensation legislation, effectively being an ombudsman for the workers compensation legislation, but also will allow those tasks to be undertaken in relation to the motor accidents legislation. In what is often seen as an awful landscape of organisations that do not have much trust from engaged participants, whether they are insurers or lawyers, but most particularly injured workers and injured claimants, one organisation that tends to have a fairly high positivity rate from all engaged participants is the WIRO. It is seen as being genuinely independent, focused on getting solutions and practical outcomes. In quite a toxic space it has a solid track record of resolving claims quickly and fairly and being an effective ombudsman. No organisation is perfect. It deals with so many claims that some people will be aggrieved by the outcomes. However, it is a genuinely positive institution. These amendments will embed it in both the workers compensation and motor accidents schemes. Amendment No. 11 contains the great bulk of provisions in relation to the new Independent Review Officer. It also ensures that the office will have the statutory independence that the WIRO does not currently have. Currently the office is simply an element of the broader Finance cluster, without any statutory independence and without the ability to employ its own staff. These amendments provide that independence. Indeed, for a number Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2667

of years the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice has recommended that the WIRO should have that independence. Amendment No. 11 makes good on the unanimous recommendations from that committee. The proposed new part 5 of schedule 4A puts in place a legislative scheme for what is the current ILARS scheme, or the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service scheme. Under that scheme lawyers for injured workers can apply for funding. A merits assessment of the case is done by the WIRO—not whether it is guaranteed to succeed but whether the case has merit. If it is perceived to have merit, the case is funded and is overseen. It is not simply funded and forgotten. It is funded and overseen to ensure that the rights of injured workers are properly ventilated and protected in the current Workers Compensation Commission. The amendments will ensure that the scheme now runs for workers compensation rights in the Personal Injury Commission. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, for the first time it gives what was previously a purely administrative scheme that was pulled together to deal with the messy place in which we found ourselves in 2012 an actual, distinct legislative framework that I hope will guarantee its future. The amendments put in place a requirement that the next review undertaken by the law and justice committee, or whichever committee is designated under section 27 of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 to oversee the motor accidents scheme, must consider the merits of extending the ILARS scheme from the workers compensation scheme to cover the statutory claims under the motor accidents scheme. Currently the costs regime for the statutory scheme—that is, the no-fault benefits scheme under the motor accidents scheme— is inadequate. All participants in the area accept that the current costs arrangements for that are inadequate, to use a polite description. The Greens initial set of amendments proposed extending the ILARS scheme across the motor accidents and the workers compensation schemes and would have allowed for guidelines to be set that would set out the basis upon the sums under which they were granted. There has been some resistance to that because some initial costings suggest that would increase green slip premiums under the motor accidents scheme. We all accept that it is a difficult time to have a conversation about an increase in premiums. Everyone is doing it tough at the moment. But all members agree that it is a matter that should be fully considered and that the best place for that to be considered is in the next review by the law and justice committee. The amendments put in place the requirement for that to be part of the statutory review. They also make necessary changes to ensure that there is an adequate funding regime for the Independent Review Officer in relation to the work it does under the Workers Compensation Act. That funding will come from the workers compensation scheme. In relation to its ombudsman's work in the motor accidents scheme, it will come from the motor accidents scheme. I commend the amendments to the House. I understand that The Greens will support the Government's proposed amendments to the bill. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I invite the Minister to address what has already been put by Mr David Shoebridge and to move amendments on sheet c2020-112A—the Government amendments to The Greens amendments on sheet c2020-095F. I will then invite the Hon. Daniel Mookhey and any other members who wish to make a contribution. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (21:49:49): By leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 6 on sheet c2020-112A in globo: No. 1 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer In c2020-095F Amendments Nos. 1–17, omit "Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer" wherever occurring, except from clause 2(1) of Schedule 4A in Amendment No. 11. Insert instead "Independent Review Officer". No. 2 Compensation Claims Independent Review Office In c2020-095F Amendment No. 11, omit the definition of compensation legislation from clause 1 of Schedule 4A. No. 3 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer In c2020-095F Amendment No. 11, omit "the compensation legislation" wherever occurring in clauses 1 (definition of insurer), 6(b), (c) and (e) and 8(1) of Schedule 4A. Insert instead "the enabling legislation". No. 4 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer In c2020-095F Amendment No. 11, omit "a Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer" from clause 2(1) of Schedule 4A. Insert instead "an Independent Review Officer". No. 5 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer In c2020-095F Amendment No. 11, insert after clause 7(4) in Schedule 4A— (5) The Independent Review Officer must provide the Authority with such information as the Authority reasonably requires and requests for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the Authority. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2668

No. 6 Compensation Claims Independent Review Officer In c2020-095F Amendment No. 11, insert after clause 8(5) in Schedule 4A— (6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to requiring the Independent Review Officer to notify the Authority of specified kinds of contraventions of this Act or the enabling legislation of which the Officer becomes aware. (7) Without limiting subsection (6), the regulations may— (a) provide for the way in which notification is to be given, and (b) provide for when the notification is to be given, and (c) provide for the information required to be notified, and (d) provide for any further requirements relating to the notification (for example, a requirement to provide further information or answer questions). I understand that there is an agreement in relation to the amendments, which are effectively a rewording of the issues raised by Mr David Shoebridge. I understand that The Greens are agreeing to the amendments. In our view they are a tidier—or different—way of expressing the same concepts that Mr David Shoebridge has articulated in his contribution. The amendments having been agreed to, I will not address them any further. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (21:50:54): With respect to the three principal concepts contained in The Greens amendments, I will first address that of establishing statutory independence for the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office [WIRO]. We adduced in yesterday's hearing of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice the current legal basis for the WIRO's office. That is, its staff are effectively subject to the Government Sector Employment Act and the direction of the Secretary of the Department of Customer Service. Equally, its finances and budget are effectively subject to approval by the regulator, State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA]. The WIRO holds itself out as being independent and most injured workers who engage with it would work on the presumption of independence. But its actual legal basis is that its staff can be directed by the department and its budget and financial resources can be determined by the regulator. We do not think that is an acceptable proposition. Our amendments had similar proposals to establish statutory independence for the WIRO in the workers compensation system because we think the WIRO has performed well in its Ombudsman-style, arbiter-style, but quick-dispute-resolver style and solutions orientated office that has often lead to better outcomes for workers. For that reason we think the WIRO should have statutory independence. Insofar as the point made by the second concept, to extend the WIRO's function to the Compulsory Third Party [CTP] insurance scheme, we think injured motorists are as entitled to some form of WIRO office as injured workers are. Therefore, it is sensible to establish and widen the scope of the WIRO's function—or as it will now be called, the Independent Review Office—to the CTP scheme, so that the same benefits of dispute resolution that are currently provided to injured workers can be provided to injured motorists. I repeat the evidence that we heard from the WIRO yesterday that early investment in a WIRO saves the system money later. If it is possible to have an office like this that is able to resolve disputes before any further escalation is required, allows injured motorists to move on and, equally, saves the system money and puts downward pressure on premiums, then those are objectives that Labor supports. Insofar as the concept of extending the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service [ILARS] system to the CTP scheme, which is the other concept contained in the amendments, the settlement point that has been reached by all parties to allow the Standing Committee on Law and Justice to look at it in its next inquiry and establish an evidence base—that proposition is sensible. The long-term application of ILARS to the CTP scheme is something that we want to see the evidence on. We want to measure whether or not the cost savings of having an ILARS system actually puts downward pressure on premiums, as opposed to increasing pressure on premiums. The likely effect is a very contested space for lots of actuaries. Therefore, we are not taking a position on the Government's claims that this would increase premiums, nor are we accepting The Greens position that it might not have any consequences. In truth, we need to know. On that basis we think a good settlement point has been reached by all parties to allow the Standing Committee on Law and Justice—under the chairpersonship of the Hon. Wes Fang, who is performing his functions very well—to look at this next review, which will kick off next year. I might not participate in that inquiry, but I will certainly observe it in its entirety. We will be supporting The Greens amendments and I understand that whatever dialogue that has taken place between the Government and The Greens to resolve the precise form of legislative language is a matter for those two parties and we are not seeking to interrupt or insert ourselves in that dialogue. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2669

The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): You are not necessarily bound by this, but I understand from what you have said that you do not intend to move your amendment that deals with the same space. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: Should the amendments succeed, it is not our intention to move ours. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I will put the Government amendments first. The Minister has moved Government amendments Nos 1 to 6 on sheet c2020-112A, which seek to amend The Greens amendments on sheet c2020-095F. The question is that the Government amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Mr David Shoebridge has moved The Greens amendments Nos 1 to 17 on sheet c2020-095F. The question is that the amendments as amended be agreed to. Amendments as amended agreed to. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (21:56:03): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4, 9, 10, 13, 15 to 18 and 20 to 23 on sheet c2020-100E in globo: No. 1 Functions of Division Heads Page 3, clause 5(1) (definition of mediator), line 20. Omit "the President". Insert instead "a Division Head of a Commission Division". No. 2 Functions of Division Heads Page 3, clause 5(1) (definition of medical assessor), line 21. Omit "the President". Insert instead "a Division Head of a Commission Division". No. 3 Functions of Division Heads Page 3, clause 5(1) (definition of merit reviewer), line 24. Omit "the President". Insert instead "a Division Head of a Commission Division". No. 4 Assignments to Commission Divisions Page 6, clause 9(3). Insert after line 29— (b1) the Commission Division or Divisions to which the member has been No. 9 Functions of Division Heads Page 8, clause 16(1)(d) and (e), lines 37-40. Omit all words on those lines. No. 10 Functions of Division Heads Page 9, clause 17(1). Insert after line 18— (al) to manage members assigned to that Division, and (a2) to appoint medical assessors, merit reviewers and mediators for the purposes of enabling legislation allocated to that Division and exercise general direction and control over the exercise of their functions, and No. 13 Functions of Division Heads Page 18, clause 33(1), line 7. Omit "The President". Insert instead "A Division Head of a Commission Division". No.15 Functions of Division Heads Page 18, clause 33(4), line 20. Omit "President". Insert instead "Division Head". No. 16 Functions of Division Heads Page 18, clause 33(6), line 23. Omit "President". Insert instead "Division Head". No. 17 Functions of Division Heads Page 18, clause 36(1), line 40. Omit "President". Insert instead "Division Head of the Commission Division to which the enabling legislation concerned is allocated". No. 18 Functions of Division Heads Page 19, clause 39(1), line 26. Omit "The President". Insert instead "A Division Head of a Commission Division". No. 20 Functions of Division Heads Page 19, clause 39(2), line 33. Omit "President". Insert instead "Division Head of the Commission Division to which the enabling legislation concerned is allocated". No. 21 Functions of Division Heads Page 20, clause 39(5)(f), line 6. Omit "the President". Insert instead "a Division Head". No. 22 Functions of Division Heads Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2670

Page 20, clause 39(5)(g), line 7. Omit "the President". Insert instead "a Division Head". No. 23 Functions of Division Heads Page 20, clause 39(6), line 8. Omit "The President". Insert instead "A Division Head". The effect of the amendments is to reallocate the functions of the president in the existing bill and instead allocate them to the division heads. The fact that we have moved them that way is no offence to the president but, if we are to be true to the lift and shift principle that the Government has flagged that it accepts, then there are some functions that should belong to the division heads, given that they will have expertise in the matters in which they are agreed. That is the substance upon which we are doing it. In part, that reflects the way in which the bill is designed, which is to effectively establish the structure and the offices but, broadly speaking, leave it to them to resolve what will happen next. I return to what we said in our contribution to the second reading debate: Our core objective is to ensure that the expertise of the Workers Compensation Commission is retained and that none of the expertise is lost. In that sense, reallocating some of the functions that are currently allocated to the president to the division heads, makes a rhetorical and legislative commitment to a lift and shift principle. On that basis we move the amendments. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (21:58:57): The Government opposes the Opposition's amendments. The Government's position is that it seeks to establish a single Personal Injury Commission headed by a president. The president will be the most senior Personal Injury Commission appointment and will be a judicial officer appointed to lead the commission and head the jurisdiction in the schemes. The amendments will prevent the president from leading the Personal Injury Commission effectively. The Government believes it is appropriate to have the powers set out in these provisions, as the president of the commission and as the jurisdictional head of schemes, as applies in most other schemes that are established. The amendments are also unnecessary as already there is flexibility in the bill to enable the president to delegate those functions to division heads where appropriate. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the amendments. The PRESIDENT: According to sessional order, it being 10.00 p.m., does the Minister require that I report progress to allow the motion for the adjournment to be moved? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: No. The Committee continued to sit. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:00:23): The Greens note the intent behind the Opposition's amendments. In fact, there have been a number of discussions with different stakeholders on this very issue. The difficulty that The Greens have with the amendments is that one of the principal protections that everyone has from the new Personal Injury Commission is that the head, or one of the key decision-makers, will be the president. The president is required to be a judge of a court of record and is required to hold judicial tenure and have judicial independence. Therefore, they would not be subject to the threat of dismissal or other undue pressure from the government of the day. That is why it is essential to have judicial independence for the president of the Personal Injury Commission. Whilst the deputy presidents will have appointments, they will not have that judicial tenure or judicial independence. Therefore, The Greens have concerns about the Opposition devolving particular statutory functions directly onto the deputy presidents, who do not have judicial tenure or judicial independence, and taking it away from the president, who does. That is the primary concern. The Greens fully accept that there must be a very clear commitment to a divisional structure and to the lift and shift; that is done in large part by providing the express functions that the division heads have in clause 17 of the bill. That puts in place the actual role for the divisional heads and also the requirement for members to be assigned to different commission divisions. The Greens do not support the Opposition amendments because they take fundamental roles that are necessary for an independent commission from a person who has tenure and security as a judge of a court of record and give them to an officer who does not have that protection. I fully accept the philosophical position of the Opposition, but I do not think that is the way to protect that position. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4, 9, 10, 13, 15 to 18 and 20 to 23 on c2020-100E. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:03:39): By leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on c2020-103A in globo: No. 1 Principal Medical Officer Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2671

Page 3, clause 5 (1). Insert after line 35— Principal Medical Officer means the Principal Medical Officer appointed by the Minister under this Act. No. 3 Principal Medical Officer Page 20. Insert after line 16— Division 4.3 Principal Medical Officer 40A Principal Medical Officer (1) The Minister is to appoint a person who is a medical practitioner as Principal Medical Officer. (2) The functions of the Principal Medical Officer are as follows— (a) to advise the President about the appointment, reappointment and removal of medical assessors and assist in the process of recruitment at the Presidents direction, (b) to advise or report on any other matter as the President may direct concerning medical assessors, or the carrying out of medical assessments or reviews of medical assessments, for the purposes of enabling legislation, (c) any other functions that are conferred or imposed on the Principal Medical Officer by or under this Act or any other legislation. (3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Principal Medical Officer has and may exercise all the functions of a medical assessor under this Act or any enabling legislation. (4) The Principal Medical Officer is, in the exercise of the Officer's functions, subject to the general direction and control of the President. 40B Term of office (1) The Principal Medical Officer holds office for the period, not exceeding 7 years, specified in his or her instrument of appointment. (2) A person is eligible for reappointment as Principal Medical Officer. 40C Remuneration and allowances The Principal Medical Officer is entitled to be paid— (a) remuneration in accordance with the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975, and (b) any travelling and subsistence allowances as the Minister may from time to time determine. 40D Acting Principal Medical Officer (1) The Minister may, from time to time, appoint a person to act in the office of the Principal Medical Officer during the illness or absence of the Principal Medical Officer (or during a vacancy in the office of Principal Medical Officer) and a person, while so acting, has all the functions of the Principal Medical Officer. (2) The Minister may, at any time, remove a person from the office of acting Principal Medical Officer. (3) The acting Principal Medical Officer is entitled to be paid such remuneration (including travelling and subsistence allowances) as the Minister may from time to time determine. 40E Vacancy in office (1) The office of Principal Medical Officer becomes vacant if the person— (a) dies, or (b) completes a term of office and is not reappointed, or (c) resigns the office by instrument in writing addressed to the Minister, or (d) is removed from office by the Minister under this section or by the Governor under Part 6 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013, or (e) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit, or (f) becomes a mentally incapacitated person, or (g) is convicted in New South Wales of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more or is convicted elsewhere than in New South Wales of an offence which, if committed in New South Wales, would be an offence so punishable, or Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2672

(h) engages in any paid employment outside the duties of the office of Principal Medical Officer, except with the consent of the Minister. (2) The Minister may remove a person from the office of Principal Medical Officer at any time. 40F Filling of vacancy in office If the office of Principal Medical Officer becomes vacant, a person is, subject to this Act, to be appointed to fill the vacancy. 40G Leave (1) The entitlement of the Principal Medical Officer to annual and other leave is to be as stated in the Principal Medical Officer's instrument of appointment. (2) The Principal Medical Officer may be granted leave by the chief executive of the Authority. 40H Effect of certain other Acts The office of Principal Medical Officer is a statutory office and the provisions of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 relating to the employment of Public Service employees do not apply to that office. No. 6 Principal Medical Officer Page 63, Schedule 5.8 [2]. Insert after line 23— Insert at the end of the Part— Principal Medical Officer under the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. The amendments are very straightforward. They introduce the position of principal medical officer, which is self-explanatory. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:04:32): The Government will not support the amendments. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile points out, the amendments seek the appointment of a principal medical officer like the Commonwealth and the State chief medical officers. Currently, there is no such role in either scheme. The bill provides for one or more medical assessors to be appointed as senior medical assessors. This maintains the existing workers compensation arrangement and creates new opportunities for medical assessors under the motor accidents scheme in the new consolidated Personal Injury Commission. The senior approved medical specialists in the Workers Compensation Commission have played important roles, such as ensuring that there is effective dialogue between the medical specialists and the Workers Compensation Commission, including medical input in consultation on a range of workers compensation issues. For those reasons, the Government will not support the amendments. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:05:27): The Greens have been approached by members of the medical profession in relation to this issue. I will deal with the amendments separately. The first is the proposal that two persons be appointed by the president from persons nominated from time to time by each of the following: the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. On one view, six members of the medical profession would close to double the membership of the rule committee, which will deal primarily with the way in which disputes are determined within the Personal Injury Commission. A small subset of that work may involve referral for medical disputes. There may be a role for one medical appointee on the rule committee. The Greens are open to considering that at some future point, but the current amendments to put six doctors, which is what the amendments do on one view, seem to me to be not well conceived. If the Government does support that, I would be interested to know how it thinks that will work. In relation to the concept of a principal medical officer, a number of roles are proposed in the amendments. At some point, a principal medical officer may be a good idea, but I do not think the case has been well made to date as to what the scope of a principal medical officer's role would be, how it would interact with the president, whether the principal medical officer would take direction from the president or whether it is an independent position. None of that is fleshed out in the amendments and I have not heard it argued by the member moving the amendments what the actual role of a principal medical officer would be. The Greens have concerns about adopting amendments at this moment that have not been ventilated with the array of stakeholders who have considered the rest of the amendments. At some point, potentially appointing a medical officer to the rule committee may have some benefit. To be clear, The Greens think that is a matter that the Standing Committee on Law and Justice should consider in its upcoming review. At some point, a role like a principal medical officer may have some benefit, but it is difficult to see what the officer would actually do under the amendments that are currently before the Chamber. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2673

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:08:30): In reply to Mr David Shoebridge, who said that he did not know what the function of the principal medical officer would be, that is all in amendment No. 3. It states: (2) The functions of the Principal Medical Officer are as follows— (a) to advise the President about the appointment, reappointment and removal of medical assessors and assist in the process of recruitment at the Presidents direction, (b) to advise or report on any other matter as the President may direct concerning medical assessors, or the carrying out of medical assessments or reviews of medical assessments, for the purposes of enabling legislation, (c) any other functions that are conferred or imposed on the Principal Medical Officer by or under this Act or any other legislation. There is quite a large amount of detail in the amendment. The function of the principal medical officer is quite clear. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:09:48): The Opposition has had the same representations in respect of the proposition of a principal medical officer. We understand the motivations and desire for having a principal medical officer in the scheme or a scheme like it. Perhaps in the course of the amendment debate we might reach a position on this but— The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Some discussions are taking place at the moment about the amendments. It would appear that two options are available to me. Rather than us just filling the air, I will sit quietly whilst the discussions take place. Alternatively, I will leave the chair for a short period of time. I am happy to sit here quietly if it assists members. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:12:05): I have one other issue to raise. As I understand it, amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 have been moved. I have only just seen the amendments. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Everyone is working under difficult circumstances and everyone is cooperating. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that the functions of the principal medical officer were well articulated in proposed clause 40A. I will address that briefly. Proposed clause 40A provides that the functions of the principal medical officer are:

(a) to advise the President about the appointment, reappointment and removal of medical assessors and assist in the process of recruitment at the President's direction … That may be a useful function but it is a long way from a full-time function. It is a fairly modest compass of duties. It goes on: (b) to advise or report on any other matter as the President may direct concerning medical assessors, or the carrying out of medical assessments or reviews of medical assessments, for the purposes of enabling legislation … That is an amorphous role. It may be a full-time role. I have difficulty seeing that as a full-time role but perhaps it is. Proposed clause 40A continues: (c) any other functions that are conferred or imposed on the Principal Medical Officer by or under this Act or any other legislation. No other functions that I am aware of are conferred. I have a real concern with proposed subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) states: Without limiting subsection (2), the Principal Medical Officer has and may exercise all the functions of a medical assessor under this Act or any enabling legislation. The medical assessor is an independent position. It is an independent body that exercises without any direction currently from with the motor accidents scheme but it is an independent position. You would want it to be independent because it is assessing someone's medical conditions. Subsection (4) of the amendment states: The Principal Medical Officer is, in the exercise of the Officer's functions, subject to the general direction and control of the President. A medical assessor cannot be both independent and also subject to the general direction and control of the president; those two things do not sit together. If we are going to adopt these amendments, we would definitely need to resolve that obvious conflict. I think all the doctors would want to make sure that that independence is maintained. You do not want the chief medical officer to be the one independent medical officer without independence and is, in fact, subject to the direction and control of the president. There may be a place for this office; there may be a very good case to put in place a principal medical officer. I do not think the work has been done for us to support the proposal in the current terms. It may be that we can get some agreement on the membership of the rules committee that does not see six doctors on it. If we Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2674

can get some agreement on a form of words that sees one doctor on the rules committee it might be a real benefit. The current amendment proposing six doctors on the rules committee will be more like a meeting of the Australian Medical Association than that of the rules committee. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:15:46): I thank the Chair for his indulgence earlier. Like Mr David Shoebridge, the Opposition has only just recently had time to engage with the amendments and is working through each detail. Firstly, to separate out the concept of a principal medical officer from the legislative execution in the amendments, there is a case to be made for a scheme such as this to have a principal medical officer. Given that we wish to orientate the commission towards a return to health, be it for an injured motorist or an injured worker, it is possible to have a principal medical officer function in the tribunal, maybe even one as proposed by the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Mr David Shoebridge has identified the key issue with the design of the amendments, which is that they create a conflict. Apparently, the principal medical officer will exercise a function that is independent but also subject to the control and direction of the president. Once you combine the function in proposed subsections (3) and (4) with the power under subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c) to advise the president about the appointment, reappointment and removal of medical assessors, the principal medical officer, who is not independent, is meant to be providing advice to the president about who should be independent. It is a legislative contradiction that is very hard for us to pass into law. I return to the very first principle when it comes to amendments in the Committee stage of the House that the Opposition adopts— when in doubt, do no harm. There is significant doubt about how it is possible to allocate into a law that a person is subject to the control of the president of the tribunal, but at the same time they are meant to be exercising their functions independently and it is appealable to the court system. That creates quite a problem with the tribunal and we do not want to knowingly create appealable error in a law and create an ambiguity that has to be resolved in a court. Therefore, the Opposition's position on the proposition of a principal medical officer would be what it understood was the joint agreed position between different parties: The matter should be examined in a subsequent Law and Justice inquiry. We are very open to the idea of developing an evidence base but equally developing a legislative design to obtain the objectives that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile flags in the amendments. Equally, to the people whom we respect and who are passionate about the principle, as we have indicated earlier, it is not that we are opposed to this. We think it requires an evidence base to proceed. On the basis of the amendments in front of us, I cannot see how we can lend our support to a proposition that will create a contradiction in the bill and may create legal error or at least increase the risk of legal error down the track. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has moved Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on sheet 2020-103A. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:19:29): By leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2020-107 in globo: No. 1 Establishment day Page 5, clause 6 (3) (a), line 11. Omit "1 December 2020". Insert instead "1 March 2021". No. 2 Establishment day Page 5, clause 6 (4), line 15. Omit "1 December 2020". Insert instead "1 March 2021". No. 3 Establishment day Page 5, clause 6 (5), line 19. Omit "1 December 2020". Insert instead "1 March 2021". These are very simple and straightforward amendments that change the establishment day from 1 December 2020 to 1 March 2021. I understand that there is general agreement to that change. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:19:48): The establishment day is a matter for the Government. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Minister has moved Government amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2020-107 in globo. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:20:50): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 5 to 8 on sheet c2020-100E in globo: No. 5 Qualifications of members Page 6, clause 10(2), line 39. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead— Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2675

(b) is an Australian lawyer of 7 years' standing and has, in the opinion of the Minister, special knowledge, skill or expertise in relation to any class of matter in respect of which the Commission has jurisdiction. No. 6 Qualifications of members Page 7, clause 10(3), lines 2 and 3. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (b) has, in the opinion of the Minister, special knowledge, skill or expertise in relation to any class of matter in respect of which the Commission has jurisdiction. No. 7 Qualifications of members Page 7, clause 10(4), lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (b) has, in the opinion of the Minister, special knowledge, skill or expertise in relation to any class of matter in respect of which the Commission has jurisdiction. No. 8 Assignments to Commission Division Page 8, clause 15(3), lines 22-24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (3) Subject to this Act (including subsections (1) and (2))— (a) a member is assigned to the Commission Division specified in the member's instrument of appointment, and (b) the Minister may vary the assignment of the member at any time by one or more subsequent instruments, and (c) a member (other than the President) may be assigned to one or more Commission Divisions at a time. These amendments deal with two concepts: First, at the point in time of appointment whether or not it is the Minister who allocates a person to a division or whether or not it is left to the president. Secondly, whether or not the people who are appointed to these tribunals should have qualifications in the functions they are required to discharge. I will deal firstly with the first concept, which is Opposition amendment No. 8. That is somewhat of a sore point from our earlier defeat. At the point of a person joining the tribunal we ask that the Minister allocate them to a division. That is in keeping with the lift and shift principle that a person should have expertise in the division in which they are to function. We advance this proposition because we want to retain the expertise of the WCC, and we clearly want strong expertise in the CTP side of the system as well. We have heard the concerns of the Government and other parties that we should not have too rigid a structure. We therefore support the concept of a dual appointment. We believe that is a way in which that concern can be addressed. We also make the point that under our amendment it is possible for the assignment instrument to be changed to add a person's service on the tribunal too. We believe it is far more likely to lead to people having expertise. That brings me to Opposition amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7. As it currently stands, the bill requires a bunch of different functions to be discharged, from merit reviewers to arbitrators to medical assessors, and to commission members themselves. It does not prescribe what qualifications they should have. I do not wish to go through each of them one by one; needless to say, the gist of it is if you are going to be exercising an office in the system you should be qualified to do so. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:23:18): The Government will support these amendments primarily on the basis that the amendments seek to enhance the specialised skill requirements for deputy presidents in paragraph 5 who are second only in seniority to the president. Secondly, the Government supports the amendment which will enhance the specialised skill requirements of principal members. In our view, the amendments enhance the competence of the jurisdiction and the Government supports them. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:23:56): The Greens support the Opposition amendments. We believe that clearly people should have, at least in the Minister's opinion, the kind of skills necessary to do the job, and that is what these amendments do. We are grateful to the Opposition for bringing these amendments forward but we also believe that there should be the ability to have dual appointments, except people should be appointed to one or both of the two divisions. But there will be people who have the skills necessary to deal with those functions in both divisions and I believe that the concept of allowing dual appointments will allow for that kind of flexibility to happen. They are sensible amendments. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved Opposition amendments Nos 5 to 8 on sheet c2020-100E. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2676

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:25:01): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-099C, amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-097B and amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-098C in globo: Sheet C2020-099C No. 1 Membership of Rule Committee (SIRA/Presidential appointments) Page 10, clause 19(3)(c), line 16. Omit "2 persons". Insert instead "1 person". No. 2 Membership of Rule Committee (SIRA/Presidential appointments) Page 10, clause 19(3)(f), lines 21 and 22. Omit all words on those lines. Sheet c2020-097B No. 1 Membership of Rule Committee (employer/employee members) Page 10, clause 19(3). Insert after line 16— (c1) 1 person nominated for the time being by Unions NSW, (c2) 1 person jointly nominated for the time being by each of the following— (i) the Ai Group, (ii) the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries, (iii) the NSW Business Chamber, Sheet c2020-098C No. 1 Membership of Rule Committee (legal members) Page 10, clause 19(3)(d) and (e), lines 17–20. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (d) 2 barristers nominated for the time being by the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association who, in the opinion of the Council, have special knowledge, skill or expertise in relation to any class of workers compensation claims or motor accidents claims, (e) 2 solicitors nominated for the time being by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales who, in the opinion of the Council, have special knowledge, skill or expertise in relation to any class of workers compensation claims or motor accidents claims, No. 2 Membership of Rule Committee (legal members) Page 11, clause 19. Insert after line 3— (9) In this section— motor accidents claims means claims for statutory benefits or damages to which the motor accidents legislation applies. workers compensation claims means claims for compensation or damages to which the workers compensation legislation applies. All of these amendments relate to the composition of the rules committee. The rules committee in this scheme exercises a lot of power. In truth, what we, as a Parliament, are doing is establishing a structure, establishing personnel and establishing qualifications for the personnel, but we are largely saying that it is over to the rules committee now how the tribunal will function. The rules committee is the principal forum in which those discussions would be had; therefore, who they represent is of crucial importance not only to the participants in the tribunal but also, equally, to the success of the tribunal. Many of the people who need to be represented in this forum are not currently represented in the bill and the Opposition's view is that that needs to adjust. With these amendments we are seeking to remove the two presidential appointments that are currently contemplated; we are seeking to remove one of the representatives from the regulator; we are seeking to include representatives of registered employer organisations and registered employee organisations; and we are equally seeking to adjust the legal representation components. In our view, these amendments will ensure a suitable balance of power amongst all the different people who need to participate in the rule-making function of the tribunal and, in that sense, it is more likely to be conducive to a good outcome from the tribunal. These are often, particularly on the workers compensation side, very complicated disputes; they are tripartite in nature—they often involve an insurer, an employer and an employee. It requires a lot of the expertise and knowledge that is accumulated over time and we believe that the inclusion of those parties in the principal rule-making function of the tribunal is sensible for the tribunal. We have heard feedback that it is fine to have these parties included, but ultimately this is a rules committee to assist the president, and the president is a judicial officer and of a different status to other members. A judicial officer should be respected and the judicial office should be respected as well. It is the case that a judicial office ought not necessarily be subject to majority rule Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2677

because that is not sound practice either; there has to be a separation in respect to that office. We will deal with that in a later amendment, but I just flag that that is a principle we accept, that the office of a judicial officer has to be respected. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:29:02): In principle, the Government will support these amendments. I raise one issue with the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. Can we take out the word "each", so that it is one person? The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Yes, that is fine. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I think we have a drafting agreement. I will move an amendment on the run to Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-097B. I move: That Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-097B be amended by omitting "each of" from paragraph (c2). We do not want this to be a massive body of employee representatives or doctors representatives. At the end of the day the president has the ultimate responsibility for rule-making and is advised by various groups. To load it up with a whole lot of doctors, industry groups, employer groups and the like would be overly cumbersome and stagnate the working of the rules membership committee. With that amendment, the Government will support the Opposition amendments. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:31:25): The Greens also support the Opposition's package of amendments. I am fairly certain that that was the Opposition's initial intention. I am often suspicious of the Labor Party but I do not think it intended to put one union representative and three employer representatives on the rules committee. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It is from the right. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is from the right but that still was not my understanding. We think there should be a person nominated by Unions NSW; clearly, it has a major stake in how the Personal Injury Commission runs. But to get balance and fairness, employers also have a big stake: They pay the premiums. We think it is fair that they also have one representative, not three, on the rules committee. There is no reason to have two representatives from SIRA. One should be able to represent SIRA's views on the rules committee. They do not need to bring in the executive team onto the rules committee. The president should not have a bunch of at-large appointments. The balance is struck through a later Opposition amendment that will provide for the President to have concurrence with any proposals from the rules committee. The president is a judicial member. The head of the jurisdiction must have the ability to properly run the jurisdiction. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:33:03): I appreciate the contribution of Government members and Mr David Shoebridge. I have previously been accused of being excessively deferential to employers but in this respect that was a drafting error and not intended. However, the next time I appear at any of these people's conferences, I will say that I tried. I promise to say that but I accept the Government's amendment and recommend the set of amendments to the House. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2020-097B, to which the Hon. Damien Tudehope has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Damien Tudehope be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey as amended be agreed to. Amendment as amended agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-099C and Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2020-098C. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:35:44): I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 on sheet c2020-103A: No. 2 Membership of Rule Committee (medical practitioners) Page 10, clause 19(3). Insert after line 20— (e1) 2 persons appointed by the President from persons nominated from time to time by each of the following— Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2678

(i) the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, (ii) the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, (iii) the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, The three organisations informed me that they felt there had been an imbalance in the way the matter was being dealt with. Too much weight was being given to legal practitioners with a lack of recognition of the relevant specialist groups. They should be involved in the rules committee. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Government is seeking to move an amendment to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:37:32): I apologise for doing this on the run. It is a similar amendment to the previous unintentional drafting error. I move: That Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 on sheet c2020-103A be amended by omitting "2 persons appointed by the President from persons nominated from time to time by each of the following" and inserting instead "1 person jointly nominated by the Presidents for the time being of the following". The "following" refers to the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Instead of being three persons becoming part of this rules committee, there would be one person nominated by the presidents for the time being of those three bodies. That effectively reflects the amendment that we have previously agreed to in relation to nomination by industry groups. It would be one person by each of the industry and employer groups, rather than three people. In this case it would be one person nominated by the medical groups and not three people. Under the proposal from the Christian Democratic Party, which we will be opposing, it would be six people. For the reasons articulated in relation to the obligation of the president to be the chief rule maker and to be advised by expertise, a body containing six doctors providing advice in relation to the rules of the operation of the Personal Injury Commission appears to be an unwieldy rule-making body. I commend the amendment of the provision to one person from each of those bodies. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:41:50): The Opposition supports having one doctor on the rules committee. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:42:00): The Greens also support the Government amendments and will support the amended amendment. The Greens think there is a benefit in having one doctor. It will be truly fascinating to see whether or not the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists can agree on anything. That is the challenge that we have in front of us. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:42:31): Just to clarify what the Government is doing—instead of six, it comes down to one? The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): That is exactly right. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I still believe that there should be one doctor from each of those organisations. They are separate specialist organisations. It would be very difficult to have one doctor representing those three bodies. Each of those bodies should have the right to have one person on the rules committee. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has moved Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 on sheet c2020-013A, to which the Hon. Damien Tudehope has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Damien Tudehope be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 on sheet c2020-103A as amended be agreed to. Amendment as amended agreed to. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:44:41): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 11, 12, 14, 19, 24, 25 and 26 on sheet c2020-100E in globo: No. 11 President must consent to making of Commission rules Page 10, clause 19. Insert after line 45— (7A) Despite subsections (6) and (7), a Commission rule cannot take effect unless the President consents to the rule being made either by— (a) voting for it at the meeting at which it is proposed to be made, or (b) giving written consent for its making before or after the meeting. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2679

No. 12 Commission rules Page 11, clause 20(2), lines 18-41. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commission rules may make provision for or with respect to any of the following matters— (a) the way for referring claims or disputes for assessment or determination or for making appeals, (b) the amendment of filed or lodged documents, (c) non-compliance with provisions concerning practice and procedure (including the effect of irregularities on proceedings), (d) the making of assessments and determinations, (e) the way for specifying an amount of damages, statutory benefits or compensation, (f) the parties to proceedings (including the joinder, misjoinder and non-joinder of parties and rights of intervention of third parties such as the Authority in proceedings), (g) the splitting and consolidation of proceedings in the Commission, (h) the documentation to accompany a reference of a claim or dispute for assessment or determination or an appeal, (i) the way for presenting documents and information by parties, including time limits for the presentation of the documents and information, (j) the provision of documents and information by a party to a matter to any other party to the matter, (k) the way for notifying the parties to proceedings of decisions of, or other action taken by, the Commission in the proceedings, (1) the form, use and effect of the seal of the Commission, (m) the specification of exceptions, limitations or other restrictions in relation to a provision of this Act or enabling legislation that is expressed to be subject to the Commission rules. No. 14 Qualifications of merit reviewers Page 18, clause 33. Insert after line 14— (2A) A person is qualified to be appointed as a merit reviewer only if, in the opinion of the appointor, the person has special knowledge, skill or expertise in respect of the motor accidents legislation or administrative decision-making. (2B) A merit reviewer is assigned to the Motor Accidents Division. No. 19 Qualifications of mediator Page 19, clause 39. Insert after line 31— (1A) A person is qualified to be appointed as a mediator only if, in the opinion of the appointor, the person has— (a) special knowledge, skill or expertise in respect of the enabling legislation concerned, and (b) mediation qualifications of a kind prescribed by the regulations. No. 24 Legal representation Page 22, clause 48(3), lines 29-32. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (3) In proceedings in respect of a claim within the meaning of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, the Commission must refuse to permit an insurer to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner if the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner unless leave is granted by the Commission under subsection (3A). (3A) The Commission may, on the application of an insurer, grant leave for an insurer to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner only if satisfied that— (a) the representation would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter, or (b) it would be unfair not to allow the insurer to be represented because the insurer is unable to represent the insurer effectively, or Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2680

(c) it would be unfair not to allow the insurer to be represented, taking into account fairness between the insurer and other parties in the proceedings. (3B) The Commission may at any time revoke leave it has granted under subsection (3A). No. 25 Annual reporting Page 30, clause 66. Insert after line 14— (3) The review is to be tabled in Parliament and for that purpose the Minister is to lay the report or cause it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the review. (4) The review is to include the following information— (a) the number and type of proceedings instituted in each Commission Division during the year, (b) the sources of those proceedings, (c) the number and type of proceedings that were made during the year but not dealt with, (d) the extent to which the operations of the Commission are funded by each operational fund, (e) any other information that the President considers appropriate to be included or the Minister directs to be included. (5) In this section— operational fund means each of the following— (a) the Motor Accidents Operational Fund (the SIRA Fund) under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, (b) the Motor Accidents Operational Fund under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, (c) the Workers Compensation Operational Fund under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. No. 26 Review of Act Page 30, clause 68, lines 18-25. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— 68 Review of Act (1) The Minister is to undertake 2 reviews of this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. (2) The reviews are to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 2 years, and then 7 years, from the date of assent to this Act. (3) A report on the outcome of each review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 2 years or 7 years (as the case requires). I will work through the amendments one by one. Amendment No. 11 reflects the principle that the office of the president, being a judicial office, should be respected. To put it crudely, it ought not be ruled by the rules committee. Therefore, it should effectively have concurrence power or veto power. That is achieved through amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 12 provides a description of the types of rules that the rules committee needs to make. Its original inception point was modelled on what is currently in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The Opposition appreciates the dialogue it had with the Minister's office, as well as with Mr David Shoebridge, to bring that to a conclusion. Amendments Nos 14 and 19 are thematically similar to earlier amendments that the Opposition moved— that is, if someone is appointed to be a merit reviewer they should have some qualifications in merit review. If someone is being appointed as a mediator they ought to have some qualifications in mediation. Amendment No. 24 deals with the issue of legal representation. A part of the bill deals with the scenario of inequality of power between represented parties and unrepresented parties, particularly between an insurer and a worker or an insurer and a motorist. The amendment seeks to correct that power imbalance. Again, the Opposition appreciates the opportunity to have dialogue with other parties about the right form of legislative language. Amendment No. 25 is about annual reporting. The Opposition favours it; it would like to have the data and it would like that to be produced to Parliament. The Opposition would like to use that to effectively judge the success of the commission, which is what was said in the second reading debate. The Opposition will judge the proposal according to what it actually delivers. There is a requirement for there to be data and reporting to the Parliament in that respect. The Opposition is glad that it is in a position to suggest that that be included in the bill. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2681

The Opposition also thinks that the Act, should it be commenced, be reviewed and that the mechanism of review should be written in. I extend my apologies to the Hon. Wes Fang; I think we are giving him more work on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice as part of that process. Equally, the Opposition amendments provide what should become the statutory review and will be reviewing the Act every two years. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:48:08): The Government does not oppose any of the amendments. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (22:48:16): The Greens supports each of the amendments for the reasons set out by the Opposition. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved Opposition amendments Nos 11, 12, 14, 19, 24, 25 and 26 on sheet c2020-100E. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (22:48:55): By leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 4 and 5 on sheet c2020-103A in globo: No. 4 Composition of medical assessment review panels Page 53, Schedule 5.5[56], lines 24–28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (5A) The review panel is to be constituted by 3 medical assessors chosen by the President. No. 5 Composition of medical assessment review panels Page 58, Schedule 5.6[17], lines 30–34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (5A) The review panel is to be constituted by 3 medical assessors chosen by the President. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 deal with the composition of the medical assessment review panels such that the review panels are to be constituted by three medical assessors chosen by the president. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:49:44): The Government does not support the amendments. The bill harmonises the management of medical disputes and appeal and review panel composition. Review panels in both divisions of the Personal Injury Commission will comprise two medical assessors and one member assigned to the division in which the appeal or review is undertaken. This includes a member of the Personal Injury Commission with special expertise in compulsory third party motor accident law and administrative decision-making. This will bring a harmonised multidisciplinary approach to panel composition across both divisions, combining both medical and administrative decision-making expertise to reviews. This approach to panel composition is intended to enhance an independent review process and bring about robust decision-making, and recognises the role and contribution of members of the Personal Injury Commission in terms of legal knowledge and administrative decision-making. Workers Compensation Commission appeal panels have operated effectively over many years with this panel membership. For those reasons, the Government does not support the amendments. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has moved Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 4 and 5 on sheet c2020-103A. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments negatived. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Before I call on the Minister, I thank members and representatives from the Minister's office for the cooperative way in which we have got through a pretty tough bill. That was pretty spectacular. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House with amendments. Motion agreed to. Adoption of Report The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the report be adopted. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2682

Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (22:52:56): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (22:53:04): I make a very brief contribution on the third reading. During the second reading debate we said that we would allow the bill to go through to the Committee stage to see whether it could be improved. On the basis of the amendments that have been passed, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That this House do now adjourn. MODERN SLAVERY ACT 2018 The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (22:54:06): This year I have spoken twice in the House about what I believe is the Government's clear intention to make sure that the New South Wales Modern Slavery Act 2018 never makes it onto the State's statute books. Of course, actions speak louder than words. If the Premier and the Government revise their current position by proclaiming and thereby fully enacting the Modern Slavery Act, I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. Members are well aware of the chronology of the matter so I will not repeat it. Suffice to say, almost five months ago, on 25 March this year, a Government-controlled committee, of which I was a member, tabled its report into the Modern Slavery Act 2018 and associated matters. As expected, the Government used its committee numbers to get its way with respect to the content of the report and its recommendations. Recommendation 1 of the report states: That the NSW Government proceed to introduce amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2018 taking into consideration the comments and recommendations of this report, with the aim of the Act commencing on or before 1 January 2021. In my view, nobody should get too carried away with the wording in recommendation 1 or, indeed, the wording in any of the other 16 recommendations. A person does not need to be a lawyer to know that wording like "taking into consideration", "seek harmonisation", "consider and work to resolve" et cetera create a great deal of wriggle room—and I mean "wriggle room" with a capital W. The committee report and its recommendations say what they say but the will of this Parliament must prevail. The Modern Slavery Act 2018 was passed by the Legislative Council on 21 June 2018 after extensive debate and amendments made to it in the other place. Some people, including me, were not completely happy with all the amendments passed in the Legislative Assembly. Nevertheless, we supported the legislation. It is a splendid, groundbreaking achievement that this Parliament can be very proud of. Therefore, in May 2019 it was a great shock to discover that the Government had not proclaimed the new Act, instead deciding to put it quietly into the deep freezer. I assure the Premier and the Government that the New South Wales Modern Slavery Act 2018 will not simply disappear, notwithstanding how strongly the Premier and the Government would prefer that outcome. The will of the Parliament must prevail no matter how long it takes. I draw members' attention to an article written by Ms Anna Patty that appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on 30 July 2020. The sixth-last paragraph in the article states: A NSW government spokeswoman said it would respond to the Standing Committee on Social Issues which tabled its report on the inquiry on March 25 "later this year". "The government is carefully considering the committee's recommendations," she said. Those comments from the unnamed government spokeswoman confirm my suspicion. The phrase "later this year" means 25 September—exactly six months after the report was tabled in the Legislative Council. That leaves only 12 sitting days before the Parliament rises for the Christmas recess. The window of time available for the drafting of any necessary amendments to the Act, including the requisite checks and double-checks, and the passage of the bill through both Houses, is very small—that is, 25 September to 19 November. Furthermore, necessary regulations must be drafted and finalised. That scenario assumes no try-ons by the Government—that is, it proposes only minor or technical amendments to the unproclaimed Act. If the Government proposes major amendments, which is highly likely, that will shift the matter into 2021. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2683

I take the opportunity to thank two outstanding anti-slavery NGOs that are working tirelessly to bring about the full enactment of the New South Wales Modern Slavery Act—Be Slavery Free and War on Slavery. Specifically, I thank Carolyn and Fuzz Kitto from Be Slavery Free and Jane Jeffes and Becky Honey from War on Slavery. On 20 July they arranged for 117 organisations, academics, lawyers, community and faith leaders to co-sign a letter urging the Premier to end the delay and bring the State's historic Modern Slavery Act into force by 1 January 2021. That was a great achievement. I sincerely hope the Premier heeds their call and her own call to action made in her second reading speech on the bill on 6 June 2018, when she said: There is an undeniable moral imperative to take action in relation to all forms of modern slavery. SMILE LIKE DRAKE FOUNDATION The Hon. NATALIE WARD (22:59:10): The date 16 March 2013 will forever be a day that rocked the community of the northern beaches. On that day we lost Christopher James Drake. Chris was in his final year of studying law and behavioural science at the University of Notre Dame and had just returned to Australia after completing an internship with Manchester City Football Club. He was just 23 years old. Chris had the world at his feet. In the words of Chris's mum, Nicolle: There was nothing standard about our Chris. He radiated love. What makes this story so tragic is that Chris was not a stranger to water. He was a former championship surfer and, as noted in the coronial inquest findings, "a strong and experienced swimmer". On 16 March 2013, after going for a surf and then a gym training session, Chris went with friends to North Curl Curl rock pool for a cool-off swim. During that swim a wave broke over the rocks and tragically washed Chris out to sea. Chris' body was not discovered until four days later. Nikki says Chris died protecting his friends. It is no coincidence that Chris was a remarkable young man. He came to be that way because of his parents, his family and his friends. After the passing of their son, Nikki and Trevor Drake set up a not-for-profit charity, the Smile Like Drake Foundation. The Smile Like Drake Foundation was established in Chris' memory with the goal of preventing drowning deaths at sea and promoting water safety on Australian beaches and waterways by developing and promoting practical protocols, products and holistic solutions, carrying out research, delivering educational programs and policies, and building practical consensus among relevant stakeholders. I highlight just how prevalent drowning is in our waterways. According to the World Health Organization, drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for 7 per cent of all injury-related deaths. There are an estimated 320,000 annual drowning deaths worldwide. The Royal Life Saving Society Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia state that 276 people lost their life to drowning in Australia from July 2018 to June 2019—a 10 per cent increase in drowning deaths across the nation from the previous year. Ninety-eight of those 276 people died in New South Wales. In Chris' case it is estimated that up to $500,000 was spent on search costs by emergency services. This is why the Smile Like Drake Foundation has partnered with key stakeholders, including Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales police, Australian Federal Police, Surf Life Saving NSW and researchers at Macquarie University. The Smile Like Drake Foundation is currently seeking funding to produce and distribute App Track, which is an inexpensive, easy-to-use water safety bracelet that continually monitors the wearer's swimming pattern, depth and heartbeat, and in the case of a potential drowning scenario sends a signal to emergency services and lifeguards. This potentially life-saving project is in its infancy and could one day be rolled out across our many public beaches, schools, surf clubs and nippers. In addition, the Smile Like Drake Foundation has unveiled plans to roll out its Water Warriors safety program throughout schools, for which it has secured seed funding. I wholeheartedly support those initiatives. I commend Nikki and Trevor Drake and the whole team at the Smile Like Drake Foundation for the amazing work they have done, and will no doubt continue to do. ANIMAL CRUELTY The Hon. MARK PEARSON (23:02:38): Erwin Schrodinger famously conceived of the thought experiment now known as "Schrodinger's Cat". He said if you place a cat in a sealed box with something that could kill it, you would not know if it was dead or alive until you opened the box. In this sense, for a time the cat is both dead and alive. In Australia killing is our biggest conservation tool. We call cats, foxes, pigs, rabbits, goats, dogs, and even the native dingo "pests" and therefore poison, trap, and shoot them. For their crime of existing, those wild animals pay the price of human failure in environmental management and in ethics. Yet we never really see what happens to those animals when they are slaughtered so brutally in the wild, so in this way they are neither dead nor alive. Perhaps that is why the Government continues to kill so ruthlessly—a bait laid in a field tomorrow is almost hypothetical, a hollow moral paperweight on documents signed today. Yet we know that animals killed in the name of environmental conservation suffer. Nocturnal Wildlife Research Director Dr Clive Marks makes this clear in his aptly titled article Killing Schrodinger's Feral Cat. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2684

Describing the death of a cat in his laboratory, Marks records the minute-by-minute impact of 1080—a vertebrate pesticide used in New South Wales to control pest animals. Already poisoned and dying from the inside out, the cat still responded to stimuli, writhing and pawing unsteadily at the exact place it felt a single pinprick. Falling again in the throes of death, now on her side, she convulsed in turgid spasms and then stiffened, relaxed, then stiffened again, rolling onto her back and crying until too paralysed to vocalise. As Dr Marks stated: This should not happen. Reams have been written and careers built upon fragile facts. According to the government websites, carnivores do not suffer when they are poisoned with 1080. Yet, in truth, very few have ever seen the outcomes of using this poison on cats. We all knew that this was because no one really wanted to see. The men stood and looked at what they had long championed. "How long has the cat been like this?", asked one man awkwardly, distaste frozen on his face. "Hours", came the reply. In the same way no-one wants to witness the death of an animal, for it makes their suffering real, no-one wants to think of the impact on people required to kill. With a flick of their pen, people in these very halls of power sign the death warrants of hundreds of thousands of free-living animals each year, but they not only forget the fate of the individual animals who suffer unconscionable deaths at their far-removed hands, they also forget the people ordered to carry out the killing. While those laying baits in the bush take every effort not to see the results of their work, there are people whose jobs demand that they be present for every painful moment and second it takes for pesticides like 1080 to take a life, such as Dr Marks and his young laboratory technician. In their lab they must monitor animals dying—each irregular heartbeat, jerked movement and desperate cry. Marks described the emotional exhaustion on his young colleague's face. Though scientists do not even use the word "kill", instead preferring conscience-saving euphemisms such as "euthanasia", "put to sleep" or "sacrificed", he admits: It's impossible for me to be emotionally detached when I listen to life ebb away as I press the stethoscope against the cat's chest and the heart becomes even weaker. Conservation is a science, but we should never expect conservationists to kill. Firstly, every animal's inherent right to life mandates that conservation work should not have any victims. Secondly, we must consider the emotional toll of killing on the people tasked with it. To those who pick up the guns or lay traps with the fervid excitement, as Marks says, "Only a psychopath kills without emotion." COVID-19 AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY The Hon. LOU AMATO (23:07:44): I have spoken about the declining state of Australian manufacturing before. So much of what I am about to say is not new. The only difference then was that we were not in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 1950s manufacturing employed approximately one-third of Australia's workforce and contributed to over 30 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. Today that number has fallen to less than 5 per cent of GDP; in fact, many economists have declared that Australia's manufacturing industry is no longer sick but terminal, and its demise is all but certain. Does all this really matter? If so, what are we to do about it? The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has left Australia vulnerable. The story of how a country like Australia could allow itself to become so technologically penurious may well be the subject of countless books written by future generations. I do not expect any reference made to the current generation to be favourable. Like it or not, we have failed miserably at ensuring we have at least a cursory level of self-sufficiency. Our manufacturing report card is stamped in bright red letters with the words "Total failure". The time for delusion has passed; we are in deep water. COVID-19 has highlighted our dismal efforts at maintaining anything that resembles a manufacturing industry. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic had been avoided, manufacturing matters. The brilliance of a nation is not judged on its folly to allow foreign-owned mining entities to decimate this land with gaping open-cut mines; a brilliant nation does not export raw materials for a paltry return, only to import them back as finished products at many times the price. No, smart nations build things. Manufacturing provides the platform for brilliance and the pride for a nation to consider itself smart. The manufacturing entity provides for innovation and discovery but, more importantly, manufacturing provides jobs for all. A large-scale operation requires highly educated and skilled personnel. Manufacturing also provides jobs for unskilled and semiskilled workers. The amount of expertise and opportunity manufacturing provides is quite impressive. A typical large-scale operation employs marketing professionals to research customer needs and document what the product needs to achieve. Engineers, machinists and other tradespeople build working prototypes ready for production. Purchasing officers seek out quality raw materials at the best available price. Warehousing staff provide safe storage of raw materials and finished goods. Production engineers design the assembly line to efficiently and safely produce the product. Trained staff operate machinery to fabricate the required parts of the product. Production line staff assemble the product. Cost accountants manage the cost of production. Quality control staff ensure the product meets customers' expectations. Maintenance staff service and repair machinery required to fabricate parts. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2685

Dispatch personnel and truck drivers distribute the product to authorised retailers. Export departments seek out new opportunities in world markets. Administration staff maintain accounting functions. IT departments maintain systems that provide data to CEOs who manage cash flows and obtain funds for expansion of the business. Cleaning staff maintain a safe and clean working environment. There are many reasons why Australia lost its manufacturing industries. We could blame the unions for their irresponsible behaviour. We could blame governments for offshoring many of our heavy industries. We could also blame tariff reductions, which allowed cheap and inferior products to flood our markets. Just a quick comment on tariffs: Countries that maintain a protectionist approach to their manufacturing can somehow still make things, whilst we cannot. Maybe the one-sided free trade agreements of the past need to be thought out a little better in the future. One particular free trade agreement that was somehow signed required Australia to cut all tariffs whilst the other party could phase them out over four years. That needs to be a topic of discussion. We cannot change the failings of the past. Assigning blame to everyone else will not help Australia to rebuild its manufacturing industry and we all need to take responsibility. Most of us were complacent and purchased imports over Australian-made goods. The time has come to insist on Australian made. If we all choose Australian made, our economic recovery after COVID-19 will certainly be better than predicted and we might be surprised to find ourselves stronger and a whole lot smarter than we were before COVID-19. COVID-19 AND WORKING FROM HOME The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (23:12:31): For those of us fortunate enough to keep our jobs during this global pandemic and the economic crisis that has followed, working from home has become the norm rather than the exception. In the first days and weeks, Facebook and Instagram feeds were full of #wfh pictures—set-ups at dining room tables, in spare rooms and garages, even on the end of beds. Companies scrambled quickly to purchase laptops, monitors and virtual private network access. Instead of a luxury requested by workers, working from home has been imposed by employers—the only way to keep companies and organisations productive during this pandemic. Here in the Parliament, things have adapted quickly as well. There have been many procedural changes in this Chamber. Virtual public hearings for committee inquiries have become common. The Executive Council of New South Wales, like many boards and local councils, is now able to hold meetings virtually for the first time. As with so much of our parliamentary system, there is a rich history surrounding so many of the procedures that were quickly changed—some dating back to colonial times. But, as we have seen across so many workplaces, there is often no good excuse for not modernising our traditional practices other than "this is the way we've always done it." Although we have quickly adopted to working from home, the first month did not reflect the full benefits that flexible work has to offer. Juggling remote learning or childcare responsibilities made many people's first experience of working from home much more complicated than it should be. Even as the most enthusiastic supporter of flexible work, I will admit that it was a challenge. This next stage of learning to coexist with COVID-19 offers great opportunities for flexible work. Children have returned to school but many of us continue to work remotely. In spite of the possibility of a second wave of COVID, I am genuinely excited about the prospects for adopting flexible work over the next six months. We are well positioned to make lasting changes to the way we work. One of the main barriers to implementing flexible work is outlaying the costs for the infrastructure required. That barrier has already been crossed. Most of us are accustomed to Zoom meetings and our home offices are set up. There are also indications that some of the worst practices that were dressed up as flexible work, such as implementing hot-desking, may be gone as well because of the potential health risks. This will allow us to make a more informed decision about how and where work needs to be undertaken. That is what Telstra did when it implemented All Roles Flex in 2014—one of the first companies to do so. It redesigned its office space into specific working zones, discovered it could save plenty of floor space and invested the savings in a standardised, state-of-the-art videoconferencing system for all its workers. Now I will be the first to acknowledge that a meeting—or a parliamentary hearing—does not occur as easily or naturally virtually as it does in person. But, as we have discovered, it is not an insurmountable challenge. Like many others, I have advocated for flexible work for years. As so many have now discovered, a more flexible approach to work allows employees to better balance their work and life. But flexible working is much more than just working from home; it is about rethinking the way we work. Pre-COVID, that could have included an earlier or later starting time to allow school drop-offs or pick-ups, university study or even an early morning surf; or maybe you could work the same amount of hours, but spread over more or fewer days. Tuesday, 4 August 2020 Legislative Council Page 2686

The current crisis has given us a unique opportunity to think about what we want our work to look like. But we have to be on guard for an office snapback. Once the public health crisis has passed, as we rush back to reclaim so much of the face-to-face interaction we miss now, we should not just return to the way we worked in the past. For too long, our workplaces have remained as they have been for almost a century: Workers travel— generally to the CBD or close surrounds—to work at one location, as if they still have to receive a letter in the mail or a phone call on a landline. The reality of so much modern, and especially office-based, work is that it can be done anywhere—as many have just discovered for the first time. There will likely be many legacies of this unprecedented crisis. Let us make COVID-19 the catalyst to permanently change the way we work. Let us embrace a new era for the way we work—keeping the best of what we have learnt about working flexibly, with the social interaction we are all missing right now. COVID-19 AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (23:17:26): I will say a few words about the differential treatment of religious faiths in New South Wales, especially during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Over recent years there has been a great deal of talk about the need for some form of legal protection of religious liberties in New South Wales. A federal inquiry into religious freedoms led by former foreign Minister Philip Ruddock even recommended that such laws be passed. As the weeks and months drag on, it appears that we are regularly reminded of the need for some form of legislative protection. Take the recent example of an exemption being granted to the Auburn mosque to host 400 people at its celebration and contrast that with the way that Christians in New South Wales have effectively been deprived of the right to celebrate Easter this year, along with other restrictions on numbers of 50 to 100. I have been contacted by some of my constituents who feel they cannot go to church because they may have missed out on registration for service. The churches are fearful that they will be treated severely if the police find out that one additional person attended mass over the permitted quota of 100. This is the beginning of an unreal situation in New South Wales. I fully understand and appreciate the need for some of these restrictions, and we certainly do not want what is happening in Victoria to be repeated in New South Wales. But the authorities who create, impose and enforce the rules seem to have lost sight of the facts. A viral outbreak can occur in a setting where large amounts of people randomly congregate and thus spread the contagion, such as shopping centres, pubs et cetera. But a church, being a place of worship connected to a geographically based community, is very different. These are not random people at all. In many respects, they are an extended family. The congregation is predictable, therefore the risk of spreading contagion through the community is significantly lower, yet Christians have had to comply with these severe restrictions. Christians by their nature render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and they obey the law. When we witness special exemptions being granted to other religious communities, it sends a message that one religion is more deserving than another. That is very distressing. Why was this exemption granted? What possible reason could there be to do this, while not affording the same right to others? One can appreciate that this will cause anger among some people in the community. This is not just a religious issue. Australians of all faiths and none were prevented from celebrating Anzac Day this year. No special exemptions were offered. There should be no place for political favouritism for any single group in our community. If we all have to comply with restrictions, then all means all. Otherwise many Australians who do the right thing or who endure restrictions in silence will start asking why they should bother. Indeed, they may ask whether we live in one community or in different communities with different rules. There have recently been massive protests in Germany against that country's restrictions. We do not want to see that happening here. But if the authorities show favouritism between different faith groups, there is a risk that public sentiment will turn against them. Unfortunately, there still remains a void in our statute books for a legislative instrument to guarantee equality and fairness in religious practice. I commend the Hon. Mark Latham for his bill, which I will fully support when it is introduced in the near future. I hope this will remedy the situation. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 23:22 until Wednesday 5 August 2020 at 10:00.