6030

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 12 October 2011

______

The Speaker (Mrs Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (ETHICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER) BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 11 October 2011.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 a.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Ethics and Public Service Commissioner) Bill 2011. The bill implements a more ethical framework for the New South Wales public sector and, importantly, creates the position of the Public Service Commissioner and the Public Service Commission Advisory Board. As defined in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, "public sector" refers to all workers employed by the New South Wales Government, with the exception of the local government sector. It includes all the people that make our city and our State run so efficiently and effectively and who provide services to the community, such as the police, people working in the health sector, firefighters, workers in transport and the education sector and, of course, in State-owned corporations such as Sydney Water and Ausgrid.

The people of New South Wales deserve the most transparent and accountable public service that can be provided by the Government. The Coalition Government is determined to do that. Government exists to provide services to its citizens that cannot be provided by the free market or by ready voluntary exchange between individuals. Every citizen accesses the services provided by the Government every day—from driving on our roads to drinking our water and using our public schools and hospitals. In my electorate of Vaucluse many people travel to work on ferries from Watsons Bay, Rose Bay, Double Bay and Darling Point, on trains from Edgecliff and Bondi Junction, on buses from all parts of the electorate or in cars along the main arterial roads of Bondi Road, New South Head Road and Old South Head Road.

Yesterday in my private member's statement I referred to the wonderful public schools in the electorate of Vaucluse that provide some of the best education available in New South Wales to our local children, our important future. In our democracy every citizen has the right to question how these services are being provided and then to vote, as they did on 26 March 2011, for which member of the community can best represent them in Parliament to ensure the best delivery of those services. The Coalition was elected with a clear commitment to establish a Public Service Commission, and that is one of the key reasons why the New South Wales public voted strongly for a new Government.

In our 100 Day Action Plan we committed to appointing an independent chairperson to commence setting up the Public Service Commission, and to commence consultation for a public sector ethics Act. That is what we will discuss in Parliament in the next couple of days. Governments exist to serve their citizens and citizens deserve the right to access government services with the knowledge that those services are being provided ethically and transparently. In order for citizens to understand the processes of Government and to make a judgement about whether services are being provided ethically and responsibly the public sector must be as accountable as are we as members of Parliament. After all, the services that are provided are through taxpayer funds. Taxpayers need to know whether their taxes are being spent responsibly in order to hold the government of the day to account.

We have more than 300,000 public service employees in New South Wales. For many of them a career in the public service is a vocation, not merely a job. As Parliamentary Secretary for Tertiary Education and Skills I work closely with public servants in the Department of Education and Communities. They are committed and hard-working individuals who help deliver effective outcomes for the largest government

12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6031

agency. They help deliver early childhood services, programs in schools, the vocational education and training sector, on which I focus, and university education. The education portfolio is one of the most important elements of the New South Wales Government.

Employees increasingly choose the public sector to provide a professional career in which they can give something back to the community. In order to ensure that the public sector acts with integrity and independence this Government is placing its trust in the commitment and resilience of the employees that make up the public service. Individuals in the public service, like members of Parliament, must be visible and must feel empowered to undertake meaningful tasks that are valued by the community. A valued public service is more likely to be motivated to provide quality services to the community. I know through personal experience that people in the public sector are talented and professional, and this Government plans to harness those attributes by providing clear goals and policy directions, transparent processes and accountability that will add to the talents that these people already have. The Government will provide an environment in which they can succeed.

This Government was elected with strong commitments to restore the economy of New South Wales, which had fallen into the doldrums, to return quality services, to rebuild infrastructure, to provide accountability and to strengthen local government and our communities. As the Premier said in his agreement in principle speech on this bill, the Government needs the public sector to do this with it and indeed for it. The Government, through its legislative agenda, is creating a culture based on customer service, value, choice and the flexibility to work with the private and not-for-profit sectors to respond quickly and efficiently to the expectations and demands of the communities of New South Wales. Indeed, they should be demanding of us.

I truly believe that the will to achieve those things already exists in the public sector. As I said earlier, the public servants with whom I work on a regular basis are talented, motivated and professional and help me do my job as Parliamentary Secretary. The Government understands that the public service as a whole simply needs an updated framework in which to operate to reach its full potential. This bill is part of providing such a framework and ensuring that public sector employees have the means to succeed professionally whilst effectively and meaningfully providing the services that the citizens of New South Wales and the electorate of Vaucluse expect and demand.

This Government is determined to make the New South Wales public sector a leader in the world and the best in Australia. That is an aspiration we can achieve. From my experience in government, working with the public sector, such a goal is shared by the public sector. The sector simply needs a government with the commitment to implement a strong framework. That is what we are doing. At the centre of this framework is the establishment of a Public Service Commissioner. The commissioner will have responsibilities for the entire public service and will be given the overall task of improving service delivery to the public of New South Wales.

As taxpayers, citizens and customers the public is at the centre of government and should be the primary focus of the public service at all times. The commissioner will ensure that the public remains at the centre of government by ensuring that the public service delivers outcomes and its services provide value for money. The commissioner will promote the independence and integrity of the public sector. The commissioner will provide advice and make recommendations on how to implement contemporary practice in public administration. The commissioner will create a capacity for performance and targeted service delivery and define the public service as a career alternative that is valued and admired and, most of all, respected in our community.

It is unfortunate that so much public confidence in government institutions was lost during the 16 long years of the previous Labor Government. The Coalition Government was elected early this year with the commitment to rebuild confidence so that the people of New South Wales can re-establish their trust in public institutions, including the public sector. That is why we are committed to implementing a public sector ethics Act. The legislation will implement an ethical framework for the public service incorporating four core values of the Coalition Government: integrity, trust, service and accountability. The key requirements under each value are enshrined in the bill. For the first time all public servants will have an ethical framework in which to operate and to use their skills to the best of their ability.

The bill enshrines the value of accountability by ensuring that public service recruitment and promotion of staff is on merit, which is important, and that public service employees take responsibility for their decisions and actions. The bill will provide transparency and public scrutiny, which the Coalition Government wants to 6032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

ensure in the public sector. The bill will ensure that government departments observe standards for the safety of the services they provide. It will ensure that government departments are fiscally responsible and focus on an efficient, effective and prudent use of resources, which did not occur over the 16 years of Labor government. The legislation treats each of the core values in the bill as having equal importance and gives the Public Service Commissioner the task of promoting and maintaining the requirements attached to each value. To assist the commissioner in exercising his or her tasks under the bill the Government has pledged to establish the Public Service Commission Advisory Board, which this legislation also gives effect to. The commissioner will chair the advisory board and membership also will comprise the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and four external members appointed by the Premier.

The Premier has announced that Professor Peter Shergold, AC, has been appointed as the incoming chairman of the advisory board of the Public Service Commission. Professor Shergold has been charged with articulating a vision for the commission and a public sector that encompasses the values that are stipulated in the legislation. The board and the entire public sector will be asked to implement, maintain and be accountable to high ethical standards. The Government is laying down clear expectations that all public employees will be required to meet. As the Premier has outlined, the Government has great confidence, as do I, that the New South Wales public sector can meet these challenges, and it is looking forward to the rare opportunity to do so. The public will benefit from a more transparent, accountable and responsive public service and public sector employees will benefit from a more professional and engaging work environment.

Through this legislation we are implementing a framework and system that will give New South Wales the best public service in the nation and one that becomes a leader in the world. The bill also allows for the temporary assignment of public sector employees into the private sector. I welcome this initiative, which is long overdue. Other modern western democracies allow their public servants to obtain experience outside the public sector in order to bring new views and experiences back into their roles as public servants. The public sector will benefit from that broader experience, which will be made available through the temporary assignments. The public will be placed at the centre of service delivery at all times, whilst public employees will be placed in a more stimulating and professional environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Dr Andrew McDonald and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

ELECTION FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 12 September 2011.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [10.13 a.m.]: The Opposition opposes the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 because it seeks to silence debate, to silence dissent and to silence those most vulnerable in our community. Most members of the House would know that I started as an apprentice who went on to become an electrician and then became a delegate and organiser for the Electrical Trades Union. I later worked at Unions NSW, the peak body for unions in this State. Unions NSW led the Your Rights at Work campaign in this State to defeat the Howard Government's WorkChoices laws. The union movement, together with working people, achieved something incredible through that campaign for all Australians.

John Howard's WorkChoices would have seen our generation become the first generation in Australian history to hand down a worse set of working conditions to our children than those that we inherited. Those laws were wrong and unfair and they hurt families across this State and nation. I would like to share with the House a story from my time travelling around New South Wales as part of the Your Rights at Work campaign. In 2006 in Coffs Harbour I met a single mother with three children. She worked four days a week in a shop just to make ends meet. She believed in hard work and wanted to teach her children that the best way to get ahead was to put in the effort. She worked Thursday and Friday and both weekend days because the penalty rates on Saturday and Sunday meant that she could afford her rent and pay the bills.

After the introduction of WorkChoices her employer presented her with an Australian workplace agreement [AWA]. That individual contract ripped away her penalty rates on weekends and pushed this mother to the brink of poverty. This single mother could never have donated to a campaign that would stand up for her rights. This single mother did not have $2,000 kicking around to make an individual donation to protect her 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6033

rights. But through the Your Rights at Work campaign she was given a voice, as were so many people who participated in that campaign. This bill is an attempt to silence her voice and the voices of those most vulnerable in New South Wales.

I believe that the Premier hopes that I will be ashamed of my roots in the union movement and will shy away from speaking out against these laws which seek to prevent workers such as those represented by the union movement and those who participated in the Your Rights at Work campaign from protesting against Government policy. I have news for the Premier: I will always support working people and their right to speak out against any government of the day. The worst part of these vindictive and destructive laws is that they will hurt not only unions and their members; they will stop community groups, industry advocates and not-for-profit and other third party organisations from running campaigns for or against any government. The Premier likes to talk about this bill as simply banning corporate donations. That is a fallacy: nothing could be further from the truth. This bill has hidden provisions that stop third parties from running campaigns against the Government.

It has hidden provisions that stop not-for-profit organisations, member-based organisations and sporting groups from participating in the political process. This bill's hidden provisions will stop organisations such as Unions NSW, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Australian Industry Group or Clubs NSW from collecting funds from their members to run coordinated campaigns on issues that matter to them and to their members. It is these hidden provisions that are an attack on the basic right of all Australians to freedom of speech, and that is why the Opposition is fundamentally opposed to this bill. I am not surprised that these laws are designed to hurt the Labor Party, but I am genuinely disturbed that the Premier has so aggressively moved to unilaterally silence debate in this State.

This legislation will silence any voice of dissent. If it is passed no community group will be allowed to stand up for its members. Disability support groups will be restricted from defending the most needy in our community. Unions will be restricted from standing up for their members. Animal welfare groups, environmental groups and even business chambers will all be restricted from speaking out on behalf of their members. This bill will make the Your Rights at Work campaign illegal. It will also make illegal the anti-carbon pricing advertisements that are now being run. Even the coal seam gas advertisements—regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with them—will also be illegal. This bill will make the poker machine campaign illegal in New South Wales.

How can we truly live in a democracy if we do not allow people's opinions to be heard? Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, we should all have the right to free speech. As many free speech advocates have said throughout the ages, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apparently not in Barry O'Farrell's New South Wales. This legislation attacks freedom of speech so severely that many experts believe it is unconstitutional. In fact, on similar political donations laws banning unions and other community organisations from engaging in election funding, Bruce McClintock, SC, stated:

I have no doubt that one thing would be invalid, that is, a ban by the State Parliament on trade unions engaging in election funding would unquestionably be void under the Constitution.

It was only a month ago that more than 40,000 union members stood up to this Government, rallying in The Domain to tell it that they would not let it take away their pay and conditions without a fight. What did the Premier do a week later? He introduced a bill that attempts to silence their voices. He wants to silence the police officers, the nurses, the firefighters, the teachers, the child protection workers and anyone else who wants to stand up to his Government. By stopping collective organisation this bill stacks the deck in favour of the most affluent in our society. People working in the retail sector, in warehouses and in the hospitality industry cannot afford to donate to a political party on their own.

The reality is that most families are struggling to pay their bills every week let alone to donate spare money for a political party. How can they ensure that their voice is heard or that their issues and beliefs are being represented? They organise themselves collectively and speak through advocacy groups and community organisations that represent their views and campaign on their behalf. These hardworking families cannot afford to make the same donations as an investment banker, a lawyer or a lobbyist. To stop collective action in the political process is to stop those hardworking families in New South Wales from having a voice. This bill ensures that the most affluent will always have more of a voice than the most vulnerable in our community.

There is no doubt that this bill is designed to fundamentally undermine the Labor Party's structures, decision-making processes and day-to-day operations. It seeks to insert provisions in the electoral funding laws which will not impact on the Liberal Party, The Nationals or even The Greens but which will affect the Labor 6034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Party. This bill seeks to stop the union movement from affiliating with the Labor Party—the very union movement that banded together to form the Labor Party 120 years ago. This is a childish, vindictive and immature bill, but it is what we have come to expect from this Premier in just seven months. Even with 68 members on the Treasury benches and only 20 on the Opposition benches the Premier still feels the need to cut the Opposition off at the knees. He can cut my office budget, he can pass laws that attempt to defund the Labor Party and he can try to legislate to silence those who disagree with him, but I can assure him that we will continue to fight him. We will fight him when he cuts jobs and causes community suffering and we will ensure that everyone knows about it. When he axes services we will shout it from the rooftops. When he drives up the cost of living, which has already happened, we will work with the mums and dads of this State to stop him. That is how the political process is meant to operate.

In our Australian democracy every side is allowed to have its say. The reality is that this bill is not about cleaning up politics; it is about ensuring that Barry O'Farrell can cling to power for as long as possible. This bill does nothing other than silence the voice of dissent and ensure that mums and dads who struggle to make ends meet and who do not have money to donate to anyone of any persuasion will not have their voice heard. At the same time, the well-off and those who have $2,000 sloshing around in a bank account will be able to donate that money. Members opposite do not care about the most vulnerable in our community. If they did they would not stop their voices being heard by introducing a bill such as this. I urge all members to stand up for the most vulnerable, who want a voice in our community and say that this bill is one step too far and oppose it.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [10.28 a.m.]: I support the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 as introduced by the Premier. This bill has the effect of banning corporate donations and linking certain expenditure of parties and their affiliates. It constitutes crucial political party donation reform that will help to restore trust and integrity to government in New South Wales. For too long reforming this area has been seen as too hard and it has been prevented by those with a vested interest in a decisions-for-donations culture.

This bill will provide that electoral communication expenditure incurred by a party for a State election campaign is to be treated as expenditure that exceeds the applicable cap if that expenditure and any other electoral expenditure incurred by an affiliated organisation exceeds the applicable cap for the party. It will also prohibit political donations from corporations or other entities. On 27 June 2007 the Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding was instructed to inquire into and report on the funding of and disclosure of donations to political parties and party candidates in State and local government elections. The final report, tabled in June 2008, provides some useful insights regarding political donations. The Liberal Party's submission to the committee states:

There is a strong philosophical argument that in a democracy, only those who have the right to participate as voting citizens should be able to influence elections with their political donations. Non-citizen residents, organisations, trade unions and corporations do not have votes, so they should not be able to influence the democratic process through donations.

Doing away with non-citizen donations would also provide greater simplicity and essentially obviate the need to separately preclude donations from industries that might be considered to have a negative impact on public health and welfare: for example, the tobacco, liquor and gaming and racing industries. However, I note that this legislation does not remove previously imposed bans on donations from such entities and their close associates. One category of donee that was left very much intact by earlier political donations reform was the union movement. The omission meant that 22 unions affiliated with the Australian Labor Party were treated like non-affiliated organisations and 22 unions were able to spend up to $1.05 million each to support the Australian Labor Party—a total of some $23 million.

This legislation will restrict political donees to individuals on the electoral roll and will make payment of affiliation or membership fees from unions or businesses illegal. Meanwhile, so-called third party groups without a direct political affiliation, such as Unions NSW and business groups, will still be permitted to spend up to $1.05 million during a State election campaign. However, electoral advertising by party-affiliated organisations, including Labor-affiliated unions, will count towards a party's total electoral spending caps of $50,000 per electorate plus $100,000 by each candidate. I note that an affiliated organisation of a party is defined as a body or other organisation, whether incorporated or unincorporated, that is authorised under the rules of that party to appoint delegates to the governing body of that party or to participate in preselection of candidates for that party, or both.

In relation to the union movement, it was interesting to read in the Daily Telegraph on 16 May 2011 that taxpayers have forked out $20 million to the union movement since Federal Labor came to power, which, 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6035

coincidentally, equalled the same figure of $20 million that unions have donated to the Labor Party since 2007 to help bankroll election campaigns. I note that in the United Kingdom trade unions must ballot their members every 10 years for approval to make political donations and that individual members can still opt out of contributing to the union's political donations fund. Why have New South Wales unions never provided members with such an opt-out option?

The view that donations should be banned from all except individuals received support from The Greens, the Democratic Audit of Australia, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Action on Smoking and Health Australia. New South Wales Labor and Urban Taskforce Australia submitted to the inquiry that all private political donations should be banned. However, there are good reasons to allow small donations by individuals. The report I referred to earlier identified two main reasons. First, small donations allow individuals to participate in the political process; secondly, donations are needed to support the emergence of new parties and independent candidates. Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, stated that individual donations are "consistent with the desire amongst some in the community to lend practical support to political parties which articulate a case for the kind of good life that they believe ought to be provided in politics". Recommendation 7 of the report stated:

[The Premier should] ban all but small political donations by individuals, to be capped at $1,000 per political party per year, and $1,000 per independent candidate per electoral cycle. Further, the Premier should investigate all relevant legal and constitutional issues arising from such a ban, and liaise with the Federal Government to ensure national consistency on electoral donation and disclosure laws.

This bill is consistent with that recommendation and has been welcomed by many organisations, including GetUp!, which has even congratulated the O'Farrell Government and said that Premier O'Farrell's reforms "will give New South Wales political parties the impetus to re-engage with their grassroots members, and that can only be a good thing." Pressure is now on the Gillard Labor Government to likewise reform political donations laws to catch up with the lead shown in New South Wales. Dr Anne Twomey provided advice to the Department of Premier and Cabinet regarding the constitutional considerations. Due to time limitations I will not detail some of the issues that were canvassed.

Suffice to say that the current Government's view is that the laws proposed are constitutionally valid. I also note the view expressed by The Greens member of the Legislative Council John Kaye is that the ban on donations, other than from individuals, does not place unreasonable restrictions on the implied freedom of political communication as mandated by the Commonwealth Constitution. In conclusion, I believe that the reforms in this bill are worthy of strong support. They will promote greater political accountability, integrity and honesty and they will help restore the community's confidence in government in New South Wales. While the union movement and the Leader of the Opposition will bluster away and undoubtedly continue to protest, I believe that working people will support this law, primarily because this law will work for the people of New South Wales.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [10.35 a.m.]: The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for those in the community who do not live in Vaucluse. It is a bad bill for those in the community who do not live on the northern beaches of Sydney. It is a bad bill for those in the community who do not have a spare $500, $1,000 or $2,000 sitting in their bank account ready to give to a political party. It is a bad bill because it strikes at the heart of what all of us are here to represent, which is freedom of speech. Something that all of us in this place should value more than anything is the ability for those in our community, those who do not always agree with us in our community, to have their say about issues important to them.

Yes, if you have plenty of resources in the bank and if you have the capacity and the time to involve yourself and donate to political parties, this legislation is fantastic. But those who live in suburbs like Bellambi, Woonona or Corrimal, where getting through the week and making ends meet is their priority, expect their representatives, their union to which they donate a small but important amount of money each week, to be there to represent them when issues of concern, when issues of significance that impact on their daily lives, are debated and pursued in places like this.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Kiama is heading for an early morning call, as is the member for Oatley.

Mr RYAN PARK: It is not right for a government, no matter what majority it has, to try to muzzle free speech. It is not right for a government, no matter what mandate or majority it has, to put a limit on people 6036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

who have no capacity, no understanding and no resources to donate significant amounts of money to political bodies. Unions were formed to fight for those who simply do not have a voice. When I was a kid I used to ask my dad—who was always a member of the union movement—why people join unions and what unions were all about. My dad always said to me, "I'm in the union because I know I will get my voice, albeit one voice, heard in places where alone it would not be heard. In fact it would be silenced."

You cannot tell me that this so-called reform to our electoral funding system is supportive of the thing that all of us in this place should value on top of everything else, and that is freedom of speech—the freedom of those in our community who disagree or dissent with us to have their say. During the last election there were plenty in the community who disagreed with us. As I have said before, 18 per cent in the electorate of Keira certainly disagreed with my side of politics. However, I continue to do my very best to represent every single one of them.

I would never dream of muzzling or silencing any person because of their limited resources or their inability to contribute to a political party. It goes to the core of our democratic way of life that resources should not govern freedom of speech. In fact, regardless of how much money a person has, regardless of their resources in the bank or where they live, they should be able to have their voices heard, their issues raised and their concerns debated. All of us in Australian society should value that on top of everything. These laws are wrong because they attack collective organisations. I know that the Government hates unions. I know that it despises collective organising. I know that those opposite cannot stand it when people gather as a group and think to oppose things that are important to them. I know that they cannot stand it because they are about the born-to-rule class.

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: As much as I hate to interrupt this glittering cavalcade of entertainment from my friend the member for Keira, he is casting reflections on members and is not addressing the bill. I ask you to bring him back to the leave of the bill. Some substance in this debate might be helpful.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member will return to the leave of the bill. The member for Kiama will remember his manners throughout this debate.

Mr RYAN PARK: This is at the core of the bill because this bill is about reducing the effort of those who cannot afford to contribute significant amounts of resources to political parties and silencing their voices in a way that is simply unconstitutional. The Leader of the Opposition has commented that the bill is viewed by many as unconstitutional. I cannot understand why, six months into its term of government, having the large majority that it does, the Government would want to silence those in our community—many of whom probably voted for it—who do not have the resources to contribute significantly to political parties. They cannot go to Millennium fundraisers, or whatever they might call them—$1,000 a head is something that they would not consider forking out.

They would and do contribute to their union movement because their union movement and other collective organisations are able to take up issues against a government of any persuasion, any colour at any time of any day, and that is something that all of us in this place should value. We should encourage it. Why? Because dissent and debate normally get good results. We see debate in this place at the moment about a very important resource called the fisheries centre. Under these laws, the member for Oatley would not be able to—

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: My point of order is relevance under Standing Order 129. The member for Keira is now talking about another debate. He has departed from the leave of the bill. He is flouting your previous ruling. I ask you to call him back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr RYAN PARK: I am simply saying that, under this provision, community organisations and those who are collectively organising funding or raising funds to fight issues of concern, like the fisheries research centre and what its closure will mean, will be severely impeded under this legislation—legislation that the member for Oatley and the member for Heathcote supposedly support while, at the same time, when they go out into their communities they make out that they are fighting for them. They are not fighters; they are simply cowards. This is a mean piece of legislation designed to go to the heart of working people. None of us in this place should sit by and allow freedom of speech to be silenced. It is valued more than anything in our 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6037

democratic system. It is more important than those who sit here and more important than this place itself. It is at the heart of everything we do. I urge every single one of the members opposite to go back to their communities and ask how many of their constituents can afford to donate $500 or $1,000 to a political party.

If they asked could they afford to make a small contribution to an organisation that is championing their issues, most people would be—and have been—happy to do so. This is something that is designed to silence working people. It is something designed to silence the minority and those people in the community who are doing it tough; those people in the community whose only contribution to the political process is by joining collective organisations and making a small donation every week or every month to fight for issues that are important to them. Every single one of us who represents constituents should be standing up for the ability to have free speech, regardless of whether it is for or against something that we are pursuing, because it is at the heart of the Australian democratic system. This legislation is nothing other than a mean-spirited, cruel, evil attack on working families and those who do not have a voice. It is an absolute disgrace by a disgraceful, mean, cold-hearted government.

Mr JOHN BARILARO (Monaro) [10.47 a.m.]: I support the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011, which limits political donations to those on the New South Wales electoral roll, effectively banning donations from corporations, trade unions and the like.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Members who wish to have private conversations should do so outside the Chamber. They are very distracting.

Mr JOHN BARILARO: This bill is not an attack on freedom of speech, it is not an attack on the democracy that we live in, it is not an attack on the transparent political process and it is not an attack on the many community and industry groups that will still have strong political voices. By limiting donations to individuals, families and individuals will have a stronger voice in the real political process. Party expenditure caps are not currently affected by the expenditure of organisations that are affiliated with a political party. This leads to organisations involved in the governance of a political party, sometimes even with office bearers in common, campaigning on behalf of a party with no corresponding offset to the party's own ability to spend. This was a deliberate loophole in the Keneally reforms which the bill will now address. The loophole effectively delivered a $23 million war chest to Labor via the 22 unions affiliated with the party in New South Wales. This bill will help restore the wider community's confidence in government in New South Wales.

To achieve this, the bill amends section 95G of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981. Therefore, if a trade union does not appoint delegates to the governing body of the Labor Party, the ban on advertising will not apply. The influence and affiliation of unions with the Labor Party has been a longstanding and controversial issue. Such criticisms were echoed by former leader Mark Latham in The Latham Diaries and again earlier this year. Labor members of Parliament Kevin Rudd and John Faulkner criticised the Labor Party's factional power-broking system, which finds some of its roots in union support. Like always, the union reliance in the Labor DNA has begun to come through in this debate.

Shadow Special Minister for State "Second Chance Steve" who now plays in the upper House hinted previously at Labor's objection by trying to spin the bill as an attack on the 35,000 union members who supposedly protested in the Domain the other day. Again this morning the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that by deliberately misleading the public that this was an attack on the voice of unions. It is not. As I have scrolled through the media over the past few weeks I have read union groups and the Opposition criticising the proposal to restrict spending by individual unions again by trying to sell it as an attack on the political voice of the working people. I can only respond with this: What a load of rubbish. What about the political and democratic voice of the majority in our community who want reform?

I keep talking about the wider community; not those that are registered union members. This debate will shine the light clearly on the union influence. This is really a question of how serious Labor has been in the past and is currently in regard to funding reform. When we look back at how genuine Labor was in its last attempt at funding reform it becomes clear they were never interested in real reform. Last year, a day after the Keneally Labor Government's election funding reform plans were passed by Cabinet, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Cabinet considered overturning the ban but decided not to do so.

The light also needs to be shone upon The Greens in relation to their dirty backroom deal with the Labor Party last year regarding the so-called election funding reforms under the Keneally Government. We have already heard The Greens member John Kaye say the party would move amendments in the upper House "to 6038 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

ensure that unions can continue to run legitimate third party issues-based campaigns without affecting the party's expenditure cap." These are worrying signs from The Greens member in the upper House, but I hold some hope because he also went on to say that this bill was "tough on Labor, but creates a level playing field." John Kaye described the changes as "a step forward for NSW." He also said, "It gets corporate money out of politics"—which is what this is about. It is coming through that there is wide support for these proposed changes. We have already heard about the responses from Urban Taskforce Australia and other community groups. And guess what? GetUp! has said it welcomes the New South Wales changes and calls on the Federal Government to make similar reforms.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Monaro will lower his voice. The member for Keira will come to order.

Mr JOHN BARILARO: How can I stay quiet if I am getting shouted down?

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: I seek to qualify your ruling. The member for Monaro was speaking to the motion and I do not think it is within the purview of the Chair to direct him in relation to that. The interjections should be silenced, not the member for Monaro.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I have asked the member for Monaro to speak in a voice that is more comfortable for us to listen to, and I think that is within my purview. A number of members have been yelling out this morning; it was not only the member for Monaro.

Ms Cherie Burton: To the point of order: My point of order is the fact that the Government are continually getting up and taking points of order that have no relevance. Points of order are on procedural matters—

Mr Gareth Ward: What's your point of order?

Ms Cherie Burton: You have only been here five minutes so—just so you know—points of order are taken on procedural matters. The member for Kiama said nothing about procedure. He is telling you how to chair and is flouting your ruling. It is an absolute disgrace.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I suggest that members on both sides of the House pause, take a deep breath and be sensible.

Mr JOHN BARILARO: I apologise if I became quite loud, but I am passionate about transparent reforms and bringing honesty and integrity back to government. I am passionate that we do not compromise democracy and freedom of speech in this State. In September 2007 the Independent Commission Against Corruption cited political donations as a corruption risk. By limiting donations we limit that risk. Let us be honest: Large donations from corporations or unions are a form of bribery. Corporate donations are a major threat to our political and democratic system—and the driver is a hunger for favour.

Premier Barry O'Farrell made a commitment in this House in 2010 that we will review the election funding laws. We have done that through this bill. The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 bans political donations from corporations, peak industry groups, community organisations, unions, industrial organisations and other groups by allowing donations only by individuals on the electoral roll, with all caps remaining. I am proud to be part of a Government that is leading the debate on important issues and is delivering honest and transparent government.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [10.55 a.m.]: I support the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. These amendments are long overdue. With a change of Government the time has come for things to return to a level playing field. Unlike the Labor Party, the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals gave a commitment that if the Coalition Government was elected in March 2011 only electors would be able to make donations. We are sticking to that election commitment by changing the way electoral communication expenditure and political donations are used.

This is an issue of transparency. Transparency will be restored with the passing of this bill. Unlike under the former Government, transparency is one of the pillars of this new Government. We have already given back planning controls to an independent panel to stop any potential to alter the outcomes of various planning proposals. We want to show the public exactly what is going on. We also want to engage the public more in our 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6039

decisions and give them a chance to have their say too. This is about restoring the faith of the people and voters of New South Wales. Many of the first bills of this new O'Farrell-Stoner Government have been aimed at bringing back faith and transparency.

I recently spoke in support of the Government Advertising Bill 2011, which also aimed to restore integrity and honesty back into an area that had slipped into murky waters. It argued that government advertising must be simply for public good; not to promote the achievements of a government or political party. In a day and age where we are saturated by advertising it is good to know that government-funded advertising can be held accountable. This bill will show the public that we are not abusing donation funds. It will stop public perception that donations could buy government influence. Buying government influence is completely unacceptable and is why things need to change. It is time to remove the existing loopholes.

We all agree that caps are necessary to limit how much can be spent in election campaigns and donations. Even the former Government made changes to the political donation legislation by capping donations to $5,000 for parties and $2,000 for candidates. But, unsurprisingly, it allowed individual unions to spend up to $1.05 million each. This clever loophole effectively allowed Labor to collect millions in affiliate group donations for the last election. This amendment bill will close the loophole that Labor created. Politically affiliated organisations and groups, such as unions, will now be included in that cap. This means donations from industrial organisations, peak industry groups, religious institutions, community organisations and corporations will be banned.

Mr Clayton Barr: What about Hillsong?

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS: Religious organisations were included in that list. This bill also makes it unlawful to channel corporate donations through individuals. Campaigns should be financially supported by individual electors who have the right to vote, not companies or unions who can pay to influence. These changes do not stop unions from pooling money for various causes; it just stops them from significantly funding political agendas for political parties. This bill will also make it illegal for unions or corporations to pay affiliations or membership fees to a political party. Current legislation allows third party organisations to significantly fund campaigns.

In fact, New South Wales Labor draws more than $1 million each year from affiliation fees. It is unsurprising that they are against these amendments. This is about restoring integrity to these campaigns. The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 limits donations to individuals on the electoral roll. Restricting it to those people means that only eligible voters are able to fund campaigns—not faceless entities. It means that those who get a say in our political system by using the vote they are entitled to can also financially support a candidate or party. However, those not on the electoral roll, or an organisation, will not be able to donate to a political party or candidate.

Our laws say they cannot vote, so why should they be able to donate to a political campaign or agenda? It is time to level the political playing field and restore the community's confidence in government in New South Wales. These amendments will apply to both State and local government elections. Let us hope that this bill will also serve as a good model for our Federal counterparts. It is a step in the right direction in New South Wales. It will give voters greater faith in the Government and those elected to represent them. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [11.00 a.m.]: The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 is yet another example of the O'Farrell-Stoner Government seeking to position itself in a powerful role and governing for the minority. The Coalition is seeking to diminish whatever influence it perceives to be available within the Australian Labor Party. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Opposition supports reform to stop corporate interference in the political system. In fact, it was the former Labor Government that introduced election finance laws. Those laws provided that political donations from individuals, registered political parties and other entities are to be capped at $5,000 to registered political parties or groups and $2,000 to candidates or elected members annually.

Those reforms were in response to recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is important for new Government members to understand that that meant it was a bipartisan approach. Those recommendations were taken on board to restrict and cap funds to political parties. But let us see how this group that has now formed government has changed its tune. Prior to the election those on the other side of the House were telling unions and their membership that they had nothing to fear if they formed government. You lot had no shame whatsoever. 6040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: I draw attention to the standing orders that require the member to direct her comments through the Chair and not across the table.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I uphold the point of order.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I will refer to "that lot" through the Chair, as opposed to "you lot" through those opposite. I found abhorrent the comments made earlier today by Government members. Those comments are abhorrent also to ordinary working families—those mums and dads who choose to be union members and for whom unions argue on their behalf. In the lead-up to the recent State election Coalition members were throwing around letters from unions congratulating them on this, that and the other. They could not wait to present themselves to the union movement as an alternative government and they told them that the rank and file members of their unions had nothing to fear. However, within six months of winning office Government members have attacked working class people in my area on every avenue available. The Government's mentality—which has not changed from the Dark Ages—is to govern for the rich at the expense of the poor. It is a Government of the few and its wealthy mates can donate under the guise of individual donations—

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: I remind the member for Wollongong that she must address the detail of the bill. The member for Wollongong is not addressing things like Joe Scimone, Kiril Jonovski, Zeki Esen or any of the people in Wollongong council who were sacked. We could talk about that.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I remind the member for Kiama that he should take points of order in a sensible way.

Ms Cherie Burton: To the point of order: Once again the member for Kiama attempted to tell the Acting-Speaker how to run this place. This is an in-principle debate; we are not yet dealing with the bill in detail. Those opposite should study—

Mr Chris Spence: What is the point of order?

Ms Cherie Burton: The member for The Entrance is not the Acting-Speaker. Who does he think he is? I am directing my comments through the Chair.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Ms Cherie Burton: My point of order is that those opposite keep moving frivolous points of order. The member for Wollongong has the right, in an in-principle debate, to be given a bit of leeway.

Ms NOREEN HAY: There is nothing unexpected in this debate from the member for Kiama. He is a prime example of someone who represents the minority at the expense of the majority, which has been demonstrated time and again. The rights of individuals to be represented by groups are being attacked. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this involves an attack on disability support groups. Groups will be restricted from defending those most in need. The Government thinks it is okay to restrict unions for standing up for their membership. The Government also seems to think it is okay to stop animal welfare groups from demonstrating.

What about the 40,000 people who recently demonstrated about the Government's swift attack on public servants? The Government is quickly showing that leopards do not change their spots. It is clearly showing that it is not interested in helping or supporting the masses. The Government wants to attack the relationship of the New South Wales Opposition with the trade union movement. I am very proud of our relationship with the trade union movement. Those working-class mums and dads rely on trade unions for support against their bosses—the mates of those opposite for whom they argue in this place—those not-for-profit organisations who undertake admirable campaigns on behalf of their memberships.

Within six months of winning office those opposite attacked public servants and removed the independent umpire. Those opposite hope to reduce the influence of the Australian Labor Party. What are they afraid of? Those opposite also support an attack on the majority of voters in New South Wales. The people of New South Wales have long memories and, deservedly so, they will ensure that a number of those opposite are oncers. Those opposite do not deserve to be in this place to look after their mates. They should not be supporting people such as former Liberal Premier Nick Greiner who is in charge of Infrastructure NSW. We all remember what he did to the infrastructure in my area. No-one trusts those opposite and the people of New South Wales will remember what they have done. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6041

The "Your Rights At Work" campaign saw workers from around Australia standing up to John Howard and saying, "No". As the Leader of the Opposition said, as a result of the actions that those opposite are supporting today, such a campaign will now be illegal. The majority of people are not fooled by this at all. As the member for Keira said, ordinary mums and dads cannot afford to make donations. I have never held a fundraiser where people could afford $1,000 per head but those opposite have. According to those opposite $1,000 buys no influence whatsoever if it is with them, but if it is a fundraiser without them then $200 per head buys influence. I give credit to former Premier Kristina Keneally—

Mr Chris Patterson: Which one?

Ms NOREEN HAY: The member would not know because he was not here. He has been a member for only five minutes.

Mr Chris Patterson: But I have read the papers.

Ms NOREEN HAY: He has read the newspapers. Sorry, I did not realise that he was so highly educated.

Mr John Barilaro: No, just the pictures. There were plenty of pictures from the Labor Party.

Ms NOREEN HAY: They looked at the pictures. I am not surprised by that comment either. In fact, I would be surprised if they knew what the pictures were saying. Having listened to those opposite I would be surprised if they understood what they read or saw in pictures in any newspaper.

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: Given the lecture we just got in relation to what we should or should not know in this place I ask the member for Wollongong to return to the leave of the bill.

Ms Cherie Burton: What is your point of order?

Mr Gareth Ward: My point of order relates to the leave of the bill. The member for Wollongong should not engage in derogatory comments about members of the Government.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I suggest that all members pause and take a deep breath. The member for Wollongong will return to the leave of the bill. Government members will cease interjecting.

Ms NOREEN HAY: It is no surprise to me that the member for Kiama wants to gag me in this debate. I was not aware that he had been elevated to Leader of Government Business in this House particularly given that he has been here only five minutes, as the member for Kogarah said so eloquently earlier. I will not be deterred or distracted by the attempts of the member for Kiama to cover up what is clearly an attack on working-class voters and the people of our electorates, particularly those in the Illawarra, who will recall all of this at the next election. I look forward to seeing how that plays out.

It is very important that we who are elected to represent those who do not agree with the views of the O'Farrell Coalition Government speak up for our electorates. The electorate of Wollongong has had a huge industrial base for many years, albeit it has diversified and we have had some tough times recently and have received no assistance from this Government. What has the Government done? It has attacked us and been totally negative. Now it tries to justify this legislation on the basis that it will stop donations from unions to the Labor Party yet the bill will enable its wealthy mates to donate to the Coalition parties on an individual basis. My electorate does not have many individuals who can afford to make huge donations.

The Government is trying to attack us and reduce the numbers, if it can, of the 20 representatives of the Australian Labor Party in this Chamber. Shame on it; shame on the way it misled the community of New South Wales prior to the election, and shame on it for the deceit, betrayal and dishonesty it has displayed to the people it asked to vote for it. I refer particularly to the member for Kiama who played to the people to win his seat and promised them they had nothing to fear. They have had everything to fear since this lot formed government after the March election.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Labor under Neville Wran introduced election funding legislation in the first place, not the parties of members opposite. They cannot take the high moral ground. I put on record that 6042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

the only real changes and reforms to electoral funding have always come from Labor. We introduced reforms to benefit everybody. We did not seek to attack individual wealthy donors to the Liberals. We put in place changes that were designed to be fair across the board and ensured there was some public funding for elections to diminish the influence of individuals and developers and the like. The bill before us today is a blatant attack on ordinary mums and dads in this State. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They come in here and argue in defence of the bill when many of them were elected by the very mums and dads they now seek to attack. It is an appalling episode in the history of New South Wales. This Government's fate will be no different to that of Nick Greiner's Government. They will live to wear the reputation of their actions.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [11.14 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will certainly arouse conversation and debate. Funding and donations to political parties have always been perceived to be a grey area and I do not believe the regulations have been in line with community expectations. In the past we had a system that was seen to operate on the basis that if one made a donation it gave one access to a Minister or some favourable deal that made it possible to gain an advantage, particularly when it involved planning. Under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act decisions were taken away from communities and councils.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: Communities and councils were best placed to make decisions on sound local knowledge. That local knowledge was ignored and the decisions were made by a Minister. Enormous power was placed in the hands of one individual and when a fundraising event for a particular member took place— you guessed it—one had to be present. This was the planning system that was resorted to in New South Wales. We heard a lot of talk of politics from those on the other side but, as I learned very quickly in this place, they are extremely good on talk but helium light on facts. Even when token inroads into the problem were made by the then Labor Government they left open the opportunities for the trade unions and affiliate mates to fill the Labor coffers. When I was growing up the unions represented 50 per cent of the workers. This was reflected in their membership numbers.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Opposition members will come to order. Government members will lower the volume of their conversations. Members should pause and think about their behaviour in the House.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: As I was saying until I was rudely interrupted, when I was growing up the unions represented 50 per cent of workers. This was reflected in their membership numbers. These days about 18 per cent of workers belong to unions and even less in some fields. Unions no longer represent a cross-section of workers. Unions today represent fewer workers. Members opposite need not take my word for it; I am reading out someone else's comments. He says they are not as well grounded and the Australian Labor Party is promoting more and more union-dominated members to Parliament from an ever-shrinking union base not representing the views of the majority of workers in this State. Does that sound familiar?

Many will argue I am just union bashing. That is simply not the case. Please do not take my word for it. The view I have just expressed was not my view; it was expressed in a book I read on the weekend titled The Fog on the Hill. Those were Frank Sartor's words. It was chapter 15 that won me. I was engrossed in the book. Mr Sartor gave his views on why the Labor Party lost so badly. He believed they had no authenticity and they had lost the trust of the people. He said they lost because of their loss of integrity and the misdemeanours that gave the impression of an indulgent government. Does that sound familiar?

Ms Cherie Burton: We have been hearing it for the past six months.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: The member for Kogarah should not talk about ethics. It was Mr Sartor who said the unions wanted their share of the cake. He also said that one must govern for 100 per cent of the people and not just the 30 per cent that voted for one. He also attributed the Labor Party's catastrophic loss to the many changes of leader and Ministers and the then Government's addiction to media politics.

Mr Guy Zangari: Point of order: I refer to standing order 129 and relevance. The leaders of the former Government have nothing to do with this bill. I ask you to direct the member to come back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Drummoyne will return to the leave of the bill. Members will calm down. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6043

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: I thought election funding had everything to do with the bill. The Fog on the Hill is a great read. I highly recommend it; it is available in stores now. The proposed amendments in the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 will restore credibility to the system. It will restore accountability and insist on having standards—something that members opposite know nothing about. The system will be underpinned by integrity and honesty—something that Mr Sartor said was seen as being lost by the then Government. It is simple: If people are not on the roll, whether it be Commonwealth, State or local government, it will be unlawful for a political donation to be received from them. This was proposed prior to the election but was voted down.

The then Leader of the Opposition gave the commitment in this House in 2010 that if elected a New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government would introduce legislation to restrict political donations to individuals, citizens on the electoral roll, the people who decide elections. Look at what they do and not at what they say; action speaks louder than words. We are living up to our pre-election commitments, unlike the Federal Labor Government. Federal Labor, in opposition, said there would be no carbon tax under a Federal Labor Government, but when elected it suffered a case of amnesia. Wherever one looks in my electorate one can see the road of broken promises. These changes will restore confidence to our electoral system. It will restore a public perception that donations cannot buy government influence. The measures in this bill are designed to rid this State of the risk of the reality and perception of corruption and undue influence. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [11.21 a.m.]: I oppose the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. I feel sorry for the poor constituents of Drummoyne. On the weekend while most members were attending functions and looking after their electorates, where was the member for Drummoyne? He was holed up reading The Fog on the Hill by that Labor stalwart Frank Sartor. The constituents of Drummoyne are no better off as result of the activities of their local member on the weekend.

Mr Richard Amery: You can't expect him to quote a political book.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: Not many of those have been written. We have already discussed what this legislation will do, which is to seek to silence any third party that criticises government policy. If this legislation is passed community groups will not be allowed to stand up for their members; disability support groups will be restricted in defending the most needy; the unions will be restricted in standing up for their members; and animal welfare groups, environmental groups and even business chambers will be restricted in speaking out on behalf of their members. For the past six months all we have seen from the Government is jobs for the boys, setting up reviews and committees, and putting mates on the payroll. Not only that, members opposite have had their snouts in the trough ever since they got on the government benches.

The number of parliamentary secretaries has increased to about 23. It is absolutely ridiculous. For Government members to say that they want to reform political donations for good reasons is an absolute joke. I highly doubt whether they have read the bill because, after listening to their contributions, it seems as though the Government is not content simply to stop the vulnerable from having a voice. This bill attacks the structure of the Labor Party. It seeks to insert provisions in election funding laws that affect not the Liberal Party, The Nationals or The Greens but only Labor. It seeks to stop the union movement from affiliating with the Labor Party, the very union movement that banded together to form the Labor Party.

The Labor Party started more than 120 years ago when a collection of workers banded together to fight their employers. From the day the party was founded the unions have been disliked by conservative politicians, and they are still disliked today. Howard pretended to help the battlers but at the first chance he got he introduced WorkChoices, which pierced the heart of every working-class person in Australia. However, they showed him that WorkChoices would not be the reality for them. The Government is afraid of the same thing happening here. The Government said that unions are irrelevant. However, it must be afraid of the unions if it introduces legislation that is a direct attack on the trade union movement.

Mr Nick Lalich: Where's Howard now?

Ms CHERIE BURTON: He is eating chocolate cake. The bill is about the party that represents the interests of the well-off in the community trying to shut down the voices of the worst-off in the community. We have watched the conservative campaigns; all the media is conservative. The only voices and opinions that get out there are conservative. Anyone who expresses dissent is quickly crushed. This is another step in that direction under the guise of electoral reform. As I said, the Premier is trying to reform the political system. 6044 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

However, this bill simply states, "If you can afford to donate big money, big dollars to a political party, then you're the only one who the door is open for." Hardworking families that are struggling to make ends meet need a voice too.

These are not the actions of someone who wants to clean up politics; they are the actions of someone who is doing everything possible—and has done so for the past six months—to ensure that he can cling to power for as long as possible. I urge all members to stand up to the Premier and to say, "This is one step too far." Government members have criticised the Labor Party. Members should also be aware that Labor governments have always taken the lead on election finance reform. In 1981 Neville Wran introduced the Election Funding Act, which was the first piece of legislation to regulate election finance and provided for disclosure of campaign donations and expenditure. In 2008 the Labor Government made further reforms to the legislation to strengthen the disclosure provisions and change the way donations are handled.

Meanwhile, in 2006 the Howard Government raised the threshold for disclosure of donations from $1,500 to $10,000, which was a massive step backwards in relation to transparency and public faith in the electoral system. So for all its talk about promising to reform campaign, finance and disclosure laws, the Coalition has a shocking track record on this issue, and it still does today. Only Labor governments have a history of improving transparency and accountability in our electoral system, and we will again lead the way on these reforms. My involvement in the party began with the trade union movement when I was a shop floor delegate. I have listened to Government members vilify unions. During my time as a delegate and a union organiser I organised and secured pay increases and improvements in working conditions for people. How many members opposite can say that? Not one of them.

All this Government is doing is trying to destroy a system that protects workers, who want to ensure they get a decent wage and they are protected at work. That is all they have asked for. The Government has done nothing but destroy that; it has nothing on which to hang its hat. Government members come in here and rave all the time but their output is zero. On the weekend the member for Drummoyne sat at home reading a book—that is an absolute disgrace—but he corrected how members speak. What an absolute joke. He has done nothing. He is still reading the book. He is not working for his constituents; he is simply reading a book. I do not have time to read books. The constituents of Kogarah need my support and help because of this Coalition Government.

Mr Brad Hazzard: She'll run out of steam soon.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: The patronising, sexist Minister for Planning and Infrastructure said that I will run out of steam.

Mr Gareth Ward: Point of order: That comment was entirely unacceptable. It was a derogatory reflection against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The member for Kogarah should be asked to withdraw that comment.

Mr Richard Amery: To the point of order: If the member named was offended by the comment he would have taken a point of order. It is not for the member for Kiama to express concern about what was said about another member, who is sitting in the Chamber and who seems unphased by it all.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I uphold the point of order. Members will confine their comments to good manners.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: Members on the Government side have achieved nothing since they came to office. All they have done is put things off to reviews, taken away workers' rights. They are now trying to destroy the trade union movement. All they have done is wreck and pillage since they have been in government. They sit around congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back. There is an old saying in this place that you are not really an MP until you are elected a second time. While Government members sit there smugly thinking they are great, patting themselves on the back and giving themselves an Anthony Robbins hug, their electorates do not agree with them. If they keep going down the same path as they are following now we will see at the 2015 election how many of them will be returned. I guarantee it will be very few.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Before I acknowledge the Deputy Premier, I want to make a special announcement. Today is the member for Heathcote's fiftieth birthday. Let us all wish him a very happy fiftieth birthday. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6045

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Deputy Premier, Minister for Trade and Investment, and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services) [11.30 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011—a bill that enhances democracy in the State of New South Wales.

Ms Linda Burney: You know that's not true. How can you stand there and say that?

Mr ANDREW STONER: In an oft-quoted remark, Winston Churchill, a great statesman—although the member for Canterbury is probably not aware of him—told the House of Commons in 1947:

… many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time …

As I said, this bill will make democracy, the best form of government, even better, stronger and more transparent in New South Wales. This is a bill that will restore honesty and integrity to government and politics in this State, after 16 long years of blurring the line between fundraising and policymaking. A March 2010 report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters offered a real chance for reform. However, the former New South Wales Labor Government's last-minute campaign finance reform bill, with the support of The Greens, saw them favour their own political interests over the interests of the people of New South Wales. Under the previous Government's much-heralded, but badly flawed, legislation trade unions could exercise disproportionate influence over electoral outcomes by spending up to $23 million in support of the Australian Labor Party through proxy campaigns.

Mr Nathan Rees: What about the Farmers Federation funding your side?

Mr ANDREW STONER: Under Labor's legislation the Farmers Federation could not stump up $23 million, and the member knows that. So what he said is a furphy. Unions, third-party interest groups, corporations and non-residents are not entitled to vote and they should not be able to donate. In response to these Labor-Greens rorts, the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals made our position very clear before the 2011 election, saying:

… The community has a right to expect decisions to be made on the basis of merit and public interest and for those decisions not to be swayed by special access or political donations. The NSW Liberals and Nationals argued for the need for campaign finance reform for over three years to end the former NSW Labor Government's decisions for donations culture. Genuine reform of NSW donations and campaign spending laws is essential to try and restore community confidence in government and public administration …

Mr Nathan Rees: "Come to Canberra."

Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Toongabbie would probably like to see me go. He would like to see the back of me. Unlike those opposite who, when given the chance, put cheap party politics ahead of true and transparent reform, the bill being debated today is blind to the colour of political parties and it should have the support of both sides of politics. This bill will ban donations from any entity other than individuals. So if you are a corporation, an industrial organisation, an industry group, religious institution or community organisation you are ineligible to donate to political parties. That is contrary to what was said in the bizarre contribution of the member for Kogarah, who since losing her office as a member of the former Government seemingly has become quite bitter and angry. It was an angry contribution. Contrary to what that member said, those groups still have a right to be heard by the Government. Indeed, this Government provides the opportunity for those groups to be heard. This bill comes into effect when it comes to the influence of the dollar.

Only an individual who is on an electoral roll for Commonwealth, State or local government elections may donate. This is a significant reform that puts the voting public back at the heart of political campaigns, making sure that all parties and individuals seeking representative office have the interests of the community at the core of their platform. The bill will also link the electoral communication expenditure of political parties with that of their affiliates, to ensure that the effectiveness and fairness of campaign finance rules are not undermined. The reforms initiated by the Premier are reasonable, measured and increase the transparency of the State's political processes. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government is steadfastly committed to increasing accountability and transparency of government in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [11.35 a.m.]: When our Premier tabled the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 he was not only fulfilling an election promise but 6046 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

continuing to make sure that the people of New South Wales can rest assured they have a government that is committed to ensuring all political parties in New South Wales receive donations only from the people that they represent—the individuals. Every citizen of New South Wales needs to be sure that those in any political party are acting with integrity and honesty. Only individuals on the electoral roll will be able to give a capped donation. Campaign spending by politically affiliated organisations, such as unions, will now be included in the parties expenditure cap. This is the loophole that the former corrupt Labor Government used to ensure that the feathering of its own nest continued for 16 years.

Mr Nathan Rees: Point of order: The member knows that that sort of language is over the top, and I ask you to direct him to withdraw it.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! As I cannot direct the member in relation to his language, I do not know the point of order that the member for Toongabbie raises.

Mr Nathan Rees: To elucidate, the member called the former Government "corrupt". That is unparliamentary.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! It is up to the member as to whether he wishes to withdraw his comments. I cannot direct him to withdraw the comment.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I am happy to say that the former Labor Government used the loophole to ensure the feathering of its own nest, and that that continued for the past 16 years.

Mr Nathan Rees: That's far better!

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Toongabbie will resume his seat.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: As we have seen, those on the other side will vehemently oppose this bill because it attacks the very heart of the Labor Party: being in bed with the union movement for its own self-interest, and not in the interests of the people of New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition, a former union leader, is in the habit of prioritising his mates over New South Wales. The ranting and rhetoric of the member for Keira shows that the Government has hit a nerve. His contribution was a desperate attempt by a member who feels that his power base is slipping away. Previously, through manipulating this loophole, 22 affiliated unions were able to be treated as non-affiliated unions and spend a total of $23 million between them to support the Australian Labor Party.

For far too long Labor members were able to abuse their power. They were able to show New South Wales how little they cared for their constituents. They were able to show how they could take millions of dollars of union members' money and spend it on electoral communications expenditure. Those on the other side should be ashamed that hardworking mums and dads, police, nurses and teachers who diligently pay their union fees on a weekly basis saw that money used for the self-interest of those in the Labor Party. The Labor Party has tarnished the confidence and trust that the people of New South Wales had in political parties and government through its insatiable greed for power and feather nesting.

Those on the other side defied the Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the teachers strike only a few weeks ago. It was a day of chaos that impacted thousands of mums and dads across this State. Those opposite, led by the fearless Leader of the Opposition, were on the balcony, fists in the air, chanting and raving in defiance of the Industrial Relations Commission. I call on those on the other side to denounce this action for the good of the people of New South Wales—but, no, that would be too much to ask because those on the other side not only laid down with these people—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Fairfield will come to order.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: —but they encouraged this action because they have been bought with the combined $23 million spent during the last election alone. Shame! Labor supports unions because unions support them. They are intrinsically involved with each other. Together, they show no regard for the people they claim to represent and the people in general.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The level of audible conversation in the Chamber is too high. The member will be heard in silence. People who wish to have private conversations should do so outside the Chamber. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6047

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I will take that as the one-minute wind-up. Come election time, you can bet your bottom dollar that Labor would not have the self-control—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Oatley to order.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: —and members would fall over themselves to take the union money and have the unions campaign for them, but at what cost to the betterment of the public? The previous Government alienated itself from the citizens of New South Wales. As we know, it was living in la la land, where Labor members did what was best for them and used every possible means and influence to achieve that goal. The former Government did not do what was best for the people of this State—the people of New South Wales who have the power to vote, the people of this State whom the former Government took for granted, the people of this State for whom the former Government had no regard. This bill gives only those with the power to vote the power to donate to political parties. This bill will allow for greater transparency and accountability of political parties that receive donations. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [11.41 a.m.]: Together with my Labor colleagues, I oppose the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. I am not going to speak about unions or other issues that have been canvassed in this debate. I will speak about what this bill means for debate and democracy in this State. The bill is an attack on the Labor Party, but more significantly it is an attack on the way in which Parliament operates. It is an attack on leadership and the way in which political decisions are made in New South Wales. It seems to me that if this document were about the sorts of things that some members have mentioned—accountability, transparency and so forth—it would be fine; I would have no problem with it. But this legislation is not about that, and those opposite know it. As others have said, this legislation is an attack on free speech and on the very way in which this Parliament operates.

It is fine to have the sort of sport we have witnessed today in the Chamber on this issue, but at the end of the day we must ask the fundamental question: What is most healthy for decision-making and for the people of New South Wales? It is in fact a vibrant democracy. What is most healthy for good decision-making, good policy and good legislation is robust debate and an effective political process in New South Wales and in this country. This legislation is an attack on that. It is an attack on the way in which political decisions are made, it is an attack on the way in which political debate is led, and it is an attack on the way in which our parliamentary system has operated for many years in New South Wales—in fact, more than 100 years. It is an attack on Australia's democratic system. It is an attack on freedom of speech. That is what we are talking about in this debate.

We can discuss all the other things that members have been toing and froing about. But do we really want a State where there is no robust debate, where there is no healthy democracy in this Chamber and this Parliament? That is what this legislation has the potential to deliver. I think all members agree—I assume they do so from their silence—that that will be the effect of this legislation. That is what will happen if this bill is passed. Of course, there are big questions—and this goes to the seriousness of the points I am making—about the constitutionality of the legislation and that will be tested in due course. I do not pretend to know in detail, from a legal perspective, what those issues are. However, I know that not just unions and Labor Party members but people within the judiciary have expressed concern that the legislation could well be unconstitutional. So I say to all members in this Chamber, particularly those opposite, that this debate has a long way to run before we reach an outcome.

Do we really want to be a single-party State? Of course we do not. No-one in this place from either side of politics wants that. What we want—and what I am not seeing in this debate—is independent thinkers on the other side. Think beyond the brash political arguments and about what the bill attacks fundamentally: the way in which Parliament operates and our system of democracy in Australia. It seems to me that an attack on that system is an attack on society. It is an attack on the sorts of groups that Labor members have identified: young people, people with a disability, Aboriginal groups, and environmental groups. Members on both sides of politics want those issues to be raised and debated in a healthy way. That is what leads to better decisions and good policy. That is what leads to respect for this place.

I will make two or three more points. There is a story emerging here. I hesitate to say it, but it is a story of very little legislation being introduced in this House. I am in my tenth year in this place and I find the current legislative program astounding. I urge those who are new to this Chamber to look back over the sorts of legislative workloads that Parliaments have carried in the past. I said at the beginning of the O'Farrell Government's term that there would be a period of settling in during which those opposite would be finding their feet, but six or seven months down the track I see no evidence that that is occurring. That concerns me. 6048 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

I know it must be great fun to have so many Coalition members in the Chamber, but I remind those opposite that politics is cyclical. Governments must make policies and introduce legislation that benefits everyone in the long term, and this legislation is not for the long term. It will do nothing to protect the health of debate and democracy in New South Wales. I make those comments very seriously. At the end of the day, the bill could have adverse effects that, although they might seem fun and attractive to those opposite in the short term, in the long term will amount to an attack on the way in which democracy operates in New South Wales.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [11.48 a.m.]: I too support the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. The reforms arise from undertakings given to the Parliament and the people of New South Wales by the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, regarding election funding reform. The Premier gave these undertakings in 2010 during the debate on the Election Funding and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2010. During that debate the New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals proposed amendments to introduce a ban on corporate donations as well as to aggregate the expenditure of parties with that of their affiliated organisations. In a very clever piece of legislative drafting, specific provisions existed that linked the Liberal Party and The Nationals but exempted the 22 Labor Party affiliated unions.

The amendments of the Liberals and The Nationals in 2010 were not supported by the then Keneally Labor Government. But finally we have returned the power in our political system to those with the greatest interest, the greatest equity and the greatest stake in our system: individual electors. It is in their capacity as individuals that they are entitled to vote in our democratic system, not in their capacity as members of a group. It is in one's capacity as an individual that one can choose which political party or candidate to vote for, and it is in the same capacity that one chooses who to donate to—if at all.

This reform is necessary because, for all their talk about electoral finance reform, consecutive former Labor Premiers simply had to yield to their union masters. That is the definition of undue influence. The undue influence of the union movement on the New South Wales Labor Party is widely recognised. Former Premier Morris Iemma was aware of it. Iemma committed to the people of New South Wales that his election funding reform would include trade unions. However, his reform was a toothless tiger when introduced because it omitted the unions. However, just like the adage "an elephant never forgets", the unions never forgot that slight against them. Alex Mitchell published:

When Iemma challenged the machine ... he was promptly boned.

Even Bruce Hawker wrote in the Australian on 22 August:

... the way union representation is now exercised within the ALP means that huge power is vested in a small number of union officials ...

Bruce Hawker, the great tea leaf reader of the Labor Party, continued:

... the influence of organised and disciplined union leaders rises, making party officials more dependent on and beholden to the unions and their affiliation fees.

If any further proof of undue influence by the union movement on New South Wales Labor was required, Bruce Hawker said:

Their influence in the choice of candidates and policies must be reduced.

There can be absolutely no doubt that unions hold and exert undue influence throughout the Labor Party. The simplest way to illustrate this point is to reveal how many times unions have run election campaigns against State or Federal Labor governments—absolutely zero.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Toongabbie will come to order.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE: On the one rare and recent occasion when a union through its official advocated free choice and a vote in support of the best interests of the worker, the wrath of a Premier scorned was felt all too quickly by that union leader. Not only was this leader a union official; he was also the President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Oatley will come to order.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE: The spring 2010 edition of Livewire, the quarterly magazine of the Electrical Trades Union, contained an innocuous little paragraph on page 20 that ended the political career of Bernie Riordan. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6049

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Toongabbie to order.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE: Simply for the threat of withholding support, Bernie Riordan was forced to announce that he had quit as State Labor Party President two days after being asked to resign by then Premier Keneally.

Mr Nathan Rees: Point of order: Bernie Riordan did not refuse to support just the Keneally Government at the election; he did not back the previous three Labor Premiers either.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! As relevant as that may be, there is no point of order. The member for The Entrance has the call and I remind him to address the leave of the bill.

Mr CHRIS SPENCE: That is how much influence the union movement has within the Labor Party. It is an undue level of influence that the people of New South Wales are no longer willing to tolerate. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [11.52 a.m.]: The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011, which is cloaked in the premise of democratic free speech, in reality is an attack on the very rights of the workers that it supposedly seeks to strengthen. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the constitutional legitimacy of this bill will be challenged. He quoted Bruce McClintock, QC, who said:

I have no doubt that one thing would be invalid, that is, a ban by the State Parliament on trade unions engaging in election funding would unquestionably be void under the Constitution.

In 1992 the High Court of Australia brought down a landmark decision that the Australian Constitution recognised an implied right to political free speech. In Australian Capital Television v the Commonwealth (1992) the then Commonwealth Government sought to implement electoral reform by regulating broadcasting air time during Federal election campaigns, in particular for those who would have access to broadcasting time. In that case a court majority held that the legislation was invalid and recognised that under the Constitution Australians are entitled to an implied right of free speech. In 1994 the High Court went one step further.

In Stephens and Others v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1994)—as the title hints, it was a Western Australian case—the High Court had to determine whether the same implied right of free speech was recognised by the State's Constitution. In this case a majority of the court said it was. My point is simple: The O'Farrell Government knows that this proposal is contentious and probably will be challenged in court to the cost of New South Wales taxpayers. However, the Government will attempt to pass this legislation to thwart any real electoral reform. As pointed out by Associate Law Professor Anne Twomey in her 2008 paper, "The Reform of Political Donations, Expenditure and Funding":

… laws that ban or impose limits upon political donations or election campaign expenditure are likely to be regarded as burdening the constitutional implied freedom of political communication.

According to Professor Twomey, the legality of this legislation could be challenged on a number of grounds. One ground is that the legislation raises jurisdictional issues as New South Wales political parties often receive donations to fund candidates in Commonwealth and local government elections. Also, how far this legislation extends to organisations based in other States will bring this proposed electoral reform into disrepute as the bill could be inconsistent with Federal laws. Challenging the bill in court could uphold the process of electoral reform in New South Wales, paving the way for another broken promise by this Government.

The other main objection to this bill, as outlined by my leader, the Hon. John Robertson, is the democratic implications of the legislation. Whilst my colleagues support reforms to stop corporate interference in our political system, we do not support attacks on free speech. We do not support this attack on the rights of collective organisations in our political system. Interests groups such as unions are not on the electoral roll, yet they are made up of hundreds and thousands of people who are on the electoral roll and who rely on the unions as a collective voice to protect the rights of the worker. This legislation will remove the voice of workers.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fairfield has the call. Members will cease interjecting.

Mr GUY ZANGARI: The bill will remove the rights of workers to have a say in the political system. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this legislation is about stopping legitimate criticism of the O'Farrell Government by aiming to silence legitimate and democratic organisations that represent the people of 6050 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

New South Wales—people who are on the electoral roll. This legislation will make their points of view illegal. It will allow those who can afford to line the coffers of the Liberal Party—members opposite know about that— to make donations of $2,000 or more while silencing people from working-class areas, such as those in my electorate of Fairfield, who can barely afford today's standard of living, thanks to the harsh budget handed down by this Government, let alone having their political voices heard.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [11.57 a.m.]: It is a privilege to speak on the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011. Its introduction makes this a proud day for New South Wales. The bill addresses one of the concerns I had when I entered Parliament, and I shall talk more about that later. I pay tribute to the Premier for introducing a bill that at its core addresses a corrosive process in New South Wales—that is, government decisions not being based on public policy interest. In the past decisions were based on vested and donated interests. That goes against the core of good government and against what New South Wales citizens want: a government that acts in their interests and not in the interests of someone who has bought influence.

Notwithstanding that the previous Government started the process of election donation reform— legislation was passed at the end of last year—the process was disingenuous because the clear intent was to keep affiliate organisations protected and out of the donations domain. It was a disingenuous attempt to mask something as noble for electoral purposes, as we witnessed during the election campaign. Despite some of the histrionics from the other side, I highlight two key issues in the bill. The bill will ban political donations other than those by individuals. This will prevent donations from industrial organisations, peak industry groups, religious institutions and community organisations.

The bill also enshrines as a core value that electoral communication expenditure of affiliates will be linked to an expenditure of political parties to determine whether a political party has overspent during a campaign. An affiliate is an entity that, under the rules of the party, can appoint delegates to its governing body and/or has a role in candidate preselection. Surely the two—the affiliate organisation and the political party— cannot be separated. It is a totally reasonable proposition that an affiliate organisation that has political party links must be considered part of the political body that is represented in Parliament. During my inaugural speech, I stated:

The potential remains today to buy legislation and this alone highlights how serious the issue has become. I have formed the view that donations are at a corrosive level in New South Wales ...

Subsequently I argued strongly in many forums in favour of the need for donations reform in this State. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise, regardless of his or her political badge, should remember that parliamentarians are elected to take a government forward. Governments come and go and, as much as we would love to see the O'Farrell Government in power forever, that may not happen. But all members of this House have an obligation tied to their election to put forward ideas that are in the best interests of not only the present but also the future, in the best interests of transparency, and in the best interests of ensuring that the government of the day is making decisions in the broad public interest. That is the core purpose of this bill.

Consideration over the years of donations reveals that we reached a point at which it would not have mattered what decision a government was making. I will not point to individual Ministers or organisations that may have benefited from government decisions, but all members of this House know that when decisions are made the first point of call was: Who had donated what to whom? That was the key to all the problems of running this State. It created critical issues in a whole range of policies, all ranges of government decisions and across all ranges of industries and stakeholders. It did not matter who was involved. There was a concern that if an individual had access to Ministers and had donated the right amount of money, that individual had a chance of achieving public policy that was in his or her interests, not necessarily in the broader public interest. This bill begins to address that situation.

I contend to Cabinet Ministers, shadow Ministers and all other members of Parliament that the fundraising culture was against the interests of the people of New South Wales. To have member after member undertaking fundraising activities as part of the broad remit was a distraction from the job at hand, and that is the argument I put forward to the parliamentary committee of inquiry. The job at hand should be first and foremost how we fix the problems of this State, how we make New South Wales more competitive with other States, how we look after the people who are the most vulnerable in our society, and how we in New South Wales reach our potential to be all that we can be. Ultimately the job at hand should be the driver for every member representing a community. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6051

I am delighted to be associated with this bill and to support a Premier who finally has delivered to this State a clear undertaking that decisions made on behalf of this State will be about State interest and broad public interest from this day forward. Individuals will still be able to donate and participate, but we need to remove the perception that historically decisions have been made in the interest of donations. This legislation takes away that perception. This is a critical day for New South Wales. I am proud to support the bill. I am also proud to be part of a Government that has introduced this legislation. I congratulate the Premier on introducing the bill.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [12.03 p.m.]: I support the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011, which builds on reforms that were introduced over the past two years. The bill bans donations from anyone other than a person on the electoral roll and prohibits donations from corporations, industrial organisations, peak industry groups, religious institutions and community organisations. Under the bill legislated caps on the amount a party can spend on its election campaign will cover the amount spent by an organisation affiliated with a political party, such as a union. Those changes will create a fairer political system.

I believe political campaign donations are part of our democratic process. They provide an opportunity for people to participate in the political process and express support for particular candidates, policies or groups. As an independent, my election campaigns have relied on donations from residents and members of the local community. Giving donations provides people with an opportunity to express their support. In such cases, donations may be selfless, even altruistic—or they may be made with the intention of supporting a candidate who broadly supports the donor's concerns. Although individuals and organisations may have varying motives for funding political parties and candidates, donations that are intended to influence policies or decision-making for private benefit create community concern and undermine public confidence in the political process.

I believe that past practice in political donations has discredited the political process and caused really serious concern. The public does not believe that corporations donate to political parties because they are community minded. I supported past reforms to ban donations from development and tobacco industries because of the potential for those donations to be used to gain influence over decision-makers, but other industries can use donations to achieve political policy outcomes. I am particularly concerned about donations from the liquor industry. Politics should be about the public interest. This reform will prevent undue influence being exercised over the political process or the perception of it, and that is welcome. Limiting donations to individuals who are enrolled to vote in New South Wales parliamentary elections will help to achieve that.

Currently party campaigns can be topped up with campaigns run by affiliated third party organisations to give that party an unfair advantage over other candidates. What the former Government did with that legislation was really quite cynical and I opposed that move at the time. The inclusion of campaign expenditure of affiliated organisations, such as unions, in the legislated expenditure cap of a political party also will assist to level the playing field. That is particularly important for Independents, who do not have the advantage of statewide campaigns. I welcome these latest changes and recent moves in New South Wales to improve what not very long ago was a lax donations regime. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Brad Hazzard and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (ETHICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER) BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [12.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank members who contributed to the debate. This is an historic moment in the proud history of the New South Wales public service because the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Ethics and Public Service Commissioner) Bill 2011 ensures that the New South Wales Government's commitment to the public sector will be delivered and that our New South Wales public sector will be respected for its integrity and independence, and renowned for its innovation in the delivery of services. This bill establishes two key platforms to assist the public sector with this change.

The first will include ethics and values in public sector legislation. The second will establish a Public Service Commissioner to ensure integrity, performance and accountability in the State's public sector. The 6052 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

amendments that will be made to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act will include an ethical framework for the public sector that identifies the core values of the public sector and the principles guiding those values. The objective of the ethical framework is to enshrine in legislation for the first time fundamental attributes of an effective public sector, such as a merit-based careers service that acts in a non-partisan manner and is responsible for implementing government decisions.

The Government acknowledges the valuable contribution of the public consultation process in developing and refining the core values, principles and objectives contained in the ethical framework. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition and some other members of the Opposition contend that these historic reforms are "of little consequence". For some time individual public servants of the New South Wales division of the Institute of Public Administration Australia have been seeking reforms to the New South Wales public service to support the integrity and professionalism of the sector. Those calls fell on deaf ears when Labor was in government. We are determined to ensure that we listen, act and improve the performance, integrity and independence of the New South Wales public sector.

This bill identifies a number of new and enhanced functions for the Public Service Commissioner, which include promoting and maintaining the public sector core values of integrity, trust, service, and accountability to be enshrined for the first time in legislation; building public confidence in the sector's workforce and fostering a culture in which customer service, initiative, and the achievement of results and individual responsibility are strongly valued; promoting strong collaboration with the not-for-profit community and business sectors to better inform the development and implementation of service delivery strategies and service delivery models; enabling mobility beyond New South Wales to and from universities, other Australian public sector jurisdictions, the private sector, the not-for-profit sectors, which will encourage flexible and innovative joint ventures; and producing a new annual state-of-the-sector report, including an assessment of the performance of the whole public sector, identifying notable challenges, achievements and priorities, together with an analysis of public sector workforce data.

This report will be a key mechanism for providing the Parliament, the Government, the public sector and the community with an overview and assessment of the composition and performance of the New South Wales public sector. The second point raised by those opposite related to the new ethical framework for the public sector and the core values it identifies. One of the key tenets in the ethical framework under the core value of trust is for public sector employees to provide apolitical and non-partisan advice, and to recognise their specialised role in our Westminster system. As members are aware, the other significant amendment to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is the inclusion of provisions establishing the Public Service Commissioner and the Public Service Commission Advisory Board.

The Public Service Commissioner is an independent statutory position appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission Advisory Board. The Public Service Commission Advisory Board, led by one of Australia's most experienced and respected public administrators, Professor Peter Shergold, AC, will give independent expert and active advice to the Public Service Commissioner to enable the commission to meet its objectives.

Part 1.3 clause 3E of schedule 1 to the bill identifies the principal objectives of the Public Service Commissioner as: promoting and maintaining the highest levels of integrity, impartiality, accountability and leadership across the public sector; improving the capability of the public sector to provide strategic and innovative public advice; implementing the decisions of the Government and meeting public expectations; attracting and retaining a high-calibre professional public sector workforce to ensure that the public sector recruitment and selection processes comply with the merit principle, and adhere to professional standards; fostering a public service culture in which customer service, initiative, individual responsibility and the achievement of results are strongly valued; building confidence in the public sector; and supporting the Government in achieving positive budget outcomes through strengthening the capability of the public sector workforce.

As outlined in part 1.3 clause 3G of schedule 1 to the bill, the commissioner will prepare an annual report for the Premier on the state of the public sector. The Premier will table this report in each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after it is received from the commissioner. The Public Service Commissioner is the centrepiece of the Government's public service policy. The Government is serious about rebuilding the integrity, professionalism, innovation, independence and capability of the New South Wales public sector. Citizens, elected members and public servants all need confidence in and clear expectations about the limit of government's role, the performance, standards and results that public officials deliver and the appropriate separation between political roles and professional public servants. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6053

We want the New South Wales public sector to be the best in the nation and a leader across the world. The Public Service Commissioner will help shape the New South Wales public sector to respond to contemporary and future needs of our State, its citizens and customers with independence, professionalism, integrity and to be rewarded for success and innovation, with the skills to deliver the highest quality and most effective services to the people and taxpayers of this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

ELECTION FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [12.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 which is a long overdue breakthrough in cleaning up politics in New South Wales.

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: The member for Bankstown sought the call. The Opposition does not consider this agreement in principle debate to have concluded. Is a gag motion before the House?

The SPEAKER: Order! The discretion lies with the Speaker as to who is the next speaker. The Premier sought the call well before the member for Bankstown. It is my decision.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: This is an important and historic moment because this legislation seeks to clean up State politics once and for all. It seeks to put in place donation reforms that are meaningful, that will change the face of this Parliament but, importantly, will start to restore public confidence in this very institution. Earlier I spoke on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Ethics and Public Service Commissioner) Bill 2011. For the past 16 years we have seen that confidence in public administration deteriorate. The only thing worse than that was the way in which public confidence in this institution, in the operation of politics in New South Wales, also deteriorated.

The Coalition came to office with two particular goals. First, amongst many, was to restore confidence in public administration across New South Wales. Unless the public has confidence that decisions are being made on the basis of merit and not on sectional interests and public servants who are expected to implement those decisions are doing so without fear or favour, we cannot achieve the reforms and progress that New South Wales requires. A government cannot deliver reforms or progress that will create the opportunities for people across this State unless people have confidence in the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council and the institution of Parliament. We saw under those opposite a decisions-for-donations culture that corroded public confidence in government, politics and public administration across this State.

One only has to read two of the many books that seem to be published quite regularly about the former Government to understand the concerns of even senior members such as Frank Sartor about the way in which those opposite ran their fundraising operations when in government. We know that when Frank Sartor is nervous about such things they must have been pretty crook. This legislation will seek to do what is sensible. This legislation will say that the people who have the biggest stake in any electoral system—whether in this State, nationally, other jurisdictions or democracies around the world—are the citizens on the electoral roll, those who past generations have ensured have the right to vote. This legislation will restrict to those people the right to choose whether they will also donate to a candidate or to a political party of their choice.

This legislation will smash open that cosy relationship that was pushed through Parliament by the Australian Labor Party with the support of The Greens in the Legislative Council before the last election that 6054 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

sought to in some way describe unions affiliated with the Labor Party as independent under the auspices of this legislation. It equated, for instance, the Electrical Trades Union and the Transport Workers Union, which are affiliated with the Labor Party and who get a vote on party policy and in pre-selections, with, for instance, the RSPCA or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales to which the same limits applied. Yet the fact is that they are affiliated organisations. They are members of the same mob. They have the same objectives and by no means are they the independent—

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: Is the Premier speaking in general or in reply? No motion was moved by the Leader of the House to bring this matter to an end.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with this point of order. The Premier is speaking in reply, as I understand it. It was my decision according to the Premier seeking the call, which was appropriate at the time.

Mr Richard Amery: Further to the point of order: Generally speaking when a debate is gagged or ended—

The SPEAKER: Order! This debate has not been gagged. I have made a decision. The member for Mount Druitt will resume his seat. I will hear no further points of order about this matter. It was my decision— my discretion and my prerogative. The Premier has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am amazed because we all know—those of us who have been a member of this House for not quite as long as the member for Mount Druitt—that normally the Independent members are the last speakers before the close of debate. My understanding is that I followed the member for Sydney in this debate, so I am very happy to reply to the debate. The point is that this legislation will go an enormously long way to rectify a wrong that was put through by the Keneally Government with the support of The Greens. There is no way we can pretend that the Electrical Trades Union—which, until last year, provided even the presidency of the State Australian Labor Party—is a disinterested party in State campaigns and the New South Wales Labor Party in the same way as is the RSPCA or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales.

The RSPCA and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will enter the fray from time to time and the RSPCA will argue for legislation to ban the sale of animals in pet shops or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will lobby both sides of politics on particular issues affecting the disadvantaged in our community. They will lobby both sides of politics without fear or favour because they are affiliated to neither. One of the important changes this legislation seeks to make is to ensure that we end the pretence that affiliated organisations, whether they are affiliated to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or any other party, can be treated as independent when it comes to expenditure caps and the like.

The Leader of the Opposition demonstrated again—despite his promise on assuming that position that he would be the hardest-working person ever to have occupied it—that he simply does not understand the legislation. He is probably out to lunch again. His main argument is that this legislation will disadvantage vulnerable people who cannot afford to donate individually to political parties. I suspect that his real concern is that they will be given a choice about whether they want to make a donation to a political party that is running campaigns that suit them. As I said, people who support the RSPCA and this Government's election commitment to provide the association with funding will still be able to lend their support.

Likewise, those who want to support campaigns run by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will still be able to do so. This legislation does not prevent peak bodies and other third party campaigners from running issue-based campaigns on matters that affect their members or supporters. It simply prevents those organisations from donating to a political party and incurring electoral expenditure that influences voting at an election. This reform is not designed to stop campaigning by community groups but to ensure there is a level playing field for all participants in the electoral process.

If the Leader of the Opposition were concerned about vulnerable people not having the financial means to have their voice heard he would support this bill, which levels the playing field. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition stood up in his real guise, which is as leader of the New South Wales union movement. We never get as much energy out of him when he is talking about anything other than union matters—once a union leader, always a union leader. Until I opened my newspapers this morning I did not think there was a more stupid union leader, but there is. The union leader engaged in the battle with Qantas demonstrated his stupidity by trying to destroy the jobs of his workers by sending people away from Qantas.

Mr Nathan Rees: Don't forget Bernie. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6055

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I acknowledge the interjection made twice now by the member for Toongabbie, who wants me not to forget Bernie. I assume he is the friend of the member for Terrigal, Bernie O'Riordan from the Electrical Trades Union. He was president of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party, but he is no friend of the member for Toongabbie. He was thought to be a friend of the member for Heffron until the dying days of her Government. This bill does not prevent unions or any third party campaigners from receiving donations from their individual members. It will not stop peak union bodies such as Unions NSW from levying its members provided that those levies are not used to make a political donation or to incur electoral expenditure. New section 87 defines "electoral expenditure" and generally covers expenditure used for the purpose of influencing voting at an election.

That means that peak union bodies will be free to accept levies from their member unions for the purpose of running issues-based campaigns and conducting other activities that are not designed to influence voting at an election. The ban on corporate donations must be extended to third party campaigns if it is to be effective. To exempt third party campaigners from the ban would create a gaping loophole—the sort that members opposite are expert in creating—through which corporate donations could be channelled. That would defeat the purpose of the ban, which is to remove the risk and perception of corruption and undue influence in this State by limiting corporate donations once and for all. As I said, this is historic legislation. Despite the protestations of the leader of the union movement, I urge all members in both this House and the other place to support this legislation. The public want this legislation because it will improve confidence.

Mr Richard Amery: I move:

That the Premier be not further heard.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did not give the member the call.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Stop playing games.

Mr Richard Amery: I stood up before you finished your speech.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: You did not.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Roberts Mr Annesley Mr George Mr Rohan Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Rowell Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mrs Sage Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mr Sidoti Mr Barilaro Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Speakman Mr Brookes Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Casuscelli Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Conolly Dr Lee Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Mr Notley-Smith Mr Torbay Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Ms Upton Mrs Davies Mr O'Farrell Mr Ward Mr Doyle Mr Owen Mr Webber Mr Edwards Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Elliott Ms Parker Mrs Williams Mr Evans Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Flowers Mr Piper Mr Maguire Mr Fraser Mr Provest Mr J. D. Williams 6056 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Noes, 18

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Zangari Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Hay Mr Parker Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Rees Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Robertson Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Perrottet Mr Furolo Mr Piccoli Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Richard Amery.

Consideration in Detail

The SPEAKER: Order! By leave, I propose to put the bill in groups of clauses and schedules.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [12.36 p.m.]: We support the issue in relation to clauses 1 and 2. I would like to speak to schedule 1, page 3, section 96D—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: As I understand it, the member has indicated support for clauses 1 and 2, which are the matters under consideration. I ask that that question be put and dealt with and then we can move to schedule 1.

Question—That clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [12.37 p.m.]: Subsection (1) of proposed new section 96D, contained in item [2] of schedule 1 reads:

It is unlawful for a political donation to a party, elected member, group, candidate or third-party campaigner to be accepted unless the donor is an individual who is enrolled on the roll of electors for State elections …

That first point is the crux of the Opposition's concerns regarding the loopholes in this bill. Whilst the intention of the clause is to prevent organisations, particularly trade unions, from making a donation to the Labor Party or any other political party, such as The Greens—which I must say has occurred in the past—I would like to ask the Minister or the Premier how they stop the situation where a wealthy landholder—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I have been looking for the amendments that the member must have. Could the member indicate where the amendments are to this provision?

The SPEAKER: The member does not need to have amendments.

Mr Brad Hazzard: So the member does not have any amendments?

The SPEAKER: Nor does he need to have amendments.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: No, I am not moving an amendment; I am just speaking to the schedule. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6057

Mr Brad Hazzard: Further to the point of order: I have listened intently to what the member has said. As he does not propose to move amendments, there will be ample opportunity for this matter to be fully debated in the Legislative Council in due course. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: This is a gag, is it? Is that what you are saying?

Question—That the question be now put—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 61

Mr Anderson Mr Fraser Mr Rohan Mr Annesley Mr Gee Mr Rowell Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mrs Sage Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mr Sidoti Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Mr Barilaro Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Speakman Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Spence Mr Brookes Mr Issa Mr Stokes Mr Casuscelli Mr Kean Mr Stoner Mr Conolly Dr Lee Mr Toole Mr Constance Mr Notley-Smith Ms Upton Mr Cornwell Mr O'Dea Mr Ward Mr Coure Mr O'Farrell Mr Webber Mrs Davies Mr Owen Mr R. C. Williams Mr Doyle Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Edwards Ms Parker Mr Elliott Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Evans Mr Provest Mr Maguire Mr Flowers Mr Roberts Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 21

Mr Barr Dr McDonald Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Ms Mihailuk Mr Torbay Ms Burton Ms Moore Mr Zangari Ms Hay Mr Parker Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Ms Keneally Mr Piper Tellers, Mr Lalich Mr Rees Mr Amery Mr Lynch Mr Robertson Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Perrottet Mr Furolo Mr Piccoli Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Question—That schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to—put. 6058 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Roberts Mr Annesley Mr George Mr Rohan Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Rowell Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mrs Sage Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mr Sidoti Mr Barilaro Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Speakman Mr Brookes Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Casuscelli Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Conolly Dr Lee Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Mr Notley-Smith Mr Torbay Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Ms Upton Mrs Davies Mr O'Farrell Mr Ward Mr Doyle Mr Owen Mr Webber Mr Edwards Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Elliott Ms Parker Mrs Williams Mr Evans Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Flowers Mr Piper Mr Maguire Mr Fraser Mr Provest Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 18

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Zangari Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Hay Mr Parker Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Rees Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Robertson Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Perrottet Mr Furolo Mr Piccoli Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Passing of the Bill

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [12.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now passed.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6059

Ayes, 64

Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Rohan Mr Annesley Mr George Mr Rowell Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mrs Sage Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mr Sidoti Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Mr Barilaro Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Speakman Ms Berejiklian Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Brookes Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Casuscelli Dr Lee Mr Stoner Mr Conolly Ms Moore Mr Toole Mr Constance Mr Notley-Smith Mr Torbay Mr Cornwell Mr O'Dea Ms Upton Mr Coure Mr O'Farrell Mr Ward Mrs Davies Mr Owen Mr Webber Mr Doyle Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Edwards Ms Parker Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mr Patterson Mr Evans Mr Piper Tellers, Mr Flowers Mr Provest Mr Maguire Mr Fraser Mr Roberts Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 18

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Zangari Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Hay Mr Parker Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Rees Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Robertson Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Humphries Mr Furolo Mr Perrottet Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking it concurrence in the bill.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 15 September 2011.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.59 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The Coalition Government was elected with a strong commitment to bring competent financial management to New South Wales. Part of this commitment involves finding areas of revenue law which can be strengthened in order to ensure that the State's financial management is sound and revenue measures are implemented in a responsible and equitable manner. Through the legislation before the House today this Government is undertaking the task of reforming areas of New South Wales law that can be tightened and that can improve the overall operation of this State's finances. 6060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The bill will achieve those objectives in a number of ways. As I said earlier, the amendments in this bill are important to this State's financial management. Some of our revenue laws must be addressed or amended and some inconsistencies must be made consistent after years of apathy to these small and large matters by the former Labor Government. We saw this neglect in the millions of dollars wasted by the former Government on poorly implemented programs, as well as its languid approach to making small and detailed changes—some of which we have seen today in this bill—which will have a positive impact on the management of this State's finances.

In contrast, this Government understands that responsible financial management involves paying attention to matters of detail and constantly targeting areas of the law that can be tightened and made to work better to meet our policy objectives. In our election commitments and more recently in our 10-year plan, which was released four weeks ago, we announced our objectives to rebuild this State's finances. Included in our list of objectives are ambitious and achievable targets, such as ensuring that expense growth will be less than or equal to trend revenue growth and reviewing the budget process in order to better support sustainable and effective financial decision-making and the allocation of resources to those needs that are best met by government. However, we cannot achieve these goals without identifying and strengthening the operation of our revenue laws.

We have a responsibility in government to constantly review every area of law to ensure that the legislation is having its intended effect and that every revenue loophole is closed that does not meet that policy intent. If we are to continue to protect this State's triple-A credit rating, which is what this Government has pledged to do, we must take a rigorous, systematic and extensive approach to identifying even small areas of the law that have to be strengthened. That is why this legislation is so important to this State's overall financial management. This Government is paying attention to detail because, as has been said, sometimes the devil is in the detail.

The bill will make important amendments to the Duties Act 1997 not only to update that Act but also to ensure that the New South Wales Government, in its revenue dealings, is operating under best practice. The First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 will be amended by this bill to tighten a revenue loophole in the operation of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme. The Government is making small changes to duty concessions on superannuation transactions. Currently a duties concession is given to transfers of certain property from a life company to a superannuation trustee. However, a concession is not given when the property is transferred in the opposite direction—from a superannuation trustee to a life company. Stamp duty is often prohibitive for superannuation investors wishing to transfer securities from their superannuation account to a life company. The law has been operating inefficiently and inequitably by treating investors in superannuation differently from investors in life companies when it relates to transferring property between the two. This bill seeks to remedy that unfairness. The Government is finetuning those laws through the introduction of this bill—a small point which will have a substantial impact.

These amendments will reduce to $500 the stamp duty that is payable by a transferee on a transfer of marketable securities from the trustee of a superannuation fund or a custodian of the trustee of a superannuation fund to a life company or a custodian for a life company. The next area of law dealt with by this bill relates to transferring landholdings between funds arising from the merger of superannuation funds. Mergers between superannuation funds can lead to more efficient investments, more focused investment policy and, importantly, higher returns to members. However, the barriers to merging and the impact on members can make consideration of such effective mergers prohibitive. As the law currently stands the cost of transferring shares or units in a unit trust scheme holding interest in land is a barrier to certain superannuation mergers, which is not a good thing.

Currently no duty concession applies to the transfer of securities between superannuation funds as a result of a merger where those securities relate to landholdings. This Government's amendment to the Act will ensure that the concession applies and that the stamp duty is reduced to $500 for transferring securities relating to landholdings when funds merge. This important measure will ensure that landholding securities are treated no differently from the transfer of other dutiable property between superannuation funds. The final amendment to the duty legislation concerns special disability trusts established under Commonwealth legislation. Special disability trusts are established by families to provide for the accommodation and the care of the needs of a member with a disability.

A duty exemption has been available for the transfer of property to a trustee of a special disability trust as established under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991. A duty of $50 is payable on the property 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6061

transferred to a special disability trust under the meaning of the Commonwealth Act. However, special disability trusts can also be established under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It is inequitable that special disability trusts can only access a duty concession depending on what Commonwealth legislation they were established under. This legislation does the important job of ensuring that both types of special disability trusts can access that important concession.

Finally, and importantly, the bill will amend the First Home Owner Grant Scheme to ensure the recovery of grants that are required to be repaid. This measure will ensure that the State is collecting money owed from residents who do not meet the conditions of the scheme and who are required to pay back money provided to them, which is fair and equitable. Under the First Home Owner Grant Scheme some recipients are required to pay back money usually because they have failed to satisfy eligibility requirements. For example, recipients often fail to meet the requirement to occupy their home as their principal place of residence and are using the scheme as an investment. Currently the debt owed by a recipient ranks behind the interest of mortgagees or other interest holders and upon the sale of such property often there is an insufficient amount to make payment to the State Debt Recovery Office which is unjust and inappropriate.

This bill will give priority to debts owed under the First Home Owner Scheme and it will ensure that the State is repaid, as it should be. These amendments will ensure that the laws address this Government's policy objectives, that anomalies are removed and that we give effect to government policy so that the dollars we receive are used to implement important programs for the New South Wales community. In addition, this bill will ensure that existing anomalies do not prevent the ready and easy merger of superannuation funds, no matter what their structure; that inconsistencies in State revenue law are made consistent; and that there are no inequities or disincentives. The amendments are about strengthening our revenue laws and ensuring—the most important thing of all—that competent financial management is returned to New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [1.09 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I participate in debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition supports the legislation. While the legislation deals with marginal issues, as the previous speaker stated, it also addresses important issues such as equity. In that context the Opposition supports the legislation. I hardly think this legislation will protect the State's triple-A credit rating. I am sure that Standard and Poor's and Moody's will not be examining this legislation for its effect on maintaining the State's triple-A credit rating, which Labor left as one of its legacies to the incumbent Government. I thank the member for Vaucluse for recognising that legacy. The legislation amends the Duties Act 1997 to extend the duty concession for transfers of securities from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund to life company, extend duties exemptions to special disability trusts established under the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986, and amend the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to improve recovery of grants that are required to be repaid.

The Australian superannuation system has proved to be a central policy reform for the New South Wales and Australian economy. Over the past 20 years compulsory superannuation has created a pool of savings worth more than $1.3 trillion that has transformed not only retirement incomes but created a solid new source of investment funds that continues to open up new opportunities for New South Wales. I note the current discussion concerning an increase in compulsory superannuation from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, which emanated from the recent tax forum hosted by the Federal Labor Government. The proposal has been well received. To allow superannuation to maintain its central positive role, it is necessary to keep reforming its operation to ensure that the funds placed in the system are most efficiently allocated at minimum cost and maximum effectiveness.

In line with that, the choice of funds legislation was introduced in 2006 to provide people with appropriate options and to open up competition in the system. Most members of the House would be very aware of the opening up of choice for people in superannuation funds investment. Instead of having to accept a fund of their employer's choice, people have the capacity to seek investment opportunities that better suit their long-term plans and risk profile. This opening up of superannuation has raised standards in the management of funds and has made the system more dynamic, flexible and responsive to people's needs. The changes to duty concessions for trustees of complying superannuation funds aligns with this continuing reform process in that it aims to make the cost transferring funds in the superannuation system more consistent across different sectors of the financial services industry.

The legislation refers to a $500 transfer fee or a lesser ad valorem amount. More specifically, this amending bill brings changes to the duty concessions available to complying superannuation funds vis-à-vis the 6062 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

transfer of securities such as land to life companies, which aims to remove an outstanding duty anomaly in the superannuation system. This amending bill also provides for payment of duty at the concessional rate of $500 or a lesser ad valorem rate on a transfer of marketable securities from the trustee of a complying superannuation fund to a life company. At present this duty concession operates only in one direction—from life company to trustee—on the movement of interests in assets, such as property, and not vice versa. I am sure all members recognise the inequity of that position and agree that the transfer should operate both ways.

This legislation provides for that to occur. The aim of a more consistent duty concession across the superannuation system is to improve the capabilities of members to move their funds at minimum cost, which is very important. That is in line with the Federal Labor Government's strategy of encouraging a choice of fund by members and of increasing competition for quality advice in the light of Federal "Future of Financial Advice" reforms that have been developed over the past 18 months. It is important to make the point that this legislation will not operate in isolation. It is part of a greater movement and development of financial policy. Part of that is the Federal Labor Government's strategy to encourage a choice of funds. This legislation is tapping into a much greater movement that is taking place within the financial services sector in Australia.

Mr Darren Webber: Begun by John Howard.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: No, it was not John Howard. He had been gone longer than 18 months when it commenced. He might be on a good superannuation fund now, but it was not John Howard who did this.

Dr Geoff Lee: He was an excellent economic manager.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Comments by Government members about good financial management provide me with the opportunity to reinforce the point that this State's triple-A credit rating was well entrenched when the O'Farrell Government was elected.

Mr Andrew Gee: Black hole.

Dr Geoff Lee: Of $5.2 billion.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I am pleased that Government members have mentioned the $5.2 billion black hole, which has been disproved by Treasury.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! Members will cease conversing across the Chamber.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Mr Acting-Speaker, I am merely responding to interjections made by Government members. The assertion of the existence of a black hole has been disproved by Treasury and a number of substantial, well-known and very credible institutions in New South Wales. It is fallacious and foolhardy of both the member for Parramatta and the member for Orange to continue to assert that a budget black hole exists when they know in their hearts that there is no such thing. Those members are bigger and better than anyone continuing to make fallacious assertions that serve only to belittle them. I would not want that to happen to any member of this House. However, I digress.

This amending bill also deals with duty anomalies in setting up disability trusts. In line with other superannuation changes, this amending bill aims to remove any inconsistency when setting up a special disability trust under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Those trusts now face the same treatment and duty of $50 for transferring property as trusts established under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991. I am sure all members agree that this is a good measure. There is no longer an arbitrary cost disadvantage for families who set up a disability trust for their family members under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The bill also deals with the operation of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme, which has been in operation over the past decade. It is a very important priority for any government to provide opportunities for first home buyers to get into the housing market.

Members of this House understand it is an enormous challenge to ensure that people living in Sydney in particular are given an opportunity to get into the home market. It is important to ensure that the grant operates in the way in which it was intended. This legislation will ensure there is no rorting, for want of a better term, of the First Home Owner Grant which is aimed at increasing access to the housing market. As noted last week by the Reserve Bank of Australia in its latest research paper into housing, there continues to be a growing 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6063

spread between house prices, income growth and affordability. The enormous challenge with which this Government is confronted is to ensure that young people get into the housing market for the first time and that these schemes operate properly. That is important on a personal and an economical level.

The Reserve Bank of Australia noted that this access issue is in response to the nationwide fall in housing stock. In New South Wales this corresponds to a medium-term fall in residential approvals with the recent August 2011 numbers recording a sixth-monthly fall in private sector housing approvals. In my capacity as shadow Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I will keep a close eye on private sector housing approvals. I hope that this downward trend has nothing to do with the inertia surrounding the planning system. I understand that there will be a review in 18 months but that review should do nothing to undermine confidence in the housing market in New South Wales. As there is a great deal of uncertainty about the New South Wales planning system the Opposition will closely follow those figures.

The First Home Owner Grant attempts in some way to deal with this price issue, even if to date it has not contributed positively to a supply response—the key missing part to the housing market question. A big issue confronting government assistance packages is that the moneys should be used for their intended purposes, thus ensuring that all policies have the maximum impact. Compliance issues are central to the execution of the First Home Owner Grant. Applicants must demonstrate that the grant is being used for their first residence. There is a related need for applicants to use underlying properties as their principal place of residence that they occupy on a full-time basis. This proposed amendment to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill falls into the category of improving the ability of the Government to recover first home owner grants that subsequently have been shown to be non-compliant.

This amendment aims to improve the capacity of the Office of State Revenue to reclaim grants made to recipients who later turn out to be ineligible. The need to reclaim grants occurs, for example, in cases where the grant has been provided against a property that is not an applicant's principal place of residence. This failure to comply with the occupancy criteria of the grant program generates a liability to repay the grant and any associated penalty. At present the debt owed to the Office of State Revenue ranks behind the interest of the mortgagee or any other holder of an interest that is registered prior to the lodgement of any caveat. This is seen to reduce the capacity of these grant moneys to be recovered upon the sale of the property, including sale by a mortgagee in possession.

To reduce the potential for this type of loss, the amendment provides that once a caveat is lodged by the Chief Commissioner of Revenue in respect of a home that is recorded in the register kept under the Real Property Act 1900 the charge has priority over all other encumbrances except land tax. Effectively the Government has first charge on the land and the proceeds from its sale. This will help to protect the overall funds available for the First Home Owner Grant Scheme and it will help to decrease the incentive for applicants to game the system and misrepresent themselves when applying.

The only downside associated with this amendment is that it may deter lenders from lending to First Home Owner Grant recipients, given the new rights of the Government. However, the Opposition does not see that as a major issue, given that these proposed changes will bring New South Wales into line with legislation that has been enacted in every other State and Territory. In a sense it is an important catch-up to ensure that the First Home Owners Grant is used for the reason it is intended and that it is fair for everyone who has access to it. I note that this final recovery action would come into force only when other penalties for non-compliance have not been paid. The Opposition welcomes and supports this legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Andrew Constance and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Acting-Speaker (Mr Lee Evans) left the chair at 1.26 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Minister of Technology and Research for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and Mr Fernando, the Consul General of Sri Lanka, guests of the member for Oatley and the member for Davidson.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given. 6064 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

QUESTION TIME ______

[Question time commenced at 2.21 p.m.]

LICENSED VENUES THREE-STRIKES LEGISLATION

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I direct my question to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing. Given that it was a key plank of the Government's election platform and the 100 Day Action Plan, why have we still not debated the legislation designed to enact the three-strikes provisions for licensed venues more than four months after it was introduced?

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: As I clearly stated in my agreement in principle speech, the three-strikes legislation was introduced specifically so that the Government could consult with stakeholders and industry. Those consultations are drawing to a conclusion and the matter will be progressed shortly.

SYDNEY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the Government doing to boost the economy in Sydney's central business district?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I thank the member for Davidson for his question and for his long-term interest in the State's economy and this city's economy. I do not need to remind the House or the member for Davidson that under those opposite New South Wales lost its position as the engine room of the national economy. The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of hosting the 2000 Olympics, a bid won by this side of politics, was squandered by the other side of politics with its failure to invest in infrastructure, such as convention facilities in Sydney. As John O'Neill reported to that Government under a Premier three Premiers ago, Sydney and New South Wales were losing the benefits of hosting a Rugby World Cup every year—in other words, a $200 million injection into the State's economy each year—because those opposite failed to invest in infrastructure, like the convention and exhibition spaces that a city needs.

The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is determined to make New South Wales number one again. I report on another example of the significant progress that we are making to achieve that important goal. I am pleased to inform the House that the New South Wales Government has significantly expanded its election commitment to deliver a world-class convention and exhibition facility for Sydney. The Government has issued expressions of interest from the private sector for a 12-hectare Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment precinct at Darling Harbour—something those opposite did not do for 16 years. The new proposal will provide for exhibition space of at least 40,000 square metres, flexible plenary spaces with a combined capacity for at least 10,000 delegates, and capacity to hold a variety of sporting, musical and theatrical events for an anticipated minimum of 12,000 people.

This Government works collaboratively. Unlike those opposite, we do not pretend that the Government has the best ideas or always knows best. That was comprehensively the policy of those opposite; a policy best summed up in the disastrous Rozelle Metro. Taxpayers will continue to pay $500 million for a railway line, of which not one centimetre will be built. This Government has taken feedback from a variety of sectors and, with this new proposal, is putting Sydney in the best position to host the cream of international conventions and exhibitions.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The expressions of interest give the private sector greater flexibility to use its expertise to identify the best options between new construction, for instance, and the reuse of existing facilities. The private sector wants to be innovative in how it might deliver this project and we want to encourage that innovation so that we get the best outcome for the community, for State taxpayers and for the State's economy. The Government's decision has been widely applauded. The Property Council of Australia described it as a smart solution, saying, "Sydney is on the cusp of securing new convention and exhibition facilities that will give it muscle and presence on the world stage." The Sydney Business Chamber said that the Government's more expanded proposal would position Sydney as the premier location in the nation to hold major events. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6065

The Tourism and Transport Forum said our decision would mean that Sydney will at last get the world-class conference and entertainment venue it needs. The Government has also taken steps to end delays with the other major redevelopment in the central business district at Barangaroo. A snapshot review of the commercial towers at Barangaroo was recently presented to the Government by architects Shelley Penn, Peter Mould and Ray Brown. The review found that the three commercial towers were of high quality and consciously designed as a family of buildings. However, the design review panel said consideration should be given to having three different styled buildings, possibly with taller, thinner towers. While there are arguments for and against having similar towers, New South Wales cannot afford to delay the project any longer for yet another debate over the design of the commercial buildings.

Barangaroo has been designed, redesigned and tweaked over and over again. If we keep debating the design, it will never be built. It is time to get on with Barangaroo, and we are proceeding with the existing designs for the commercial towers. Over the coming months and years, finally the cranes will return to Sydney's central business district, and that is great news for jobs, great news for the community and great news for the State's economy. With both of these projects the Government is sending a clear message to investors that New South Wales is open for business, that the Government is getting on with the job and that Sydney's central business district is about to receive its biggest economic boost for generations.

CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE

Mr RYAN PARK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. In light of recent criticisms from the Minister's own members of Parliament that she failed to consult over her decision to close the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, will the Minister now suspend that decision until this Parliament has had a chance to debate the petition signed by 19,000 people on the issue?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I thank the member opposite for the very first question in relation to a primary industries matter. Congratulations and well done—it has only taken four and a half months.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Country Labor.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Country Labor, that is right. The short answer to the question is no, but I would like to expand on that answer. There was indeed a small rally outside Parliament House yesterday. But my memory tells me that the last rally held against the now Leader of the Opposition, which was conducted by prison workers, was substantially larger than yesterday's.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The New South Wales Government is serious about appropriately stimulating regional New South Wales economy and employment opportunities. We are determined to build the infrastructure and create the jobs in regional New South Wales and to bring the people to regional New South Wales. That is why, as part of our decade of decentralisation policy commitment, the New South Wales Government will move public servants from the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre to regional New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bankstown will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: For too long, the definition of New South Wales from those opposite has been about Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is determined that regional New South Wales will play its due role in returning New South Wales to its number one status.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toongabbie will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: We are determined to deliver on our commitments. Accordingly, the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre will be relocated at a number of locations along the New South Wales coastline, including Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens and Nowra. Once people have moved to those beautiful locations, I am sure that many, following the example brought to our attention today by the member for Port Stephens of military servicemen who moved to Williamtown, will wish to stay well into their retirement. They will follow that lead referred to by the member for Port Stephens. This move will ensure that the State's fisheries specialists are closer to the locations of the vast majority of their work. 6066 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Keira has asked a question. I am sure he is interested in the answer.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: New South Wales Fisheries employees were advised of this decision on 8 September. The decentralisation process will occur over a 12- to-18-months period. Members opposite will not like to hear this, but the Government has already been well and truly congratulated by industry stakeholders on what it is doing to improve commercial fisheries management in this State.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Name them.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I thank the member for asking. Correspondence received by my office states that the announcement to move the commercial fisheries is strongly supported by the Professional Fisherman's Association. It states further:

... taking fisheries management/research to its clients makes sense. With about 80 per cent of the catch by volume coming north of Sydney it is smart to have management and research with the catchers.

Why is it that those opposite do not support the Government's decentralisation policy of placing management and research with the fishers of this State? But the messages of support do not stop there. The Deputy Chair of the Seafood Industry Advisory Council and the 2009 Star of the Sea Award Winner, Mr Graeme Byrnes, said in correspondence after the announcement:

... the commercial fishing industry supports the move of the operations from Cronulla as it is taking the administrative and management of our fisheries to where stakeholders now are.

He continued:

... for the fishing industry we view this move in the same light as the Department of Agriculture moving to Orange many years ago ... this was good for the agriculture industry and we expect the same result with moving fisheries administration.

He is quite right. It was a landmark decision of a former Coalition Government to relocate the former New South Wales agricultural headquarters to Orange in 1991.

Ms Linda Burney: Inland.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Yes, it was inland. I congratulate the member on her observation. I know the member is challenged geographically but, yes, Orange is inland. Well done! The decentralised project was hailed as an unparalleled success, with increased efficiencies, greater interaction with farmers and more jobs and careers for the local economy. It shows that the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition can and will deliver for its primary industry sectors and regional communities. My regional coastal colleagues well know of the huge movement of recreational fishers up and down the coast during school holiday periods.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Families travel with their boats to Yamba, Ballina, South West Rocks, Port Stephens, Ulladulla, Narooma, Bermagui and Eden and all points in between for a fishing holiday. They cannot wait to get out of Sydney to have a good fish. The Government's decentralisation reflects the reality of the recreational fishing sector. It also represents an important investment in regional New South Wales. The relocation of services, facilities, employees and their families from Cronulla to Port Stephens, Coffs Harbour and Nowra—in the Speaker's South Coast electorate—are expected to provide substantial socio-economic benefits to local communities. [Time expired.]

CARBON TAX

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to the passing of the carbon tax bill through the House of Representative earlier today?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Those who voted for the Labor Party in the last Federal election campaign, when they were given an assurance that there would be no carbon tax, would have been appalled when they saw the Prime Minister's beaming face on television this morning as the carbon tax legislation passed through the House of Representatives. Let us recall the infamous promise of the Prime Minister during the election campaign: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." Today is a shameful day in our nation's political history. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6067

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bankstown will come to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. The member for Wyong will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is the day when Labor reneged on an election promise and pushed this damaging tax through the Federal Parliament. It is proof positive that the "New South Wales Labor disease"— a wonderful description coined by Anna Bligh of the Keneally Labor Government—has spread to Canberra.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: That disease was best described by a former member of this House who said of the Keneally Government:

... that was dominated by Ministers, staffers and ALP officials for who government was just a job ... a political game where winning is important only to keep your job.

He went on:

A government that had lost all sense of public purpose.

He was describing the last Labor Government of this State, but it is a description that could equally apply to the Gillard Government. The self-congratulation by Labor Federal members of Parliament this morning was sickening to behold. It was all about Labor's political interests and not about public interests. There was no better example of what it was all about than this depiction of the incredible Judas kiss between the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister that I show to members. It was outrageous.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: The Premier is inappropriately using a prop.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. I cannot hear the point of order. What is the member's point of order?

Dr Andrew McDonald: Firstly, the Premier is inappropriately using a prop and, secondly, he has also used unparliamentary language—

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier not to refer to props.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I will not mention the Judas kiss, Madam Speaker. One has to say if that embrace was genuine, then hell has frozen over. One would have to say that it is more likely that the member for Toongabbie will pucker up to the member for Heffron. Those same Labor members of Parliament who paraded through the House of Representatives today clapping like seals will be paraded out the door at the next Federal campaign. I remind the House again that this tax will have a devastating impact on New South Wales, especially in regional areas such as the Hunter and the Illawarra. Treasury estimates that this tax will cost New South Wales at least 31,000 jobs by 2020.

More than 18,000 of those will come from the Hunter Valley, an area that is crying out for more jobs, and it will include the loss of jobs in the Illawarra, an area already struggling with job losses in the steel industry. Modelling shows that the New South Wales economy will be the hardest hit of all the mainland States. The New South Wales economy will take an annual hit of $3.7 billion by the year 2020. Those billions of dollars could have better been spent on rail lines, schools, hospitals and additional police resources. Labor members of Parliament in marginal seats, particularly those in western Sydney, who voted for this tax should remember that it will force up electricity prices in New South Wales by around $500 per year.

Mr John Robertson: Not as much as you flogging it off.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Businesses will pay anything from $927 to $4,191 more a year, and the operators of those businesses will have every right to take out their anger on the Federal members of Parliament who voted in favour of the carbon tax today. Let me say it again: The New South Wales Federal Labor members of Parliament who voted for this tax have committed an act of political suicide today. Daryl Melham,the 6068 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

member for Banks; Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway; David Bradbury, the member for Lindsay; and John Murphy, the member for Reid, will be among the first to lose their jobs as a result of Federal Labor's carbon tax. Rather than the Federal Opposition Leader being marooned by history, Federal Labor is about to be swamped by an electoral tsunami. Those members opposite in this House stand condemned for supporting the carbon tax, although I suspect we will now hear the Leader of the Opposition finally express his support for a tax he previously dared not speak about.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oatley will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Federal Labor's approach to the carbon tax is redolent of New South Wales Labor's approach to the Solar Bonus Scheme: a determination to prove they can do something to try to gain green votes without any regard to the impact on the economy or the cost to the community. Even Frank Sartor describes it as a fiasco. He said the scheme had serious flaws. His excellent book reveals in great detail the incompetence and negligence of the Rees and Keneally governments and of the then environment Minister, John Robertson, when it came to the solar bonus scheme. He details how, despite a factual briefing, the former Premier deliberately set out to mislead the community about the scheme's impact upon electricity prices in the lead-up to the last election. Mr Sartor reveals that the member for Heffron—whom he describes as "obscenely ambitious"; there is no news in that—lied to the community, just as Julia Gillard lied to the community at the last election campaign.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer will cease interjecting.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: New South Wales has no choice but to fight for the people of this State, and the Government will do that by increasing mining royalties to claw back the money that the Federal Government will take from us. It will be done in a way that does not hurt mining companies but it will recoup the cost being lost from New South Wales through the carbon tax. The New South Wales Government is determined to get on with the job of fixing the State and it makes no apologies for taking whatever steps are necessary to secure the revenue lost by the Federal Labor-Greens carbon tax.

CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE

Ms CHERIE BURTON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision to close the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre has been criticised by leading fisheries experts, including United States Government fisheries managers and international centres of excellence in Germany, Canada, Brazil and Ireland?

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Minister has the call.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: I think I missed Obama's call yesterday.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I thank the Premier for the thought that Mr Obama has been on the phone to the member.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oatley and the Premier will come to order. The Minister has the call. She does not need any assistance.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: There is a little mirth and festivity on the Government benches as the Premier wonders whether the American President has been on the phone to the member for Kogarah. The member has asked a fair question. It is important that members opposite understand that some other significant research centres in New South Wales are undertaking important fisheries work. If they got out of Sydney every now and then and visited the coast they might understand. Recently I was in Coffs Harbour with the member for Coffs Harbour, who is a terrific member of Parliament. He took me around the marine science institute, which is run in conjunction with Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour. As we went around I met researchers, fisheries researchers, all sorts of people involved with the marine and fisheries industry in New South Wales.

Mr John Robertson: You probably had lunch down on the wharf.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: No, I did not have lunch on the wharf. I met one researcher who said that he had travelled from Europe to work in Coffs Harbour because of the standard of that facility. It is 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6069

state of the art, it is out of this world, it is fantastic, and it is attracting international researchers to that centre. I also went to the jetty and met fisheries officers and other public servants working there who think that Coffs Harbour is a wonderful centre. I also had an extensive look at the Port Stephens fisheries research centre.

Mr John Robertson: Was it you who painted the breakwall?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I travelled by car.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I compliment the member for Port Stephens because his electorate has been extremely hospitable about this entire proposal. That fisheries research centre is so advanced that they have bred the endangered southern blue fin tuna up to adolescent stage, which is an incredible feat. The hatcheries and the standards in that Port Stephens facility are second to none. All the equipment that is currently being used in Cronulla is easily transportable. As I said, members opposite should look beyond Sydney. We know that Labor loves to centralise things. The Labor Government centralised the health system and education. We are here to say that the whole of New South Wales counts. In addition, it is important to reflect on previous relocation data and what it means for the State. The relocation will not only be a good thing for fisheries management and local communities. It is expected that for every relocated employee there will be 2.14 flow-on jobs created in the other locations.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toongabbie will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The regionalisation of New South Wales fisheries has the potential to create well in excess of 200 additional jobs in the centres at Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens and Nowra. As I said, the Port Stephens fisheries research centre is already a world-class facility, and we expect it to become even more highly regarded. Members can be assured that supposed concerns about water quality at that site are totally unfounded. I have inspected the site; excellent filtration is used there. The centre houses one of three Australian Government hatcheries. I have talked about the southern blue fin tuna.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: That species has three sensitive larval stages requiring the highest water quality and environmental conditions.

Ms Linda Burney: We give up.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the second time.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The member for Canterbury should give up. She should have given up long ago, but I will continue because I believe in this project. Scientists are also rearing a range of mollusc species in what is arguably one of the most successful mollusc hatcheries in Australia. There would be no better marine facilities with the scope and flexibility for research in aquaculture production anywhere in New South Wales or Australia than Port Stephens. As I said, there are excellent facilities at the North Coast Marine Science Centre at Coffs Harbour. All the technology, equipment and research undertaken at Cronulla is completely transferable and will travel to the new locations as required.

Ms Noreen Hay: What about Cronulla?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The member for Wollongong asks about Cronulla. A working group has been established to assist with the staff relocation program.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will come to order.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Very generous relocation entitlements are available to staff. As I mentioned earlier in question time, the transition process will take 12 to 18 months.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: The debate will be over before then.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The debate could be well and truly over. 6070 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I reinforce the importance of this move to regional New South Wales. [Time expired.]

MENTAL HEALTH MONTH

Mr MARK COURE: My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Minister for Western New South Wales. On the launch of Mental Health Month today, how is the Government tackling the problems faced by those living with mental illness?

Mr Nathan Rees: Where's the mirror?

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Toongabbie to order.

Ms Linda Burney: Mirror, mirror on the wall.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The Minister has the call.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: I will not comment on the three ugly sisters.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: It would bring seven years of bad luck. I thank the member for Oatley for the commitment he has shown to improving the lives of people with mental illness and mental problems in his electorate. As I am sure the member can testify, we have a significant amount of work ahead of us after 16 years of mismanagement by members opposite. After 16 years the people of New South Wales now have a Government with a clear vision to improve the lives of those who have been touched by mental illness. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals were elected in March with a strong commitment to make the delivery of quality mental health services a high priority. This was in stark contrast to members opposite whose approach to mental health lacked strategy, focus and commitment. Like so many other areas, when it came to mental health the previous Labor Government promised the world but delivered close to nothing. They concerned themselves with crisis management while ignoring the huge flaws in the system.

Let me be clear: The failings of members opposite when it came to mental health mean that the state of mental health services and delivery in New South Wales reached a critical position. They threw money at mental health but failed to track where it went. This money went into fixing the other gaping holes in their failing health system. As the Premier has made perfectly clear, we will deliver on every one of our election commitments. The New South Wales Government was elected with a clear mandate for change and reform— change aimed at improving customer services and experiences across all public services. Prior to the election the Coalition committed to the establishment of a New South Wales mental health commission to drive reform, quarantine the mental health budget, ensure resources are appropriately allocated and to be a champion for mental health.

We will deliver world best practice standards for mental health delivery and outcomes in New South Wales. Through our record investment in mental health services in the 2011-12 budget and our commitment to establishing the commission, we are well on our way to achieving this. Earlier today I was pleased to be invited by the Mental Health Association to officially launch Mental Health Month in Parliament House and to present the Mental Health Matters Awards, which recognise the achievements of individuals and organisations across the community. New South Wales is lucky to have such committed, hardworking professionals, and the Government appreciates the work they all do in supporting people in our community with mental illness.

I particularly acknowledge the Mental Health Association and the services it provides to reduce the stigma of mental illness. Today’s event is one of many taking place across New South Wales during October. Throughout this month there are interactive events across New South Wales. By encouraging the community to join together and participate in events such as this we are collectively making a bold declaration to reduce the stigma around mental illness and resolve to improve our support and care for those who are affected by mental illness. We know that we need partners in these efforts as the issues we face reach across government and non-government sectors. A mental health commission will provide the structure to support strong leadership and independent advice for the Government and mental health services. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6071

The Mental Health Task Force has been working hard to build a model for a commission that meets the needs of New South Wales, and I am grateful to the task force and the broad community for their valuable contributions. The task force has been talking to people throughout the State, gaining an understanding of the problems and how we can support those who suffered under the weight of the previous Government's failures. Over 2,000 people have contributed through forums in the City of Sydney and Penrith, but also, importantly, in regional areas such as Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour and Nowra—parts of this great State long forgotten by those opposite. In addition, online surveys capture the views of those who could not make it.

People affected by mental illness have been actively involved in the discussions with the Consumer Advisory Group and the Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill, accessing its network of over 1,000 consumers and carers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have generously given of their time. We have heard strong messages about the importance of a strategic mental health commission with a role in driving reform across this State, enforcing accountability and consulting widely with consumers, carers and stakeholders to ensure that the mental health budget is used specifically for mental health. We are now working hard to develop a bill to establish the commission, and I look forward to bringing it before this House in the very near future.

TAFE EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Will the Minister guarantee that no TAFE employee will have their salary or conditions of employment reduced as a result of his proposed changes to TAFE employment arrangements?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: You wonder whether those opposite do any research before they ask those sorts of questions. But can I say from the outset, "Hallelujah, praise the Lord, they've finally taken an interest in TAFE." Admittedly it is a stupid question, but nonetheless it reveals an interest in TAFE. A few weeks ago we saw the protest out the back of Parliament House by TAFE teachers, schoolteachers and others. And where were our friends in the Labor Party? They were lurking about in The Domain, but no speakers on stage. John Robertson did not get up on stage. He has that little monologue in the back of his head from the work experience guy in Sussex Street. What is his name? Sam Dastyari. Does he not look like the work experience guy?

Mr Nathan Rees: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: He has forgotten to go back to school.

Mr Nathan Rees: It relates to Standing Order 129, relevance.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. What is the member's point of order?

Mr Nathan Rees: This is not an audition for the prospective vacancy caused when Mr Stoner goes to Canberra. Just answer the question—yes or no.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The question is about TAFE. The Leader of the Opposition did not get up on the stage because Labor's polling says, "Don't look like a union thug". He is doing a terrible job of it. Look at him. "Don't look like a union thug"—remember that is what the polling says. Did those opposite get up? No, they did not. As the Premier has said, when lunchtime came they forgot about the union—forgot about the workers, it is lunchtime—and they all piled into the diningroom. I have a list of what was ordered for lunch. Given that time is limited—

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already asked the Minister to return to the leave of the question.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: It is important to give some background about the hypocrisy of this question given Labor members' lack of interest in TAFE. 6072 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: All I will say is that for dessert the member for Heffron ordered the sour grapes.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question or resume his seat.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I refer to the press release issued by the Opposition spokesperson for education yesterday. It says in part, "This is the latest assault on public sector workers from a Premier who is leaving New South Wales workers at"—this is the key bit—"the mercy of a dog-eat-dog industrial relations system". She is referring to Fair Work Australia. Who established Fair Work Australia? It was Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Anthony Albanese.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: And Anthony Albanese. Is that consistent with what the member for Marrickville has always said about Fair Work Australia? Not really. I refer members to the Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2009 introduced by the previous Government. In debate on that bill the member said:

The Fair Work Act restored fairness and balance to the national system. The Fair Work Act and its associated legislation were the result of extensive consultation between the Commonwealth Government, business, unions, and State and Territory governments … extensive discussions have taken place between the governments about how to shape a new national system— that TAFE teachers will come under—

that will be fair, balanced and enduring.

That is not a dog-eat-dog industrial relations system, as the member for Marrickville said yesterday. She continued:

I am satisfied that the Commonwealth laws now include a range of measures that will ameliorate the transitional difficulties that some commentators have associated with the award modernisation process.

First, employers and employees affected by this referral will, by and large, retain their State award entitlements for at least one year.

That is exactly what we put in the new legislation, which goes to the heart of the question about conditions and salaries. I said yesterday—perhaps the member was not listening—that core provisions with respect to salaries and working conditions will be rolled over into new agreements. So there is nothing to fear.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: You did not say that; you are misleading the House.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I think I have said it on about three occasions.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Marrickville will come to order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I think I have said it on about three occasions.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Marrickville will come to order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: The Government is committed to a very strong and effective TAFE, and that is exactly what we will deliver. [Time expired.]

HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr GREG APLIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the Government doing to help to cut red tape and stimulate the home building industry in New South Wales?

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I thank the member for Albury for his question. In fact, I had the honour of visiting Albury last week as part of a memorandum-of-understanding signing with the Victorian Government to protect consumers from travelling conmen—and when I talk about travelling conmen I am not talking about Kevin Rudd. These travelling conmen do not travel the world first class. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6073

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toongabbie will come to order.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The member for Toongabbie has interrupted me. I have to say that he is looking well. He has obviously been put out to pasture; he has been out there training. He is looking sharp. I love the tie—it is good—and the new hairstyle.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Black Caviar.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The Black Caviar—and rightly so—of the Opposition. Whenever I am putting a bet on I always ask the member for the Hawkesbury. Ray, how is he looking?

Mr Ray Williams: Mate, odds on and shortening all the time.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question. Government members will cease their unruly behaviour.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Put a hundred on for me, mate.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I am sorry. Again, those opposite interrupt and I digress.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: That memorandum of understanding would not have been possible without the member—

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member's point of order?

Ms Linda Burney: It refers to Standing Order 129, relevance.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the Minister to return to the leave of the question.

Ms Linda Burney: He is canvassing your ruling, as did the last speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will resume her seat.

Ms Linda Burney: You might think you are funny but it is ridiculous the way you are carrying on.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the third time.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: A scratching if ever I saw one.

The SPEAKER: Order! I called the member for Canterbury to order for the third time for ignoring my request for her to resume her seat. I had asked the Minister to return to the leave of the question. He had barely said two words, which was not enough for me to judge whether he had done so. The Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: With pleasure, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Albury for all his great work. A healthy building sector is a key component of a stronger New South Wales economy that delivers jobs and opportunities. Jobs for apprentices, work for trades people, opportunities for small businesses and homes for New South Wales residents. Since becoming the Minister for Fair Trading, I have been holding discussions with stakeholders in the building industry to gain a solid understanding of what is happening in their industry. It is a great and important industry in New South Wales. I hate having to inform the House that the news has not all been good. Time and time again I have been told of the urgent need for reform by sole traders and small business people, the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. They have told me that we need to slash red tape, make consumer protections more consistent and enhance dispute resolution procedures. Their concerns are borne out by statistics. 6074 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The legacy of Opposition members is that home building activity has fallen as demand for housing continues to rise. The legacy of Opposition members is that home building activity has been contracting more rapidly than other building work. Indeed, home building as a percentage of total New South Wales building activity has been in decline since 2004: Access Economics reports an 18-year low in 2010. All the while, more and more homes are required. Indeed, the demand for housing is failing to meet supply. As part of this Government's strategy to make New South Wales number one again, tomorrow I will introduce legislation to amend the Home Building Act to remove unnecessary red tape and stimulate the critical house-building sector.

Government members: Hear, hear!

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: That is right—as Opposition members focus on themselves, we are getting on with the job of freeing up money that is tied up in unproductive bank guarantees related to home warranty insurance.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mount Druitt will come to order.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: We are ensuring that money goes back to small business people and to the tradies who need it. We are getting on with the job of slashing paperwork, which adds cost to building work but does not provide protection for consumers. There will no longer be a requirement to sign a 36-page written contract for building work that is valued at less than $5,000. We are getting on with increasing the threshold of home warranty insurance.

Mr GREG APLIN: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I presume the member for Albury is seeking additional information. The Minister will have an additional two minutes to provide it.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: To save money and cut red tape on small projects, we are getting on with increasing the threshold at which home warranty insurance is required. We are getting on with formally opening up Fair Trading's effective and cost-efficient dispute resolution process for trader-initiated disputes. To provide certainty and clarity for consumers and builders, the Government is getting on with halving the excess for home warranty insurance claims and providing a single definition of when work is complete. We are getting on with ensuring that builders and developers, not subcontractors, are fully responsible for compensating consumers when things go wrong. The legislation I will introduce is an initial step in arresting decline in the New South Wales home building industry. After 16 years of inaction by Opposition members, it is important for this Government to get on and do what we can as soon as we can. People's livelihoods depend on it, home owners and prospective home owners depend on it, and there will be more to come.

Government members: Hooray!

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Further reform is necessary.

Government members: Hooray!

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: That is unparliamentary behaviour.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would describe it differently. It was quite loud, but it is not unparliamentary behaviour.

Ms Cherie Burton: It is a point of order.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kogarah is questioning members' behaviour, which I do not regard as unparliamentary.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: It is clear that this Government will deliver for the home building industry in New South Wales. We will deliver for consumers, for tradies, for small business people, for home owners and for prospective home owners. [Time expired.]

Mrs Barbara Perry: Point of order: I appreciate that the Minister's time has expired, but it is worthwhile taking the point of order because we had this discussion some time ago on a point of order that relates to a member or a Minister— 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6075

Mr Brad Hazzard: What is your point of order?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will be quiet so that I can hear the point of order.

Mrs Barbara Perry: My point of order relates to inciting interjections. That has happened a number of times. Madam Speaker, on the last occasion we discussed this, you indicated to me that the standing orders and rulings had not changed. I ask you to clarify that ruling.

The SPEAKER: Order! Previous rulings relate to inciting interjections, but not standing orders. At all times when members interject I draw their attention to their behaviour. Members were interjecting on this occasion and I certainly drew that to the attention of Government members and Opposition members. Several times during today's question time I asked Government members to come to order.

PRIVATE VEHICLE SALES ON PUBLIC ROADS

Ms CLOVER MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. What action will the Government take in relation to the serious problem of backpackers turning Victoria Street, Potts Point into a car sales yard and camp site, which has serious impacts on this densely populated urban area?

Mr DONALD PAGE: I warn members that my answer will contrast markedly with those given by the two previous local government Ministers.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Toongabbie to order for the second time.

Mr DONALD PAGE: First, I thank the member for Sydney for her question and acknowledge her keen interest in local government matters as well as her interest in this particular issue. I am advised that the City of Sydney council has spent considerable funds and used significant resources to address the problem outlined by the member for Sydney. Although it seemed initially that councils have sufficient powers to act in the circumstances outlined by the member for Sydney, the processes involved make the task very challenging. I believe that clarification of councils' powers is required.

Last month I met with community representatives from Potts Point to hear about their frustrations over the number of tourists who are using residents' on-street parking spaces as basic camping grounds, living in parked vans until they can sell them, and using residents' bins and taps. Understandably local residents are upset because that prevents them from accessing local parking and makes it extremely difficult for delivery vans to park while they service local businesses. I spoke with residents and business owners and witnessed firsthand the issues they are facing. The issue appears to be a unique problem. Potts Point has become known in the backpacker community throughout the world as a site for selling vans. There was once a local car park from which backpackers could sell their vehicles, but unfortunately that facility was removed three years ago.

Unlike the previous Government, this Government is listening to the local community. This Government supports giving the City of Sydney council power to erect signs prohibiting the roadside parking of vehicles for the purpose of sale. However, it is important to note that any action taken by our Government will not impact on everyday mum and dad car sellers, who happen to park their car in a street outside their home or elsewhere. This Government also supports tourism. That is why any action taken by our Government will take into account the needs of tourists while they are holidaying in New South Wales. This Government wants to strike a balance between solving the problems facing residents and encouraging and supporting our tourism industry. That is why any action the Government takes will complement the City of Sydney's decision to reinstate a section of a local car park as a designated park-and-sell point for backpacker vehicles.

The provision of an alternative park-and-sell location is important to our Government. In this year's budget, the Government increased funding for tourism to $45 million to develop and promote tourism in Sydney and across the State. It is interesting that previous Labor Ministers for Local Government failed to listen to the concerns of Sydney residents who have been crying out for action on this issue. It is clear to me that the residents are very distressed about this problem, which has become steadily worse in the three years since the car park formerly used to park and sell the campervans closed. This Government has listened to the residents of Sydney and the member for Sydney and supports moves that will assist them in their plight. The Government will also assist backpackers by providing a safe and appropriate selling location in a local car park as an alternative to parking in the street. I thank the member for Sydney for her question. 6076 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

NATIONAL PARKS FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION

Mr JAI ROWELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. What action has the Government taken to keep the community safe from bushfires in our national parks?

Ms ROBYN PARKER: The member for Wollondilly understands very well the importance of taking precautions because of the bushland that surrounds his electorate, particularly this season when there is a heightened expectation of bushfires due to the incredible amount of rain we had during winter. We know those opposite get caught up in putting out their own political fires, but members on this side are focused on protecting communities. Opposition members are focused on themselves; but this Government is getting on with making New South Wales number one again. With approximately 9 per cent of the State covered by national parks, or approximately seven million hectares, fire management is an important and vital tool. New South Wales must be prepared for the bushfire season. In recognition of this, and in response to the recent fires in Victoria and Western Australia, I have announced a $62.5 million package to fight bushfires.

The O'Farrell Government will bolster its firefighting response to enable it to tackle fires faster and more effectively, double hazard reduction burning in bushfire prone areas—67,000 hectares to at least 130,000 hectares a year in priority and high-risk areas, have six new dedicated rapid response firefighting teams that can be dropped into difficult or remote areas to put out fires immediately, have dedicated remote area firefighting teams on alert in fire-prone areas with the most experienced firefighters in the country on hand, and have two additional helicopters in the most fire-prone areas of New South Wales. In addition, in its budget the O'Farrell Government announced 90 new front-line firefighters, 70 of whom will be based in regional centres. The overriding objective of fire management is to safeguard human life and property, and we must be prepared.

Last financial year burning was thwarted by very wet weather. For example, rainfall during spring 2010 was the highest on record for New South Wales, and summer had the fifth highest rainfall on record. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has scheduled more than 800 hazard reduction burns, treating more than 135,000 hectares of parks and reserves during 2011-12. Implementation will be subject to conducive weather conditions. As at the end of September 2011, 76 burns have been conducted and since 1 July more than 17,000 hectares have been treated, much more than all other land managers combined. This clearly demonstrates the commitment that national parks is making to undertaking strategic hazard reduction burning when weather conditions are appropriate to do so both safely and effectively.

Communities living on the edge of bushland can rest assured this new approach will place us even further at the forefront of bushfire safety. The University of Wollongong Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bush Fires projects that by 2050 Sydney and the Blue Mountains are likely to experience 24 per cent more bushfires than they could cover and as much as 35 per cent more area. I am pleased with this package that provides an opportunity to do what we can. We know that everyone must be prepared in the coming season. I congratulate all volunteer firefighters and front-line workers who put their lives on the line for the safety of the community. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, the burning ambition of the member for Toongabbie for his job will not be extinguished by this program.

Question time concluded at 3.13 p.m.

PETITIONS

The Speaker announced that the following petition signed by more than 10,000 persons was lodged for presentation:

Confucius Classrooms

Petition praying that "Confucius Classrooms" be removed from schools and be replaced by an Australian-run organisation, received from Dr Geoff Lee.

Discussion on petition set down as an order of the day for a future day. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6077

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Underground Cables

Petition requesting urgent implementation of an achievable plan to put aerial cables underground, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Walsh Bay Precinct Public Transport

Petition requesting improved bus services for the Walsh Bay precinct, and ferry services for the new wharf at pier 2/3, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Animals Performing in Circuses

Petition requesting a ban on exotic animals performing in circuses, received from Ms Clover Moore.

The Clerk announced that the following petition signed by more than 500 persons was lodged for presentation:

Belmont Baths

Petition requesting the upgrade and restoration of Belmont Baths, received from Mr Garry Edwards.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Carbon Tax

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [3.17 p.m.]: Earlier I gave notice—

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: The member for Hawkesbury should seek the call to get the call. The member for Hawkesbury did not seek the call.

The SPEAKER: Order! Notice was given earlier of the two motions for which priority would be sought. It is time for those who seek to have those motions debated to give reasons as to why their motion should be accorded priority.

Mr John Robertson: He still has to seek the call.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have made my decision. The member for Hawkesbury has the call.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: No wonder he got a gig in Parliament. He must have been a bastard of an electrician. Fair dinkum, mate, unbelievable. I seek priority for the following motion:

That this House condemns the Federal Government for its broken promise on carbon tax that will hurt New South Wales families and businesses.

If ever a debate needs to be accorded priority it is this debate in this Chamber today. My priority condemns the most deceitful and irresponsible Federal Government in the history of this great country that today has inflicted upon the people of this nation the most regressive and debilitating tax imaginable. This tax will force the closure of businesses, unnecessarily increase the cost of living for families and reduce our competitive edge in the global and domestic economy. This tax will fail to achieve the one thing for which it was intended, that is, to change the climate.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The member for Hawkesbury will be heard in silence. 6078 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I will come back to the interjections of the Leader of the Opposition very shortly. I became a member of Parliament 4½ years ago, and under the stewardship of Premier Barry O'Farrell I have had the greatest pleasure in addressing the issues that need to be addressed on behalf of the people of New South Wales.

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: The member should be trying to establish urgency, not speaking to the substantive motion. I ask Mr Deputy-Speaker to bring the member for Hawkesbury back to urgency.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Hawkesbury will continue with his contribution.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I welcome my fellow colleagues in this Chamber who were elected by the people of New South Wales to deliver the policy initiatives and commitments outlined by the Coalition and not to impose hardship on the people they purport to represent. Today an historic piece of legislation passed through the Australian Parliament that has brought great shame—

Mr Ryan Park: Point of order: The member for Hawkesbury is yet to establish the urgency of his motion. Given the Coalition has no control over the carbon price—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Keira will resume his seat.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: This motion should be accorded property so that we can stand up on behalf of the hardworking people in the electorate of the member for Keira. I am talking about the steelworkers and the other hardworking people of Wollongong who will suffer job losses because of this regressive carbon tax. I will be more than happy to stand up on their behalf.

Mr John Robertson: You wouldn't know what a steelworker looks like.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I was a steelworker, cobber. That is why I have a boilermaker's ticket and a welder's ticket.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Hawkesbury will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: This motion should be accorded priority because we should debate this regressive tax and also acknowledge the absence from the Chamber of a couple of members. Where is the member for Wollongong? Where is the member for Kogarah? We can excuse the member for Maroubra, who is probably at a middle managers' convention. Why are they not here? I will address that issue during debate on my motion. It will be interesting to see whether they come into the Chamber to vote or slink away to their offices. If there were a free breakfast at the Table of Knowledge they would be there in a blink of an eye, but they are not here today to stand up against the carbon tax on behalf of their communities.

Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [3.22 p.m.]: This motion deserves to be accorded priority because the O'Farrell Government says it was elected to restore power to the people not to bulldoze over them. It was the Coalition that pledged that public petitions bearing at least 10,000 signatures would be debated and acted upon. On 1 March Barry O'Farrell declared with great fanfare, "I want to put people back at the centre of decision-making in New South Wales and allow them to contribute directly to the parliamentary agenda." Direct democracy was in vogue during the election campaign, but the day after the election the new Premier's soft, cuddly mask was gone only to reveal the big bad wolf. The Premier bulldozed over the petition lodged by 15,000 public sector workers who were outraged by this Government's attack on their wages and conditions. He stomped all over the desperate calls for a 24-hour rescue helicopter at Orange.

A headline in the Forbes Advocate of 15 September said it all: "30,000 people ignored". I am sure the member for Orange read that. This Governments dabbling with direct democracy was exposed as a fraud long before it decided to do something fishy in Cronulla. Yesterday, workers at the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre were the latest to fall victim to this Government. We have witnessed the cruel hoax that was supposed to be direct democracy. The workers mobilised and got 19,000 people to sign a petition begging the Government to reverse its decision to close the centre. Did the Minister for Primary Industries even look as though she would 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6079

take any notice? No, she did not even have the decency to take a second glance at a petition that put people front and centre. There was no mercy for the 147 workers at the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre. The Minister could not wait to get on 2UE with her self-satisfied smile and to patronise the people of Cronulla. She called their petition—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition appears to be quoting from the speech he made yesterday. Standing Order 70 states:

A Member may only refer to or quote from a debate or proceeding of the current session in either House or newspaper report of such debate or proceeding if the reference or quotation is brief and:

1. Relevant to the matter under discussion …

The Leader of the Opposition's contribution has not been relevant; in fact, we have been subjected to tedious repetition, which is in breach of Standing Order 59.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I will hear more from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: These 147 workers, who are some of our most brilliant marine scientists, cannot simply pack up and move. They have relied upon the members for Cronulla, Heathcote, Miranda and Oatley to argue their case. My motion provides them with a second opportunity to do the right thing. Because they are new to this place they probably did not realise what was happening yesterday. They could have voted—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules. If he wishes to speak outside the leave of the motion he can redraft it. As it stands, it refers specifically to the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre and a petition; it makes no reference to individual members. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak about an individual member, he can move another motion, but not at this time.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The Leader of the House obviously wants to save those members from the embarrassment of voting against these workers again. This motion should be accorded priority because it will allow them to set the record straight and to admit that they got it wrong yesterday because they did not realise they were voting against their constituents.

Question—That the motion of the member for Hawkesbury be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 63

Mr Anderson Mr Fraser Mr Rowell Mr Annesley Mr Gee Mrs Sage Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Sidoti Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Mr Grant Mr Smith Mr Barilaro Mr Hartcher Mr Souris Mr Bassett Mr Hazzard Mr Speakman Mr Baumann Ms Hodgkinson Mr Spence Ms Berejiklian Mr Holstein Mr Stokes Mr Brookes Mr Humphries Mr Stoner Mr Casuscelli Mr Issa Mr Toole Mr Conolly Mr Kean Mr Torbay Mr Constance Dr Lee Ms Upton Mr Cornwell Mr Notley-Smith Mr Ward Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Mr Webber Mrs Davies Mr Owen Mr R. C. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Doyle Ms Parker Mr Edwards Mr Patterson Mr Elliott Mr Provest Tellers, Mr Evans Mr Roberts Mr Maguire Mr Flowers Mr Rohan Mr J. D. Williams 6080 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Noes, 20

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Rees Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Robertson Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Tebbutt Ms Hay Ms Moore Mr Zangari Ms Hornery Mr Parker Tellers, Ms Keneally Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Piper Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr O'Farrell Mr Furolo Mr Perrottet Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

CARBON TAX

Motion Accorded Priority

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.36 p.m.]: I appreciate the support of my colleagues in this historic debate.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I honestly believe we need to have this debate today. It is a debate about something that we must acknowledge will seriously increase the cost of living for New South Wales families.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind the member for Canterbury that she is on three calls to order.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The member for Canterbury obviously does not want to acknowledge the families in her electorate who are going to suffer as a result of the imposition of a carbon tax.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: I understand that the member has to move the motion, but he has not yet done so.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask the member for Hawkesbury to read the motion.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I move:

That this House condemns the Federal Government for its broken promise on carbon tax, which will hurt New South Wales families and businesses.

I am happy to debate this issue today with my colleagues who were elected at the last election, such as the member for Wollondilly and the member for Orange, who are hardworking people who stood up on behalf of their communities to support policies and initiatives that were put forward by the Opposition at that time and which we have put in place on behalf of the people of New South Wales. Those include reducing payroll tax, implementing public transport initiatives such as the north and south-west rail lines, and reducing the cost of travelling on trains—initiatives that will reduce the cost of living for New South Wales families.

Looking around the Chamber today, I see there are 69 members of the Government and a rump of an Opposition, which today throughout question time had only 15 members. Most of them could not be bothered to be here. There are only 20 Opposition members at the best of times, but today there were only 15. It will be interesting to see how many vote on behalf of the people of New South Wales condemning their Labor 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6081

colleagues in the Federal Government who have imposed this regressive tax. Many eminent people—scientists and economic experts—have spoken in relation to the damage that this tax will do. I will quote some comments and see what people in this Chamber think:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore.

And:

There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

It would be hard to find anyone who would argue with those comments. But who made those comments? I happily inform the House that the former Australian Labor Party Federal Minister for the Environment, Penny Wong, made those comments some time ago. I will take this opportunity to read onto the record some other comments made by Penny Wong as examples of the deception the people of this country are facing under the Federal Government. Penny Wong is quoted as saying:

A carbon tax is a less efficient way in the Australian Government's view of dealing with this issue.

She also said:

Unfortunately a carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people would think.

She further said:

Know that you can't have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax.

How extraordinary. Penny Wong was charged with the environment portfolio. She, as a Federal Australian Labor Party member of Parliament, will be given the opportunity to back up those comments when the vote is taken in the Senate. That vote may be tonight or tomorrow, but I am guessing the debate is probably being held in the Senate now. Unfortunately, the former Minister for the Environment has said today:

I think it's a historic day for the country and certainly a great achievement for the government and particularly the Prime Minister who has managed to get a minority government to get through a reform that we all know is in the national interest.

She is displaying the same double standards as those of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has publicly stated his support for a carbon tax, but he has told caucus that he will never mention a carbon tax. I wonder how that message was leaked out to the community.

Mr Kevin Conolly: Nathan can tell you.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: Nathan might be able to tell us how it was leaked to the media. Nathan is busy. He is the Black Caviar of the Opposition at the moment. His price is shortening every day in his quest for the leadership. We will not cast aspersions by suggesting that he leaked that information to the media, but it got out there somehow. The Leader of the Opposition and every Australian Labor Party member knows exactly what poison a carbon tax will be. But what are the Federal members really focusing on? Are they focusing on the best interests of the people of Australia? They are obviously focusing on the carbon tax. But what are they focusing on most? I was amazed to read today on page 3 of the Daily Telegraph that they are worried about their superannuation when they lose their jobs.

They are not going to get their pay-off day because members of Parliament no longer get pensions. Someone once asked me if I was disappointed that I would not get a pension when I retired from Parliament. I told them that I did not enter Parliament to retire. I entered Parliament to work hard on behalf of my electorate and the people of New South Wales to deliver outcomes, and that is what I shall continue to do. Like all government members, I will continue to fight hard to keep the cost of living down in this State, but it will be increasingly difficult now that a carbon tax is to be implemented in this country. It is no wonder that Australian Labor Party members are worried about their superannuation because the carbon tax will cost them their jobs.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [3.43 p.m.]: Yogi Berra, a very famous baseball player, is reported as having said:

It's tough to make predictions especially about the future.

6082 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

He also said:

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.

That applies to Tony Abbott's poorly enunciated policy on carbon, which will clearly be dangerous. Yogi Berra also said:

You can observe a lot by just watching.

Not one of the six million people who live in New South Wales has bothered to watch this debate, but this issue will be rehashed over and over in this place even though this Parliament has no legislative control over carbon pricing. Opinion in this place will not shift as those opposite are locked into the Abbott policy, which they hope one day will win them government federally. If it does win them government, it will be at the cost of the future welfare of Australia—we will all pay. Those opposite will do whatever they can to avoid discussing State issues like the Government's difficulties in providing services in the face of its planned extensive cuts to the public service. For that reason I move an amendment to the motion as follows:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

"this House:

(1) notes that this will be the ninth time a Government member has proposed the Federal Government's carbon price as a motion accorded priority;

(2) calls on the State Government to debate issues for which it has responsibility;

(3) condemns the State Government for alleging job losses under a carbon price, when on the same day it stood by the closure of Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, which will result in workers being sacked; and

(4) calls on the State Government to show the same courage the Federal Government is showing and back the members for Cronulla, Miranda, Menai, Oatley and Heathcote and stop the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre."

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: I question, through the Clerks, whether the amendment is relevant to the motion I moved. I suggest a couple of sections of that amendment should be removed.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Following the advice I have received from the Clerks, I will accept the amendments.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: The issue of climate change must be addressed. The majority of opinion worldwide is that the most sensible and economic way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon. The member for Hawkesbury was pleased to speak about himself. We need to hear from him in reply whether he believes in climate change. I am sure he is able to say so. The pricing of carbon is not well understood. One of the main reasons for that is the deliberate ploy by those opposite to muddy the water. As Bernard Keane has written on the Crikey website:

The noteworthy feature of the current "debate" over the employment and cost-of-living impacts of a carbon price is that we appear to have reached a standard in public discourse where the truth, or consistency, aren't preferred positions anymore; that something happens to be true or logically coherent or consistent isn't especially relevant, certainly not more so than whether it sounds clear, has "cut-through" ... or perhaps it's not so much the case that we've abandoned the idea that truth is important, as that we've adjusted our standards about truth. My facts are now as good as your facts, regardless of whether they are indeed correct.

The Federal Coalition campaign has been successful. Many local businesses in the area think it will hurt them yet the reality is that for those people who earn less than $60,000 per year the rebate will be greater than any cost to a person's personal budget. The greatest tragedy of this situation is that global warming is real, despite the lunatic ravings of the Monckton's of this world. There are three phases of truth, be it immunisation, evolution or global warming. The first is ridicule, the second is forceful opposition, such as we are seeing today, and the third is that truth becomes accepted as fact, as it will over the next few years with regard to both the need for carbon pricing and the truth about global warming. While we may not agree about climate change, we need to hear from every member opposite about whether he or she believes in climate change. Many members opposite apparently do not and they should tell us that they do not.

Mr Greg Smith: Can you put your hand on your heart and say all on your side believe that?

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: I note the Attorney General's interjection. Perhaps he can now tell us whether he believes in climate change—or evolution, for that matter. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6083

Change stated that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal and that there is high confidence that the increase in global temperatures since the mid twentieth century is due to human activity. It is well known in the health profession that climate change is the greatest threat to world health over the next 50 years. In the past 150 years the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 13 years. We need to do something about climate change, and carbon pricing is the way to go. [Time expired.]

Mr TIM OWEN (Newcastle) [3.50 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion that this House opposes the Gillard Government's carbon tax, which will hurt New South Wales tremendously. Speaking of truthful, at the 2010 Federal election the Prime Minister said, "There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead." Shamefully, the bill was passed by 76 votes to 74 in the House of Representatives today. Today we have extremely uncertain economic times worldwide. There is a risk of another devastating recession around the world, jobs for ordinary Australians are at risk, the Australian dollar is high and other countries are shoring up their economic base and reducing taxation to assist their people through these uncertain times.

What does the Gillard Government do? It brings in an additional tax which will make us even more uncompetitive worldwide and which will have zero effect on world climate change. It will be particularly difficult for the Hunter and the Illawarra regions—I am proud to represent the Hunter today—which will be most adversely affected by the carbon tax. Let me state some facts. As I have said previously in this House, a New South Wales Treasury review found that this great State of New South Wales would be hit harder by the carbon tax than any other mainland State, and the Hunter region will suffer the most. The review found also that the carbon tax will cost New South Wales at least 31,000 jobs—I stress that figure of 31,000—and cost the economy $3.7 billion. Further, Treasury estimates that 7,000 fewer jobs will be created in the Illawarra as a result of the carbon tax—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting across the Chamber.

Mr TIM OWEN: —and a further 1,000 jobs will be lost in the central west of New South Wales. The Hunter region, which generates 20 per cent of the State's income, will be the worst hit. The carbon tax will cost about 18,500 jobs in the constituency I represent. It will reduce New South Wales mining industry growth to about 60 per cent of what it would have been without the tax. Prices are expected to rise by about 15 per cent under a carbon tax. Further, dividends from the State's electricity generators will be slashed by about $45 million this financial year, rising to $290 million in 2014-15. State government agencies will face power hikes of up to $71 million a year. These figures are truly frightening. They are frightening for the people of the Hunter, the Illawarra and the central west and for other communities across New South Wales. These areas need more jobs, not a crippling tax that will push up the unemployment rate and do nothing whatsoever to address climate change.

The Federal Government will tax people to death and then try to resurrect them by giving the money back. It is ridiculous. It does not and will not change behaviour. This begs the question: What do the Labor members representing the electorates of Wallsend, Cessnock, Wollongong, Shellharbour and Keira think about the carbon tax? Do they support it? I do not hear anything. A great number of their constituents will be directly and adversely affected by a carbon tax. Are they appalled or outraged? It does not appear so. Did those members lobby their leader and their Federal counterparts to stop the tax? No, they did not. They have done nothing. They are sitting back idle and silent, not saying a word, hoping it will all go away and that they will not be held to account by the people they represent. This Government is standing up for the people of New South Wales.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [3.55 p.m.]: I am gobsmacked that this is the ninth occasion on which the Coalition Government has moved the same or a similar motion on an issue over which it has absolutely no control, which does not come under the governance or the sphere of this State and on which we can no longer, or could never, have an impact. This is possibly the fourth or fifth time I have spoken on the same issue. I refer to the recent comments made by the member for Newcastle. One thing will certainly happen in the Hunter: There will be a shortage of workforce. Be it a Labor government or a Coalition government, mining companies have already factored in the effects of a carbon tax. Both sides of politics agree that we need to reduce our emissions at the Federal level. That is a fact.

The Labor position has been to reduce emissions by addressing the 500 biggest emitting companies in the country. No member of this House will pay the carbon tax unless he or she owns an incredibly large industry as a side job. The 500 largest companies will pay the tax. The net result of the Coalition's position on reducing emissions is that each and every taxpaying citizen in this country will need to find $700 to $800 to cover the 6084 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

emissions scheme. Under the Federal Government's carbon tax, the 500 biggest companies will pay the tax and compensation will be handed to the community to cover the increase in costs, which is estimated at $9.90 per week. People will be compensated for that so they have money in their hands to account for the tax. Paragraph (2) of the amendment states:

calls on the State Government to debate issues which it has responsibility for;

I would add "with honesty". Let us not forget the dishonest presentation of figures—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Is that a further amendment?

Mr CLAYTON BARR: No. Let us not forget the dishonest presentation of figures by the Premier about the impact of the carbon tax on public transport. He suggested that the carbon tax will lead to an increase of $150 per year. The actual figures suggest that it will lead to an increase of $15 per year. That is a 1,000 per cent price gouge of dishonesty. Those figures did not come from Treasury; they came from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Clearly, the economic credentials of the Department of Premier and Cabinet exceed those of Treasury, hence the comments come directly from that department. That is a 1,000 per cent increase on the Treasury estimate. Paragraph (3) of the amendment states:

condemns this State Government for alleging job losses under a carbon price, when on the same day it stood by the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre …

We have 15,000 signatures on a petition opposing the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre. That issue is directly governed by this State, yet the Government refuses to debate it. Meanwhile, this is the ninth occasion that we have debated an issue which has already passed through the halls of Canberra and which cannot be affected by this Chamber. So let us not get caught up in the Halloween of what has been presented here by those opposite. Let us talk about exactly what is going to happen. Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre workers who lose their jobs will be paid some sort of incentive to pick up their families, move out of the area they know, to go to a new place. Not everyone wants to do that. If everyone wanted to do that they would be taking up the regional relocation grant and clearly they are not. It is a ridiculous motion.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.00 p.m.], in reply: To respond to the comment as to why would the New South Wales Government be addressing the imposition of an insidious carbon tax, I believe it is fully within the realm of our responsibility to stand up on behalf of the taxpayers of New South Wales.

Mr Clayton Barr: Nine times.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: If it takes nine times or 90 times or 900 times, we will send a message to the Federal Government and to the Australian people that we will not tolerate for one moment a burdensome tax that is going to increase the cost of living of the people of New South Wales. The member for Cessnock said there are only going to be slight increases in the cost of public transport. These are increases that the people, especially across western Sydney, cannot afford. They told us that clearly in the Penrith by-election, when Stuart Ayres was elected. The elderly people in that area were choosing between heating and eating. That was the first time we heard that comment. When people are making those sorts of choices they are being impacted by the cost of living and that is exactly what this carbon tax is going to do.

Mr Clayton Barr: It is $750 a year and that is your fault.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: It has been estimated that at least 31,000 jobs may be lost across New South Wales.

Mr Clayton Barr: May be.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: This is the Treasury analysis—and it will deliver a $3.7 billion annual hit to the State's economy. This is from a Treasury review. It will also force up the cost of electricity prices.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The members for Cessnock, Macquarie Fields and Mount Druitt, and the Attorney General have had the opportunity to take part in the debate. They will listen to the member for Hawkesbury in silence.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: It will force up the cost of electricity enormously for families. It may go up as much as $500 a year, but businesses will pay almost an additional $1,000 a year. That is the point that needs to be made. An electricity price increase for families is bad enough but we need to look at the compounding effect of the price of electricity to businesses, because every consumable that a family has to purchase is impacted by 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6085

an increase in electricity. It does not matter whether they are going to Woolworths or Coles or whether they are going to get petrol or meat—every business that supplies those consumables to the New South Wales taxpayers will increase those costs incrementally as they are affected. The only way they will continue to survive in this current economic climate is to increase their costs by the cost of the carbon tax on those businesses. They have no choice. If they do not increase them, they will go broke. That is the problem.

That is when we get back to the economy of big companies like BlueScope Steel. The only way they will meet the cost of the carbon tax is to sack workers. They have already said that. Workers in Newcastle, as the member for Newcastle has already stated, and workers in Wollongong, in areas such as Port Kembla, are going to be enormously impacted by the imposition of a carbon tax. Under Labor's carbon tax the average household will see its electricity bills increase by between $240 and $300 in 2012 and 2013. This is almost immediate. They are the prices that will be incurred in each and every household. The two million people across western Sydney—and a million people are employed in western Sydney—are going to be faced with an incredible impact because of the imposition of the carbon tax on those businesses. They will be looking how to reduce the cost straightaway and that will come through a reduction in the workforce.

It angers and upsets me greatly that we can be such a responsible Government, bringing forward the initiatives we already have, reducing payroll tax, implementing public transport initiatives, improving roads and improving the health of people, but all of a sudden a lot of that good work will be undone because a carbon tax is going to be brought in by a very irresponsible and deceptive Federal Government. The Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson, has stated quite fairly for the record that he thinks there is a general view that everybody wants some certainty around the price of carbon, and, from where he sits looking at gas as a transitory fuel, we need a price on carbon to make gas competitive. Now he is out there happily supporting the gas industry. He is trying to make us more competitive at the expense of the coal industry which is going to cost so many thousand jobs in New South Wales.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 61

Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Rowell Mr Annesley Ms Gibbons Mrs Sage Mr Aplin Ms Goward Mr Sidoti Mr Ayres Mr Grant Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Barilaro Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Bassett Mr Holstein Mr Speakman Mr Baumann Mr Issa Mr Spence Ms Berejiklian Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Casuscelli Dr Lee Mr Stoner Mr Conolly Mr Notley-Smith Mr Toole Mr Constance Mr O'Dea Mr Torbay Mr Cornwell Mr O'Farrell Ms Upton Mr Coure Mr Owen Mr Ward Mrs Davies Mr Page Mr Webber Mr Doyle Ms Parker Mr R. C. Williams Mr Edwards Mr Patterson Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mr Piccoli Mr Evans Mr Provest Tellers, Mr Flowers Mr Roberts Mr Maguire Mr Fraser Mr Rohan Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 20

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Rees Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Robertson Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Tebbutt Ms Hay Ms Moore Mr Zangari Ms Hornery Mr Parker Tellers, Ms Keneally Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Piper Mr Park 6086 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Hazzard Mr Furolo Mr Perrottet Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

Ayes, 61

Mr Anderson Mr Fraser Mr Rowell Mr Annesley Mr Gee Mrs Sage Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Sidoti Mr Ayres Ms Goward Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Mr Grant Mr Smith Mr Barilaro Mr Hartcher Mr Souris Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Speakman Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Spence Ms Berejiklian Mr Issa Mr Stokes Mr Brookes Mr Kean Mr Stoner Mr Casuscelli Dr Lee Mr Toole Mr Conolly Mr Notley-Smith Mr Torbay Mr Constance Mr O'Dea Ms Upton Mr Cornwell Mr O'Farrell Mr Ward Mr Coure Mr Owen Mr Webber Mrs Davies Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Doyle Ms Parker Mrs Williams Mr Edwards Mr Patterson Mr Elliott Mr Provest Tellers, Mr Evans Mr Roberts Mr Maguire Mr Flowers Mr Rohan Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 20

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Rees Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Robertson Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Tebbutt Ms Hay Ms Moore Mr Zangari Ms Hornery Mr Parker Tellers, Ms Keneally Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Piper Mr Park

Pairs

Mr Bromhead Mr Daley Mr Hazzard Mr Furolo Mr Perrottet Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6087

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Donald Page.

Agreement in Principle

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [4.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill 2011. The bill fulfils the Government's ongoing commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in local government. The Government and the local government sector both agree that there is a need to reshape the structure, governance and financing arrangements, functions and capacity of the local government sector. This agreement was unanimously endorsed recently, at the historic Destination 2036 conference attended by the leaders of all 152 local councils in the State. The proposals in this bill contribute to creating favourable conditions for councils to engage in structural reform to achieve a strong and sustainable local government sector now and in the future.

The proposals cover a range of matters including provisions to reduce the period of the employment protections provisions for council staff following amalgamation of councils, return to councils their body corporate status, introduce caretaker provisions to regulate council decision-making before ordinary elections, make changes to the system of vote counting in local government elections, extend the maximum term of the lease or licence of community land from 21 years to 30 years, clarify provisions relating to pecuniary interest and simplify pecuniary interest exemptions in relation to the adoption of standard local environmental plans. I turn now to the detail of the Local Government Act amendments. The first proposal is designed to address concerns expressed by councils that provisions in the current Act represent a disincentive for councils to engage in structural reform through voluntary amalgamations and other shared services arrangements.

The present employment protection provisions in the Act effectively prohibit councils from changing or appropriately adjusting their staff structures for a period of three years when staff transfers occur as a result of an amalgamation or boundary alteration. The bill proposes the reduction in that period from three years to one year. Historically, the old Local Government Act 1919 in section 20C prescribed a three-year period for employment protections for council staff who were transferred. However, under the less prescriptive 1993 Local Government Act a broader approach was taken. The second reading speech of 27 November 1992 explained that the provisions for the division of assets and liabilities after council areas had been altered, with a consequent transfer of staff, were not continued. The then Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Gerry Peacocke, noted:

In future such matters will be left for the relevant councils to negotiate according to modern management principles. Agreements reached on assets, liabilities and staff will be able to be given binding legal effect by proclamations, if desired.

As a result, section 20C of the old 1919 Act was not re-enacted in the 1993 Act. Instead, provision was made for a proclamation of the Governor for the purposes of constituting areas to make such provisions as are necessary and convenient for the transfer of staff under section 213. This section clearly leaves considerable power for the Minister to direct the reallocation of resources, including employees, following the constitution of a local government area. This legislative regime had been operating successfully for 10 years until 2004, when the then Labor Government amended the Act to insert a new part 6 into Chapter 11, entitled "Arrangements for council staff affected by the constitution, amalgamation or alteration of council areas."

The amendments in part 6 prohibit councils from changing their staff structures when staff transfers occur as a result of an amalgamation or boundary alteration. In particular, section 354F prohibits councils from reducing their staff numbers for a period of three years. The employment provisions apply to all affected non-senior staff of a council. Since the insertion of part 6 into the Act, those councils that underwent amalgamations expressed concerns that achieving any form of savings proved to be difficult because they were forced to carry the workforce of two or more councils without any extra resources. More recently, councils expressed concern that the employment provisions in part 6 represent a disincentive for councils to engage in local government structural reform through voluntary amalgamations and other shared services arrangements.

It is considered that the employment protection provisions in the current Act are overly prescriptive. It is further considered that the provisions represent a departure from modern management principles and limit a council's ability to determine its organisational structure in accordance with its workforce management plan, 6088 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

section 403 (2) of the Act, which forms an integral part of the new integrated planning and reporting framework for councils. Also, the provisions provide council employees with a level of employment protection not afforded to employees in other industries. Finally, the power to ensure the protections listed in part 6, chapter 11, already lies with the Minister by virtue of section 213 of the Act. That section gives the Minister the power to make provision for the transfer of employees by proclamation. The bill addresses all of the abovementioned concerns by reducing the period of employment protection provisions from three years to one year.

The second proposal in the bill will return to councils their legal status as bodies corporate. The proposal was requested by the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW [LGSA] as part of their "NSW Election Priorities 2011" document. By way of background, the Local Government Act was amended by the Local Government Amendment (Legal Status) Act 2008 in November 2008. The effect of the amendment was that the legal status of general purpose and county councils changed from a body corporate to a body politic of the State. The amendment was necessary to address the uncertainty as to whether local councils met the definition of a constitutional corporation, which is a financial or trading corporation, within the meaning of section 51 (xx) of the Australian Constitution. That definition relies on the sources of income for each individual council and whether that income is the result of trading activity or from other forms of revenue.

The established approach of courts and tribunals was that questions of this nature are issues of fact, so that whether a particular council was a constitutional corporation or otherwise would be contingent upon the particular activities of that council. This uncertainty was made more acute by the operation of the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act 1996 as amended by the WorkChoices legislation. The issue for local councils and their employees was therefore a question of whether they were in the Commonwealth or New South Wales industrial relations systems. The amendment removed the uncertainty by changing the legal status of general purpose councils and county councils in section 220 of the Act from a body corporate to a body politic of the State with the legal capacity and powers of an individual. This amendment ensured that councils could not be characterised as constitutional corporations for the purposes of section 51 (xx) of the Australian Constitution and therefore could not be regarded as employers for the purpose of the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. The amendment also ensured that local government employees stayed within the New South Wales industrial relations system.

In late 2009 the Federal Government made significant changes to its industrial relations laws. As a result, the Fair Work Act 2009 was enacted. Following negotiations between the State and Federal governments in relation to the industrial coverage of private and public sector employees, the Federal Government recognised that certain entities are integral to State, Territory or local government administration and agreed that the employment relationships of these entities may be appropriately regulated by States and Territories. Accordingly, the Fair Work Act provides that a State may declare that particular bodies that are established either for a public purpose or for a local government purpose that might otherwise be caught by the national system are not national system employers. Any such declaration, however, is only effective if endorsed by the Commonwealth Minister. In December 2009 all councils in New South Wales and a number of specified council-formed entities were declared as non-national system employers for the purpose of the Fair Work Act. The effect of the declaration of exclusion is that all councils are covered by the New South Wales industrial relations jurisdiction.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposal was requested by the Local Government and Shires Associations. The associations were of the view that the status of councils as a body politic of the State negatively impacted on certain councils activities. For example, according to the associations, councils experienced difficulty in obtaining Federal funding for trainees and apprentices because the funding was available only to corporations and not to individuals. The associations also assert that councils reported being excluded from tendering for construction work on Australian Government funded projects because they did not have a Federal industrial instrument. The associations also stated that they had received legal advice identifying potential problems for councils in relation to taxation arising from the different treatment of corporations and individuals under Federal taxation law.

They noted that, notwithstanding the fact that councils are currently characterised as bodies politic of the State, they are nonetheless bound by some of the general protection provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009. The present position of the Local Government and Shires Associations is that in light of the express exclusion of local government from the Commonwealth industrial relations system by the Commonwealth legislation, the legal status of councils can now be restored to bodies corporate without impacting upon whether councils belong to the State or the Federal industrial relations system. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act to provide that councils are bodies corporate. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6089

The third proposal in the bill will amend the Act to enable regulations to be made that prevent councils from making major or controversial decisions during an election period that would bind an incoming council. The Act does not provide for nor compel councils in New South Wales to observe a caretaker convention. Prior to each local government election in 2004 and 2008, the Division of Local Government issued a circular to councils advising them that they were expected to assume a caretaker role during election periods as an accepted practice of responsible government and should exercise due caution in making major policy decisions, such as those relating to contracts, major policy decisions. While councils are not expected to consider and comply with circulars issued by the Division of Local Government and to ensure that major decisions were not made that would limit the actions of an incoming council, in the weeks leading up to the 2004 and 2008 ordinary elections the division received strong expressions of concern from the community regarding some councils' actions.

It is proposed to amend the Act to introduce a regulation-making power to list those matters that should not be determined by councils during a caretaker period that would commence three weeks before their ordinary elections every four years. Those matters will include the following: entering into a contract that exceeds a certain value, for example, $150,000 or 1 per cent of the council's revenue from rates in the preceding financial year, whichever is greater; making major decisions such as the employment of a permanent general manager or the determination of controversial or significant developments; publishing electoral matter unless it only contains information about the electoral process. The proposed amendments will ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making during election periods and improve community confidence in councils.

The fourth proposal in the bill will change the Act to make the voting system in a contested election optional preferential where one councillor is to be elected and proportional representation where two or more councillors are to be elected. The existing system for counting votes in a contested election of a councillor or councillors is dependent on the number of councillors to be elected. The optional preferential system is used if the number of councillors to be elected is one or two under section 285. The proportional representation system is used if the number to be elected is three or more. The system for election of a popularly elected mayor is optional preferential under section 284. Of the councils that are now divided into wards, 10 have fewer than three councillors per ward—all 10 having two councillors per ward. This means that two voting systems apply in New South Wales for the election of councillors in multi-vacancy electorates.

The proportional representation system applies to 142 councils while the optional preferential system applies to the remaining 10. To be elected under the optional preferential system, a candidate requires a majority—that is, 50 per cent plus one—of the formal votes in the count. The method of counting votes under the optional preferential system is set out in schedule 4 to the Local Government (General) Regulation. Under the proportional representation system, candidates need to obtain a quota to be elected. The quota is determined by dividing the total number of preference votes by one more than the number of candidates to be elected and increasing the quotient by one. The method of counting votes under the proportional representation system is set out in schedule 5 to the Local Government (General) Regulation.

The proportional representation system is used for the New South Wales Legislative Council and the Australian Senate. The optional preferential system is used for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and the Australian House of Representatives. The use of the optional preferential system in multi-vacancy elections in conjunction with group voting is generally viewed as being unfair. For example, where the number one candidate on a group ticket receives an absolute majority and is elected, following distribution of preferences the number two candidate on that group ticket is invariably elected at the expense of candidates who may have received a significant number of the first-preference votes. The proportional representation system is generally acknowledged as the fairest system for use in multi-vacancy electorates in that each section of the community receives representations according to its electoral strength.

Using the proportional representation system, the majority rules, but substantial minorities are still represented in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. In addition, the proposal ensures consistency in systems for counting of votes across all council areas. This proposal was included in the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2008, which was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 4 April 2008. At that time this proposal was supported by members of the Coalition in both Houses of Parliament. However, a number of amendments unrelated to this proposal were made to the bill in the Legislative Council. The amendments were unacceptable for the former Government and the bill was subsequently withdrawn. This bill will amend the Act to make the voting system in a contested election optional preferential where only one councillor is to be elected, instead of one or two councillors, and proportional representation where two or more councillors are to be elected, instead of three or more councillors. 6090 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The fifth proposal in the bill will extend from 21 years to 30 years the maximum period for which a council may grant a lease or licence in respect of community land. I note that the member for Lake Macquarie, Mr Greg Piper, is in the Chamber and I acknowledge that he was the member who drew this matter to my attention and I thank him for his positive contribution in that regard. The Local Government Act 1993 requires all public land held by councils to be classified as either operational or community land. Operational land generally includes land occupied by council offices, works depots, many car parks and so on, being mainly land used by the council in the practical provision of local government services within its area. Community land includes parks, playgrounds and other land, formerly identified as public reserves and drainage reserves, being land intended to be preserved and used to meet the recreational, cultural, health, social, welfare and similar needs of the community or for the general enjoyment of the public.

The Act prohibits the sale or exchange of community land. It puts in place a system for the control and management of community land by councils and provides for public participation in that management process. The current maximum period under the Act for which councils can grant a lease or licence over community land is 21 years. The Act recognises the need for leases or licences of community land to be granted for public purposes on a privately operated commercial basis in appropriate circumstances and subject to compliance with the tendering provisions—section 46A. Eleven councils in the Hunter area, represented by Hunter Councils Incorporated, expressed concern that, particularly for leases of community land for commercial purposes, a longer period of up to 30 years is desirable. In support of its proposal, Hunter Councils Incorporated submitted that:

The proposed amendment will facilitate access to loans with an industry standard 30 year timeframe while at the same time preserving accounting and reporting regimes that ensure that councils are paying due regard to aspects of probity and assessment.

The Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales also support the proposal. It is considered that the extended term of lease may strengthen the commerciality of a leaseholder by giving a longer period to amortise a loan and therefore provide them with improved circumstances in sourcing loan options. It is also considered that, from a council perspective, a 30-year lease or licence may allow a greater period of amortisation for capital expenditure. This, in turn, may encourage councils to maximise their capital expenditure on community land.

The bill provides that a council may apply to the Minister for approval to grant a lease, licence or other estate in community land for a period from 21 to 30 years, subject to the Minister being satisfied that the council has, first, met all requirements applicable to the granting of leases or licences over community land for a term not exceeding 21 years, that is, public consultation, consideration of submissions and other matters; and, secondly, demonstrated that special circumstances exist to grant such approval. The matters that may constitute special circumstances would include the need to secure finance or the need to have a longer period of the lease to receive a return on capital expenditure on the part of a proposed leaseholder, or other matters.

The sixth proposal in the bill seeks to address inconsistencies regarding the circumstances in which the civic office of a councillor can be declared vacant. Currently, the Act prescribes that a vacancy occurs when a councillor is absent from three consecutive ordinary council meetings without the prior leave of the council. However, a further provision of the Act prescribes that a vacancy does not occur if a councillor's absence is a result of being suspended from civic office by the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal for a pecuniary interest breach under section 482. Section 482A of the Act relating to suspensions imposed by the tribunal for misbehaviour does not provide for a similar exemption—and I stress "misbehaviour".

To ensure consistency, the bill proposes to amend the Act to provide that where a councillor's absence from three consecutive ordinary meetings is caused by suspension for misbehaviour, the councillor's civic office does not become vacant. Without this amendment, a councillor who is suspended for misbehaviour and misses three consecutive meetings would automatically lose his or her seat and a by-election would be necessary unless the suspension occurred 18 months prior to a general election. The seventh proposal in the bill is aimed at clarifying the exemptions in the Act relating to disclosure of pecuniary or non-pecuniary conflicts of interest.

The Act provides that councillors and designated persons must disclose their pecuniary interests in any matter before council. However, section 448 of the Act contains a number of exemptions to that requirement. For example, a councillor does not need to disclose his or her interest as an elector, a ratepayer or member of a club unless that councillor is an office holder and has other interests. An example is when a councillor is a 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6091

member of a club that has a multimillion dollar development application before the council. As a member of the club, the councillor could rely on section 448(e) of the Act and not disclose the interest insofar as it constitutes a pecuniary interest.

Under the current Act, it is possible that in addition to using section 448 to not disclose their pecuniary interest, a councillor could also rely on it to not disclose a conflict of non-pecuniary interests. This has never been intended. In the interests of open and transparent governance, these types of interests should be disclosed and managed in accordance with the provisions of the model code of conduct, which is prescribed under the Act. To correct this unintended consequence, this proposal will put it beyond doubt that section 448 exemptions may only be invoked by councillors where councillors have pecuniary interests.

The final proposal in the bill will greatly assist councils in implementing their area-wide standardised local environmental plans. Members would be aware that amendments to planning legislation introduced in 2006 required all councils to implement a standardised local environmental plan for their local government areas in accordance with the standard instrument under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Many councillors in New South Wales have a pecuniary interest in terms of the Local Government Act in the preparation of a standardised instrument local environmental plan for their local government areas. A councillor's pecuniary interest in a matter is defined in the Act as not only the pecuniary interests of the councillor but also the pecuniary interests of related persons, such as a spouse, de facto partner, relatives and employer.

The Act requires a councillor or member of a council committee, such as a staff member, to declare orally a pecuniary interest arising in a matter before a meeting of the council or committee and to not be present at the meeting at any time when the matter is being considered, discussed or voted on. This, in turn, leads to many councils being unable to form or maintain a quorum to discuss and vote on their standard instrument local environmental plans. As at 31 July 2011, 126 of the 152 general purpose councils in New South Wales have yet to have their standardised instrument local environmental plans made. The Act recognises that in certain circumstances the interests of the electors of a local government area prevail over the requirement for councillors with pecuniary interests to leave the room and not even remain in sight of the meeting.

This is reflected in section 458 of the Act, which authorises the Minister for Local Government to allow a councillor or a member of a council committee to participate in discussion or vote on a matter before the council or committee despite having a pecuniary interest in the matter. However, in order to grant such a dispensation, the Minister must be satisfied that either the council cannot form a quorum without the dispensation, or that it is in the public interest of the electors for the area that the dispensation be granted. In every case there must be a separate application by each councillor that precisely identifies that councillor's pecuniary interest or interests in the matter. The need to obtain such dispensations is causing significant delays to the implementation of standardised instrument local environmental plans across NSW.

Pecuniary interests may arise and be identified at the outset of the implementation process, but they may also arise and be identified during the course of the process, for example, by reason of a proposed amendment to a draft standardised instrument local environmental plan. In each case, where the pecuniary interests of the councillors are such that the council is unable to form or maintain a quorum, the process may not be commenced or continued until new applications have been prepared and dispensations granted. For the above reasons, this final proposal in the bill will allow councillors to be present and take part in a meeting and vote on a matter in which they have a pecuniary interest if the matter relates to the making, amending or altering of a local environmental plan that applies to either an entire local government area or a significant part of it.

A level of transparency and accountability will be retained by requiring councillors to disclose an interest in the local environmental plan where one exists. To this end, the bill proposes that the regulations be amended to prescribe a form and content of disclosure by councillors. The usual penalties for a failure to disclose such an interest will apply. In closing, I reinforce that the Government looks forward to local councils embracing these changes to the Act to continue the improvements in delivering quality services to their communities in a sustainable manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ryan Park and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 6092 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [4.51 p.m.]: I support the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I congratulate the Government on its proactive and positive approach to these financial matters, which were overlooked by Labor for far too long. The approach of this Government compared with the lacklustre approach of those opposite is stark.

Mr Jai Rowell: They do not care.

Mr ANDREW GEE: They do not care. To illustrate the point I draw the attention of the House to an incident that occurred in the Central West a couple of weeks ago.

Dr Geoff Lee: A very good member.

Mr ANDREW GEE: I can inform the member for Parramatta that there was a big game sighting in the Central West only a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Lee Evans: What was it?

Mr ANDREW GEE: Members may well ask what it was. Was it a Penrith Panther? No, it was not a Penrith Panther. Was it a Mount Druitt mauler? No, it was not a Mount Druitt mauler. It was none other than a Toongabbie tiger. Yes, the Toongabbie tiger was stalking the streets of Bathurst a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Jai Rowell: What was he hunting?

Mr ANDREW GEE: I will tell members in a moment what he was hunting. I know he was there because I was watching the local news bulletin and a piece came on about the Light on the Hill speech at Bathurst.

Mr Jai Rowell: You mean the fog on the hill.

Mr ANDREW GEE: I will get to that as well. I was having a quiet cup of tea at home whilst I was watching the news and whose face panned onto the screen? It was the face of the member for Toongabbie; the member for Cessnock was there as well. I was very concerned by what I saw because the member for Toongabbie had a very long face, his head was down and he looked sad.

Mr Jai Rowell: He hasn't got the numbers yet.

Mr ANDREW GEE: No, he does not have the numbers yet. But I did not know why he was sad. The member for Cessnock had his head back and his eyes were rolling backwards. I was concerned and perplexed by this. At first I thought the problem may have been the quality of the Light on the Hill speech that they were listening to. Then I thought it could have been that they were listening to the speech in a safe Nationals seat, or it may have been a case of the post Bundy blues. It must be difficult for those opposite to deal with the end of the Bundy era and to have a great new member for Bathurst taking over with the commencement of "Toole time".

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: For the last three minutes we have heard frivolous comments about Opposition members and stories from western New South Wales—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr Richard Amery: None of those matters are in the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill now before the House. I ask that the member be brought back to the leave of the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I accept the point of order. The member for Orange will return to the leave of the bill. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6093

Mr ANDREW GEE: It is great to sight the Mount Druitt mauler in the House again. Before getting to the point, I point out that with respect to the BC-AD era debate in Bathurst the present era is now known as PBE—post Bundy era.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Orange will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr ANDREW GEE: The fog had rolled in. That was why their faces were so long. That highlights the fact that those on this side are committed to making the reforms this State needs. The bill provides amendments to the Duties Act relating to concessions and exemptions that deal with duty on superannuation transactions in the first two provisions. Members opposite may sit and cry, but they had plenty of opportunity to address these issues; they chose not to.

Dr Geoff Lee: They failed.

Mr ANDREW GEE: They failed. While the current concession provides for a transfer of property from a life company to a trustee, it does not provide for a reverse transaction: a transfer of property to a life company of a trustee of a complying superannuation fund in connection with members changing funds. In those circumstances the costs of stamp duty are prohibitive under the current legislation. By extending the concessions of this type of transaction these amendments grant stamp duty concessions on the transfer of property between a life company and a complying superannuation fund, which in turns enables funds to take advantage of the Commonwealth concession.

Under the current legislation a transfer of members between funds arising from a merger of superannuation funds may result in a liability to landholder duty if there is an acquisition of a significant interest in the company or unit trust that holds land. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill provides consistency with transfer duty concessions by providing for a concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest in a landholder that results from members ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund and becoming entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund. The Government is lifting the fog that was enveloping those poor members who were listening to the Light on the Hill speech in Bathurst only a few weeks ago.

Mr Jai Rowell: The fog has lifted and there is still only one member on the other side.

Mr ANDREW GEE: As the member for Wollondilly points out, there is only one member on the other side enveloped in fog at the moment. The second stamp duties amendment removes the barrier to special disability trusts established under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 being established in New South Wales. Special disability trusts are generally set up by families to provide for the care and accommodation needs of a family member with a severe disability. Currently in New South Wales special disability trusts set up under the Commonwealth Social Security Act have exemption from duties on the establishment of a trust or for property transfers to the trust.

The bill removes an obstacle to the establishment of special disability trusts set up under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The fog on the hill is definitely lifting. The bill also makes amendments with respect to first home owner grants. Under the current legislation the liability to repay the grant and any penalty is backed by a charge on the land, which entitles the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to lodge a caveat on title. As such, this provision ranks the office of State revenue behind the interests of the mortgagee or any other holder of an interest that is registered prior to lodgement of any caveat lodged by State Revenue. As a result, often insufficient funds are available upon the sale of a property, including sale by mortgagee in possession, for the Office of State Revenue to recover the debt.

In other words, the security of the Office of State Revenue is not as strong as it should be and that places the State's revenues at risk. All of these issues could have been addressed by the previous Government but they were not. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government is committed to best practices in dealing with the State's finances on behalf of the people of New South Wales. The changes to this Act are long overdue. The fog has enveloped the member for Keira and those on the benches opposite, but those on this side are committed to lifting the fog for the people of New South Wales and for better government in this State.

Dr GEOFF LEE (Parramatta) [4.59 p.m.]: I support the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which contains a number of amendments to the legislation administered by the Office of State Revenue, including stamp duty on superannuation property transfers and recovery of first home owner grant payments. 6094 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

The bill contains a number of different amendments, which I will briefly outline. The bill amends the Duties Act 1997 to extend the duty concession for transfers of marketable securities in connection with persons changing superannuation funds to include transfers between a life company or custodian for a life company and the trustee of a complying superannuation fund or custodian for that trustee. It provides for a concession duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest in a landholder that results from persons ceasing to become entitled to the benefits in one complying superannuation fund and becoming entitled to the benefits in another complying superannuation fund.

The bill provides an exemption from duty on establishment of a special disability trust under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlement Act and on the transfer of property to those trusts. The bill also amends the First Home Owners Grant Act 2000 to provide that a first home owner grant recipient's liability to repay the grant and penalty, following the recipient's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the grant, is a first charge on the land. I note the wonderful efforts of the member for Vaucluse and the member for Orange. Their contributions were eloquent, comprehensive and well informed, especially when the member for Orange recounted the recent sightings of the Toongabbie tiger—the member for Toongabbie—in Bathurst.

Rather than recap their contributions, I will talk about some important things and explain why this legislation is important. I will deal with the specific amendments relating to superannuation. It is all about a Liberal-Nationals Government aligning good legislation, good policy and fiscal responsibility to preserve superannuation benefits and make it more efficient for those who require superannuation benefits later in life. It aligns the legislation to changes in socio-demographic characteristics; that is reflected in the amendments. Nowadays people are retiring later in life. The average retirement age is increasing as we move forward. The average age of retirement for males is 67 years. People are living longer. Recent statistics on life expectancy showed an average of 79 years for males and 83.5 years for females. If people retire at age 65 or 67 they must fund their retirement through superannuation for about 20 years. That is an important change.

It is important to preserve superannuation so that it provides annuity payments to enable people to have the lifestyle they deserve in their twilight or golden years. Perhaps their families have left home and they want to enjoy life when they retire. The problem is compounded by the ageing population. The baby boomers bubble means that more people are moving into retirement, which puts increasing pressure on the State and Australia to look after its citizens in retirement and to ensure that the superannuation investment of self-funded retirees is maintained, preserved and able to grow as fast as possible. One aspect of superannuation, as people involved in the industry would understand, is the need for compound growth. Despite all these things, people tend not to have enough superannuation today. This legislation seeks to help improve the efficiency of financial markets, particularly in terms of superannuation investments. The Treasurer made the best conclusion when he said:

The duties concession for persons changing complying superannuation funds will be extended to apply to transfers of marketable securities from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund to a life company.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [5.05 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I am pleased that members opposite support the bill. The New South Wales Government is committed to having best practice revenue laws. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 makes important amendments to the Duties Act 1997 to ensure that the legislation is current and consistent with best practice tax administration. The bill also amends the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to improve one aspect of the administration of the First Home Owner Grant scheme. The changes to concessions and rebates were announced in the 2011-12 budget. Between 20 May 2004 and 16 June 2011 a duty concession was available to first home builders who entered into a contract to purchase vacant land. The concession does not apply to contracts entered into after 16 June 2011.

The bill amends the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to provide that a first home owner grant recipient's liability to repay the grant and penalty, following the recipient's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements for a grant, is a first change on the land. The bill amends the Duties Act, with the first two provisions dealing with duty on superannuation transactions. The duties concession for persons changing complying superannuation funds will be extended to apply to transfers of marketable securities from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund to a life company. While the current concession allows for transfers of property from a life company to the trustee, it does not allow a reverse transaction, which is a transfer of property to a life company from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund in connection with members changing funds.

The bill provides for a concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest in a landholder that results from persons ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund and becoming 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6095

entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund. The bill provides for the establishment of special disability trusts, which are established by a family to provide for the care and accommodation needs of a family member with a disability. It is a great move. The Government is committed to these changes going forward. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [5.10 p.m.]: I speak on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The objects of this bill are as follows:

(a) to amend the Duties Act 1997:

(i) to extend the duty concession for transfers of property, and to provide for a new concession, in connection with persons changing superannuation funds, and

(ii) to provide for an exemption from duty in relation to special disability trusts under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 of the Commonwealth, and

(iii) for law revision purposes,

(b) to amend the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to make further provision in relation to the recovery of certain amounts required to be paid under that Act.

The Opposition does not oppose the amendments. The First Home Owner Grant Scheme was introduced to assist young couples and individuals seeking to enter the housing market. As we all know both anecdotally and from empirical evidence, the housing market in New South Wales is very competitive. Young people and families who are looking to enter the market may face considerable financial hurdles to achieve this goal. The First Home Owner Grant Scheme was introduced to help. Eligible individuals were offered the grant upon the purchase of their first home as long as they did not use it for commercial purposes in the initial six months. In other words, the person or family buying the home would have to live there for the first six months and not, for example, rent it out.

Unfortunately, not all recipients of the First Home Owner Grant have fulfilled the eligibility requirements and the property in question has not been used as the principal place of residence as is required. This amendment will improve the capacity of the Office of State Revenue to reclaim grants made to recipients who subsequently turn out to be ineligible. Presently any debt owed to the Office of State Revenue ranks behind the interest of the mortgagee or any other holder of an interest that is registered prior to the lodgement of any caveat. The amendment provides that once a caveat lodged by the Chief Commissioner of Revenue in respect of the home is recorded in the register kept under the Real Property Act 1990, the charge has priority over all other encumbrances except land tax.

As I said earlier, the First Home Owner Grant Scheme was brought in in good faith to help those seeking to buy their first home and quite possibly raise a family. It was not brought in for ineligible people to abuse. The amendments in this bill will protect the overall funds that are available for first home buyers, at the same time taking away the incentive for applicants to misrepresent themselves upon application for the grant. The ownership of your first home is a great milestone in any person's life. The New South Wales Opposition remains committed to helping those who need assistance in achieving their dream.

Other matters included in this bill are changes to the duty concessions available to complying superannuation funds which aim to remove a duty anomaly in the superannuation system. This amendment provides for payment of duty at the concessional rate of $500, or the ad valorem rate if lower, on a transfer of marketable securities from the trustee of a complying superannuation fund to a life company. Presently the duty concessions operate only in one direction, from life companies to trustees, on movement of interests in assets such as property and vice versa.

The resulting consistency in duty concessions across the superannuation system is in line with the Commonwealth Government's strategy of encouraging choice of funds for members and increasing competition for quality advice. This bill also aims to extend duty exemptions to special disability trusts established under the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986. This will remove any anomaly existing under the current system. Trusts in this system will now face the same treatment and duty of $50, for transferring property, the same as those established under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991. The Opposition supports the amendments.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [5.13 p.m.]: This Government is committed to ensuring our legislation is current and consistent with best practice tax administration. This bill will extend the existing duty concession for transfers of marketable securities in connection with persons changing superannuation funds to 6096 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

include transfers between a life company or custodian for a life company and the trustee of a complying superannuation fund or custodian for the trustee. It will provide for concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest of a landholder that results from persons ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund and becoming entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund.

The bill will also provide an exemption from duty on the establishment of a special disability trust under the Commonwealth Veteran Entitlements Act and on the transfer of property to these trusts. The bill will also cover the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 and provide that a First Home Owner Grant recipient's liability to repay the grant and penalty following the recipient's failure to satisfy eligibility requirements for the grant is a first charge on the land. The current concession allows transfers of a property from a lifetime superannuation fund to a company. While the current concession allows for transfers of property from a lifetime company to the trustee, it does not allow a reverse transaction, which is a transfer of a property to a lifetime company from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund in connection with members changing funds.

The stamp duty cost associated with this is prohibitive in the absence of a concession. The extension of the concession will enable funds to take advantage of the Commonwealth concession. A transfer of members between funds arising from a merger of superannuation funds may result in a liability to landholder duty if there is an acquisition of a significant interest in a company. The bill will provide consistency and provide a concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest in a landholder that results from members ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund and becoming entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund.

The bill will also remove the impediment of disability trusts in New South Wales. Disability trusts are established by families of people living with a severe disability. There are currently two Acts under which a disability trust can be established: the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991 and the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Duties exemptions currently apply to only the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991 and by extending the duties exemptions to special disability trusts established under the Veterans' Entitlements Act our Government is removing this deterrent to allow families to provide for their family members' future. The bill will also amend the First Home Owner Grant to improve recovery of grants that are required to be repaid. The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue will now be able to lodge a caveat against the title. This will help ensure recovery of funds.

The Office of State Revenue will be able to register a first charge against a property to repay the grant and any penalty imposed. This is consistent with every other State and Territory. The bill will ensure that a grant recipient is liable to repay the grant and any penalty if they have not met requirements for the grant. When the Treasurer introduced this bill to the House he highlighted this Government's commitment to having best practice revenue laws. It is clear that this Coalition Government is committed to implementing best practice in all that it does. Laws are a reflection of what the society in which we live call for, for us to live together in a community. Our Government intends to evolve continually to ensure laws are always improving to give the people of New South Wales what they need and want. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAI ROWELL (Wollondilly) [5.17 p.m.]: The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to amend the Duties Act 1997 and the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. This bill is an important step for New South Wales. The bill responds to issues raised by industry in respect of stamp duty on superannuation property transfers. The bill removes constraints to persons changing superannuation funds by extending the concession for merger of superannuation funds to transfers of marketable securities to a life company. While the current concession allows transfers of property from a life company to a complying superannuation fund it does not allow a reverse transaction, that is, a transfer of property to a life company from a complying superannuation fund in connection with a person changing funds. The bill removes the constraints to persons who have, in many cases, spent a lifetime contributing to their superannuation. It is a bill that will benefit individuals of this State and is yet another example that this Government will govern for all of New South Wales.

It would be fair to say that legislation designed to help remove constraints to people changing superannuation funds is sound policy. Superannuation, as we all know, is a concern for many Australians: plumbers, small business owners, corporate workers and individuals—regardless of their occupation—strive to invest in their future through both compulsory and voluntary superannuation payments. Our superannuation is there to sustain us once our working lives have tapered off to full or semi-retirement. So to make amendments that will remove the constraints of this is an important measure. Amendments that work toward allowing individuals greater control of their superannuation funds promote greater financial independence in retirement. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6097

That will mean a higher percentage of individuals will not be reliant on government to support their retirement through welfare or assistance programs. The bill also provides a new concessional duty of $500 on acquisitions of interests by landholders that are made in connection with a merger of superannuation funds.

The bill will extend the existing concession for transfer of marketable securities in connection with persons changing superannuation funds to include transfers between a life company or custodian for a life company and the trustee of a complying superannuation fund or a custodian for that trustee of a complying superannuation fund or custodian for that trustee; will provide for concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest of a landholder that results from persons ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund and become entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund; will provide an exemption from duty on the establishment if a special disability trust under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act and on the transfer of a property to these trusts, which is very important; and will provide for First Home Owner Grant Scheme recipients' liability to repay the grant and penalty following the recipient's failure to satisfy eligibility requirements for the grant, as a first charge on the land. The amendments are positive changes that will financially strengthen our State and help to return New South Wales to being number one again. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [5.20 p.m.]: The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 effects various changes to legislation that involve, for example, stamp duty on superannuation property transfers and also provides for recovery of First Home Owner Grant Scheme payments. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 makes changes to two Acts, the Duties Act 1997 and, in the second part of the bill, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. Amendment of the Duties Act 1997 will extend an existing duty concession applying to certain transfers of dutiable property that are made in connection with a person changing superannuation funds. There are all types of applicable fees. It is complicated, restrictive, and a taxation minefield. In essence, there is a fee of $500.

The duty concession for persons changing complying superannuation funds will be extended to apply to transfers of marketable securities from a trustee of a complying superannuation fund to a life company. It sounds complicated. While this concession is allowed for, it does not allow for a reverse transaction, and stamp duty cost is prohibitive in the absence of a concession. This amending bill will accomplish what we promised to do when in opposition—remove constraints, lower the taxation burden, and extend concessions so that it is again easy to do business in this State. The changes will make things complication-free, and make New South Wales more competitive. The Government is about good fiscal responsibility and sound financial management. The same principles apply to veteran entitlements trust funds that are set up the same way. The legislation also is about providing tax benefits to veterans who have served our nation. It is also about the Government providing further tax concessions to great men and women who sacrificed for our nation.

The bill also will amend the First Home Owners Grant Act 2000. The amendments provide that the liability of an applicant for a first home owner grant to pay certain amounts under the Act will be a first charge on that applicant's interest in the home for which the first home owner grant was sought. That will improve recovery of grants that are required to be repaid. Some recipients of the first home owner grant—more times than not as the result to not satisfying eligibility requirements, such as the obligations to live in the home as their principle house of residence—sometimes are required to repay the grant. The key point is that the Office of State Revenue will rank first in order to recover costs as a result of this bill. At present the debt owed to the Office of State Revenue ranks behind the interests of the mortgagee or any other holder of an interest. Often once a property is sold, including sale by a mortgagee in procession, there are not enough funds available and in essence the Office of State Revenue loses out.

The bill provides that a grant recipient's first liability is to repay the grant, thereby giving the Office of State Revenue the greatest chance of recovering taxpayer dollars that went into the grant scheme in the first place. This is in line and is consistent with other States and will add uniformity to the system. The amendment will not be retrospective. It will apply only to grants paid after 1 October 2011. These are complex issues that are minefields for individuals. We hope this legislation will make matters simpler, clearer and more efficiently dealt with. The bill provides a better, fairer and more efficient system of taxation while ensuring that best practice tax administration is applied in this State. By reforming the treatment of superannuation property transfers, the Government also has responded to industry and community concern. This Government is committed to having best practice revenue laws that are consistent with best practice tax administration. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.24 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I join in debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This is yet another occasion on which I have the opportunity 6098 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

to highlight an important piece of legislation that has been introduced in the first term of the O'Farrell-led Liberal-Nationals Government. After 16 years of Labor administration, it is a great pleasure to support this bill. The bill will amend the Duties Act 1997 for law revision purposes; extend the duty concession for transfers of property and provide for a new concession in connection with persons changing superannuation funds; provide for an exemption from duty in relation to special disability trusts under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; and amend the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to make further provision in relation to the recovery of certain amounts required to be paid under that Act.

This bill is a very welcome measure. It will be welcomed by members of the public who voted for a Liberal-Nationals Government. Those voters know that in this Government's first term it will take action to correct the errors of the previous Labor administration. Recently the Treasurer outlined legislative changes that the Government proposes to introduce, and this bill is part of the Government's delivery on promises it made to people who showed faith and voted for the Government at the 2011 State election. Many of the people who voted for the Liberal-Nationals Government did so for the very first time at that election to ensure that a Liberal-Nationals Government occupies the Treasury bench. The Government's legislative reforms will assist in restarting the State's economy and make New South Wales number one again. That was the pledge the Liberal-Nationals made to the people of New South Wales. On a number of previous occasions I have expressed support for the Government's legislative program.

As Government Whip, I am well aware that members have been lining up enthusiastically to participate in debate on the provisions of the bill and highlight what it is intended to achieve. I am delighted to add my few words of support to the debate. I commend the Treasurer not only for his work in ensuring that the State's finances are put back on track but also, importantly, for what this bill will achieve. I applaud the manner in which the Government is living up to its pre-election promises and delivering through the introduction of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.26 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill will amend the Duties Act 1997 to extend the duty concession for transfers of property and provide for a new concession in connection with persons changing superannuation funds and for an exemption from duty in relation to special disability trusts under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. However, the objective of the bill that particularly interests me is that the bill will amend the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to make further provision in relation to the recovery of certain amounts required to be paid under that Act. I will resist the temptation of referring to the budget and reserve my comments in that regard to the forthcoming budget debate.

Suffice it to say that some long-established and some new suburbs in the Mount Druitt electorate are cited high on the list of recipients of home owners grants and various forms of home ownership assistance, such as State Government stamp duty concessions and various forms of assistance from the Federal Government. Those grants are for a person who buys and lives in a home for six months. I still live in my first home that I bought in 1974 when my wife and I applied for a grant of $700, which was of great assistance at that time. In 1974 the house and land was worth about $13,000, and in percentage terms $700 was of substantial assistance. A lot could be bought with it. Federal and State governments have provided some form of assistance to enable people to move into a home and have grant money to purchase essentials.

The clause refers to a person who intentionally accesses the first home owner grant for a purpose other than to live in the home and submits a false application and, as a result, action is taken to recover the grant down the track. It also applies to the serious circumstance of persons moving into a home, overcommitting their finances and as a result of interest rate increases, job losses and the like they lose their investment. We ask that the Office of State Revenue look very carefully at people who face such a hardship and are on the fringe of qualifying for the grant.

The bill provides that when a property has to be sold and the banks are moving in, the Office of State Revenue is a major creditor not only in relation to land tax but also in relation to the recovery of first homebuyer grants that are required to be repaid. I do not think anyone would object to the recovered money being put back into the system to assist other young couples or more mature-aged couples to buy a house. My electorate is always high on the list of getting government assistance to move into a home. My electorate has new homes in new suburbs and bungalow-style houses built years ago that are being knocked down and replaced with a large number of townhouses, creating housing for many couples who seek home assistance.

If the money recouped as set out in paragraph (b) of the overview of the bill is reinvested to provide assistance to those persons, we welcome it. Every case is individual and I am sure all members of Parliament 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6099

urge the Office of State Revenue to look at all the circumstances when it seeks to recover money in such cases. This amendment bill tidies up the legislation. I do not agree with the member for Wagga Wagga that it is part of a grand election strategy to bring New South Wales back to number one again. I believe it is a minor piece of legislation. In relation to the home owner grant I note that it makes New South Wales consistent with all States that have a similar system in their jurisdictions.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [5.33 p.m.]: I support the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill contains two sets of amendments, one to the Duties Act 1997 and the other to the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. I support the bill in particular in relation to its amendments to the Duties Act 1997 because it is another example of the O'Farrell Government reducing an unnecessary tax burden on the people of New South Wales and eliminating unnecessary red tape. One of the three main amendments to the Duties Act 1997 that will be affected by this legislation is the existing duty concession for transfers of marketable securities in connection with people who change superannuation funds. That will be extended to include transfers between a life company or a custodian for a life company on the one hand and the trustee of a complying superannuation fund or custodian for that trustee on the other hand.

The second amendment to the Duties Act 1997 will provide for concessional duty of $500 on an acquisition of an interest in a landholder that results from people ceasing to become entitled to benefits in one complying superannuation fund, and becoming entitled to benefits in another complying superannuation fund. That is similar to the duty concession that applies to the transfers of dutiable property that are made in connection with people changing funds. Duty is charged at a concessional rate of $500. The third amendment to the Duties Act 1997 provides for an exemption from duty on the establishment of a special disability trust under the Commonwealth Veterans Entitlements Act 1986. It will also provide an exemption from duty on the transfer of property to these trusts.

In relation to the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 the amendments provide that a first home owner grant recipient's liability to repay the grant and penalty, following the recipient's failure to satisfy eligibility requirements for the grant, will be a first charge on the land. That allows the State to recoup the grant and penalty where appropriate to do so. This is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation containing sensible amendments to the Duties Act 1997 and to the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [5.36 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their interest in and contributions to debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill seeks to amend the Duties Act 1997 and the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. The bill responds to issues raised by industry in respect of stamp duty on superannuation property transfers. That is an important feature of the O'Farrell Government—listening to problems, and providing solutions particularly in relation to getting the economy moving again. The amendments that have been included in this bill remove constraints to persons changing superannuation funds by extending the concession for merger of superannuation funds to transfers of marketable securities to a life company. The bill also provides a new concessional duty of $500 on acquisitions of interests in landholders that are made in connection with a merger of superannuation funds.

The next duties amendment deals with special disability trusts, established to provide for the care and accommodation needs of a family member with a severe disability. The current duties exemptions apply to special disability trusts established under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991. However, special disability trusts may also be established under the Commonwealth Veterans Entitlements Act 1986. The amendment will remove an impediment to establishment of these trusts in New South Wales by extending the duties exemptions to special disability trusts established under the Veterans Entitlements Act.

The bill also amends the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to improve the administration of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme by improving recovery of grants that are required to be repaid. When a recipient of the first home owner grant is subsequently required to repay the grant, the grant and any penalty imposed is a charge on the land. At present, the debt owed to the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue ranks behind the interest of the mortgagee or any other holder of a prior registered interest. The amendment provides that a grant recipient's liability to repay the grant and any penalty is a first charge on the land, with priority over all other encumbrances except land tax. This brings the New South Wales Act in line with the grant legislation of every other State and Territory as part of the national First Home Owner Grant Scheme.

This bill ensures that New South Wales is applying best practice tax administration which is another feature of the O'Farrell Government. When there is an opportunity to have New South Wales follow market and 6100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

government leading practice it is taking that step to get this State moving again. The O'Farrell Government is declaring New South Wales open for business, and this bill will assist in achieving that. Many steps must be taken to reinstate New South Wales as the leading State in this country, and this bill is part of the process of ensuring that we are number one again. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

THOROUGHBRED RACING AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reordering of General Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [5.44 p.m.]: I wish to inform members about the schedule of business tomorrow. I have indicated to a number of members that some slight changes will be made to the anticipated order of business. The first item of business at 10.00 a.m. will be the agreement in principle speech for the Plumbing and Drainage Bill 2011. At the conclusion of that speech, we will have the agreement in principle speech for the Home Building Amendment Bill 2011. I anticipate that that will be concluded at about 10.30 a.m. That will be followed by consideration of the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which I anticipate will be concluded at about 12.30 p.m. We will then have the agreement in principle speech for the Universities Governing Bodies Bill 2011. Now that members know what will be happening tomorrow they can hopefully make any necessary arrangements. I point out that the House is about to deal with notices of motions, so any member who wishes to give notice of a motion should be in the Chamber. We will then move on to consider the matter of public importance and then deal with private members' statements.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

NEW SOUTH WALES TERRORISM AND HOMICIDE VICTIMS REMEMBRANCE DAY

Matter of Public Importance

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [5.48 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to this most sobering and important day, the New South Wales Terrorism and Homicide Victims Remembrance Day. We would all recall precisely where we were on 11 September 2001 when those planes flew into the Twin Towers. It is not trite to say that that terrorist attack changed the world forever. It changed the way that we as citizens in a free Western nation considered geopolitical events and the way in which we as individuals considered sensitive issues such race relations, power imbalances and the power/race symmetry across the world. It brought into our homes the very real consideration of issues that for many decades we had been able to luxuriate in as being distant. Some 12 months later we were affected far more directly.

Not to diminish the loss of Australian lives in the September 11 attacks, but the attacks on 12 October 2002 in the district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali was the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia. It killed 202 people, including some 88 Australians, and 240 people were injured. In 2007 former Premier Iemma said that 12 October, because of its resonance with friends and families of the Bali victims, 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6101

would be declared the official New South Wales Terrorism and Homicide Victims Remembrance Day. Premier Iemma said that the Government's decision came after discussions with key victims groups and with victims' families, who said that such a memorial day would assist their grieving process.

Regrettably, we have also seen our citizens killed and injured in subsequent terrorist bombings in Bali and in London. Today it is fitting to remember the families left behind and the police and emergency staff who are often caught up in, and affected by, these tragedies. Premier Iemma said that it would be a specific day of remembrance to enable victims' families to come together to help heal their emotional scars and perhaps find some peace. It was a national first, and New South Wales was the first jurisdiction to commemorate this day of remembrance under the leadership of former Premier Iemma.

At this stage I should pay tribute also to those tireless advocates for the rights of homicide victims: Martha Jabour, Ken Marslew and Howard Brown. I know each of those people individually, as do others in this Chamber. Despite their own horrible brushes with the actions of murderers, those three individuals have spent extraordinary parts of their lives advocating on behalf of victims of crime and their families not only under extremely trying emotional circumstances, because homicide has touched their lives, but also under difficult personal circumstances separate from that. I will not go into details, but the people of New South Wales— particularly those tangentially or directly affected by homicide—have been extremely well served by Martha, Ken and Howard, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. They are tremendous Australians who have performed sterling service over a number of years.

Today the Sydney Morning Herald reported the thoughts of Leonie Doig, whose 18-year-old son was murdered a decade ago. I will not go through the editorial, but I will read into Hansard some of the quotes because I think they say it all. For Mrs Doig, the pain of losing her son has dominated the past decade. Not only did she have to endure the ensuing court case, but her 25-year marriage broke down and her other son, Ben, who witnessed the murder at age 19, suffered a stroke from stress. She said that anniversaries and birthdays continue to loom like roadblocks, particularly the date seven months from now when her son's killer is up for parole. She said:

When your loved one is taken by homicide there's no preparation for that.

Watching the pain in my other son's eyes is the hardest part.

At the hospital they wouldn't even let me hold him because he was a murder victim.

He [the killer] got 12 years but I got a life sentence.

Murder isolates you because people don't know how to approach you.

There is a very real and poignant outline of the emotional toll on friends and loved ones of the victims of homicide. Turning to the Bali memorial at Coogee, because today is 12 October, this memorial was unveiled by former Premier Carr in 2003. It is the focal point of the Dolphin Point site at Dunningham Reserve, Coogee Beach. When I was Premier the commemoration ceremony was one of the first large public functions that I attended and spoke at, and I was astounded by the fortitude and resilience of the hundreds of friends and families of victims of the Bali bomb attacks.

The memorial stands near the top of the Coogee headland in a paved area. The sculpture is bronzed and links figures signifying family, friends and community. Bowed in sorrow and remembrance, the figures comfort, support and protect each other. Twenty victims of the Bali bombings lived in Sydney's eastern suburbs and surrounds, from Bondi to Malabar and across to Marrickville. That is more than one-fifth of all the Australian victims of the tragedy. Six of those victims were Coogee Dolphins A-grade rugby league players. Today we pay tribute to the resilience and fortitude of their families and friends. Perhaps more importantly, we pay homage to the contribution that those Australians who have been victims of terrorism or homicide have made to our country, and we mourn their passing.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH (Coogee) [5.55 p.m.]: This morning I attended the eighth Bali commemoration ceremony in Coogee. Each year since the first service in 2003, the people of Coogee and many from farther afield have assembled at Coogee to remember those lost, to comfort those who survived and to lend support to families and friends of those who died in the Kuta bombings on 12 October 2002. Among the ruins of the Sari Club and Paddy's Bar lay shattered our nation's innocence and our very ability to comprehend any reason for such an immoral act. No single area in Australia was more affected than Sydney's eastern suburbs. 6102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Twenty of the 88 Australians killed were from the city of Randwick alone, 43 in all from New South Wales. In total, 202 people died, including 38 Indonesians. Four more Australians were to lose their lives in the 2005 Bali bombings.

This morning, as occurs every year, we heard from survivors and family members of victims who told of their journey since 2002. We heard from Adam Condon, a close friend of Josh Iliffe and a fellow member of the Coogee Dolphins football team, which lost six of its players that night. Adam flew to Bali the day after the bombings. This morning he told the gut-wrenching story of his three-day search for his mates through the makeshift morgues of Kuta and Denpasar. We heard from a father, Alan Roberts, whose son Ben was airlifted from Bali soon after the attack and clung precariously to life for 26 days in a Singapore hospital before finally succumbing to infection. Over the years I have heard many of these stories and every year I see the pain in the teller's eyes. I have heard the grizzly accounts of that terrible night by friends, family members, victims and rescuers, and have heard of the ceaseless pain they are left to bear. It has taken many years and much support for their lives to return to some semblance of normality.

When I was Mayor of Randwick I met Sandra Hardman and heard her story. Sandra lost her son, James, in Bali. As James was not a local, she was distressed that there was no memorial that bore his name, or indeed the names of the 23 other victims from New South Wales who were not from Sydney's east. There was nowhere for her or the other families and their friends and survivors to quietly grieve, although she had previously attended the council's ceremony. The Place of Reflection was unveiled at Dolphin Point at last year's commemoration ceremony. This fine sandstone monument lists the names of all 43 New South Wales residents who perished in the 2002 bombings. The Place of Reflection takes its place beside the beautiful sculpture of the three linked bronze figures who symbolise life, growth and hope. They are bowed in sorrow and they offer comfort and support to each other.

Dolphin Point, a beautiful headland that was named in honour of the team of the six deceased football players, has truly become a place of remembrance, a place of reflection and a place of peace. It is a place of quiet contemplation to remember the names, the faces and the smiles, and to honour their youth, beauty and innocence. The memorial pays tribute to unity and strength in the face of tragedy, but, importantly, it also acknowledges the volunteers, the medical workers, the police, the defence force officers and the many others who selflessly assisted in the aftermath of the attack.

The pain and the mourning will go on for a lifetime. Such unspeakable evil could not be more contrary to the serene nature of the Balinese people, who for so many years have warmly welcomed Australians who ventured to their once idyllic little island home. It is hard to imagine what possible good could ever emerge from the acts of such inconceivable evil that were witnessed on 12 October 2002. But from that dark chapter in the history of our nation and that of Bali has come a new and determined resolve to uphold the values that Australians cherish most: freedom and commitment to democracy. At the ceremony this morning Premier Barry O'Farrell quoted Benazir Bhutto. He said:

Democracy is necessary to peace and to undermining the forces of terrorism.

In the tears that were shed today we saw the pain of enormous loss but in those tears glistened determination to carry on, strength never to yield to terror and resolve never to forget.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [6.02 p.m.]: Importantly, today we remember those whose lives have been forever taken away or impacted by acts of terrorism or by homicide. As a father, son, brother and uncle I will never be able to understand the pain experienced by those victims, and the pain and heartache that their families continue to experience. Like the member for Toongabbie, I also thank in particular the Homicide Victims' Support Group. In my former role as chief of staff to the Minister for Police I worked closely with that group. I will never forget the sense of purpose displayed by group members who attended our meetings and discussions. They did not just want to be victims; they wanted to be a part of legislative reform to make New South Wales a safer and more tolerant community. It is incredible that people who have endured the most horrific circumstances, losing someone they love so dearly in the blink of an eye, are willing to contribute their experience, knowledge and understanding in order to make our community a better place.

I view Martha Jabour, Howard Brown and Ken Marslew as giants. They go beyond just supporting those who have suffered horrific pain. They advocate at the highest levels of government to make sure that when legislation is debated and passed through this place those of us who are lucky enough to represent our communities consider its impact on victims of serious crime. As the member for Coogee said, it is important to 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6103

remember—even on those horrific days when we saw Australians lose their lives in New York, Bali, London and beyond—that the heart of democracy will continue to beat more strongly than the guns, swords or whatever else terrorist groups throw at us. The pursuit of democracy across all countries is near and dear to everyone. We should always prioritise it, and it should never be forgotten.

The Homicide Victims' Support Group provides services such as counselling, holds support meetings and operates a 24-hour contact line. In the past the group has also discussed with me—I am sure the Attorney General and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services respect this—the role it plays in supporting victims who encounter the court system. Facing the person accused of taking a loved one's life can be very traumatic. The group is there to offer a cup of tea and to talk to victims' families as they go through the process. One wonders how many lives have been saved by that group. How many people has that group stopped from taking their lives by giving them a chance to talk and to reach out to those who have had similar experiences?

As a father, son, brother and uncle I will never understand—and hopefully will never have to—the pain that members of the Homicide Victims' Support Group have experienced. But I hope today they will see members on both sides of the House recognising in a bipartisan way the enormous contribution that the group has made in supporting victims of terrorism and homicide. I acknowledge the contribution of the Homicide Victims' Support Group in making New South Wales and this nation a better and safer place in which to live.

Discussion concluded.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

PINK RIBBON DAY

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [6.07 p.m.]: Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst Australian women. Throughout the course of their lives one in every nine Australian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, which equates to a staggering 14,000 new diagnoses of breast cancer each year. Sadly, each year 2,500 women will lose their lives to breast cancer. In the month of October we celebrate Pink Ribbon Day. I have long been a staunch supporter of Pink Ribbon Day, both in my previous capacity as Mayor of Bankstown and now as the member for Bankstown. In the past I have hosted several morning teas, community barbeques, corporate breakfasts and other events in support of the day, and this year I have used every opportunity to raise awareness about this great initiative. I encourage all members to take every opportunity to support Pink Ribbon Day, which gives us a chance to promote awareness about breast cancer and to raise funds for breast cancer support and research.

A number of members will be hosting a variety of different events but many opportunities exist not only to sell Pink Ribbon Day merchandise and raise money but also to place advertisements in local newspapers to promote awareness. Members could also take the opportunity to raise Pink Ribbon Day during discussions with constituents. This month I will approach women from many different backgrounds and encourage them to undergo breast cancer screening or speak to their general practitioner about breast cancer. Many within our community are wholly supportive of Pink Ribbon Day. In recent years breast cancer has received a lot of media exposure and community support as a result of the work of great organisations such as the McGrath Foundation. However, there are many ways in which breast cancer still remains a concern. In my local community of Bankstown breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst women and the second most common cancer overall.

Members of Parliament should be mindful of the need to increase awareness of breast cancer amongst communities of non-English speaking backgrounds. It is our duty as public servants to do all we can to ensure that no member of our community is disadvantaged, and one area in which non-English speaking people are disadvantaged is in awareness of health issues and medical treatments. It becomes a little more complicated. As members of Parliament we should do all that we can, when occasions such as Pink Ribbon Day come around, to be inclusive of all groups within our community, particularly those who may not be as familiar with such issues.

Pink Ribbon Day is a particular passion of mine. I have a strong commitment to breast cancer research and support. I have been taking the opportunity to talk to as many women as possible in my electorate at train stations and in shopping centres. I have also taken the opportunity to speak to businesses and encourage them to register for merchandise. It costs nothing and it can be placed in a business or in a shop, with people encouraged to raise funds. I have also written to a large number of businesses in my electorate and asked them to support 6104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Pink Ribbon Day. The ultimate goal of advocates for Pink Ribbon Day is the ongoing search for a cure for breast cancer. As a woman, a young mother and a public representative, I look forward to a time when future technologies are available, and painful and invasive treatments for breast cancer are a thing of the past.

PARKES RADIO TELESCOPE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY

Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the golden or fiftieth anniversary of a piece of scientific equipment that is an icon in our nation's history. It is also an icon in the international history of radio telescopic work and space exploration. I am referring to the CSIRO radio telescope at Parkes. On 31 October the Dish, as it is affectionately known, mainly because of the 2000 movie starring Sam Neill, brought the extraordinary accomplishments of that facility to national interest and the nation's heart. The telescope is 64 metres in diameter and is a parabolic dish that is used for radio astronomy. It is located about 20 kilometres north of the township of Parkes, which is located in the Dubbo electorate.

The Dish, which was opened on 31 October 1961, is perhaps best known to Australians for its role in the 1969 moon landing. The Parkes telescope was originally planned as a backup during the moonwalk for NASA's two tracking stations. The dish at Goldstone in California in the United States of America and the 26-metre dish at Tidbinbilla near Canberra were also to be used. The idea was that the 26-metre dish at Honeysuckle Creek tracking station near Canberra would track the command module, Columbia, and coordinate the effort between the Australian stations, with the Goldstone dish acting as the prime receiving station during the moonwalk.

According to the original flight plan, the astronauts would undertake the moonwalk or what is known in scientific language as an extra vehicular activity—an EVA—shortly after landing. But all good plans often go awry. Neil Armstrong decided that he would not take a break scheduled within the plan and the moonwalk was effectively brought forward, which changed the mission dramatically. Suddenly, because of those circumstances, the Dish in Parkes became the prime receiving station, which cemented our place in world history for this monumental event. The Dish was updated. One would think that something of this magnitude that was constructed 50 years ago and had been operating for 50 years would be outdated and that the contribution of this technology to the world of astronomy may have diminished, but that is not the case.

After significant enhancements to the Dish in 2007—I do not proclaim to be an expert on this matter by any stretch of the imagination—the facility is now rated as the world's leading international radio telescope. Effectively, in layman's terms, the enhancements now give the Dish the capacity to bring four telescopes and lenses within the framework to beam into the galaxy to make explorations and discoveries that were never thought possible. As the Dish is celebrated it is only fitting that a significant event accompanies such a wonderful celebration. That occurred last weekend, with an event called Opera at the Dish. I was pleased that the New South Wales Government supported Parkes Shire Council and contributed $14,000 to the hosting of that event.

Despite inclement weather, more than 2,000 people attended the event. It is a significant example of how well Parkes Shire Council engages the community in celebrating a truly national icon in the area. The actor Roy Billing, who starred as the mayor in the 2000 movie—I have had the great pleasure of meeting him; every time he visits Parkes he is more than welcome—was the master of ceremonies on the night. And a wonderful night was had by all, with some terrific opera stars such as Helen Barnett, Julie O'Connor and the like. It is important that we have these significant national icons in our electorates. When a significant milestone is achieved at this juncture, it should be celebrated in full. [Time expired.]

NEPEAN COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith) [6.17 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the work done by an unsung hero group in the Nepean region, that is, the Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services and its work across the Penrith region. Previously operating under the name spyns Incorporated, Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services operates a wide range of activities that support community development across more than six community centres. At these and other locations across Penrith, Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services has attended to 10,000 inquiries from the local community. Many of these inquiries come from local residents seeking the support they need to retain as much social or economic independence as possible to build their capacity to live healthy and productive lives into the future. 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6105

In order to meet these objectives, Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services supports more than 19 community events in a calendar year, 14 regular community-based sub-groups, and 11 life skills and employment courses, among a myriad of other welfare referrals and advocacy services to support those in need. The size, scope and quality of these services are a tribute to the volunteers, the Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services board and its dedicated general manager, Joy Impiombato. While many of its programs support a range of different groups within the community, the team at Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services takes every step to address areas of socioeconomic disadvantage and it goes a step further by seeking to identify gaps in service provision across the community that may help to close potential gaps in childhood development that could allow minor problems to fester over the long term.

This approach is particularly clear in the focus of the service on supporting the development of young people in the Penrith region. Starting with early childhood development, Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services plays an active role in the establishment of playgroups, childhood literacy promotions such as Paint the Town REaD and the Ready-Set-School program to secure a smooth transition into a child's first year of schooling. This commitment to young people in Penrith spans a wide range of programs, which include Rhythm for Life, Friends for Life, the Breakfast Club, Rubber Souls and targeted programs to support the role of parents within the family unit.

Two of the programs, Pathways and Making Tracks, are funded by the New South Wales Government's Better Futures program. These programs provide valuable support to the development of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children within the school system. Pathways takes place within the high school system and involves workshops designed to assist students in coming to terms with high school life and the associated changes to relationships, communication skills and the development of effective anti-bullying strategies. Making Tracks is a support program designed to boost the cultural identity and esteem of people from Aboriginal backgrounds. The program is run out of Braddock Public School, Kingswood Park Public School and Cambridge Park Public School within the electorate of the member for Londonderry. Supporting 70 Aboriginal students and a further 10 parents, it comprises 132 sessions across the three schools.

Making Tracks distinguishes itself from other programs due to the way it recognises the role of the family unit in building a secure cultural identity for Aboriginal people. This year Making Tracks students at Braddock Public School participated in a 10-week digital media workshop called the "Koori Story Exchange", which received plenty of positive coverage on the ABC's Stateline program in late September. Locally I had the opportunity to attend the graduation at one of the Cranebrook Neighbourhood Centres of people who had completed this program. It was wonderful to see these children come to life, and to access digital media, whether laptop computers, cameras or recording equipment; to create their own rap songs; to work through a number of the challenges they are going through in their lives and to use digital media to bring some of those things to life and to create a stronger understanding of them.

It was also wonderful to see that those kids have an understanding of themselves so they can better approach challenges, whether it be bullying in the schoolyard or a home life that might be difficult from time to time. One of the things that struck me was the photography work of a young girl from Braddock Public School, Leonie Haines, whose photography, I must admit, is just amazing. You would think that this person was a professional photographer. The photographs were just stunning. In conclusion I would like to ensure that members of this House are aware of the fantastic work being done by the Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services and their team. It has an excellent board of management. Its senior management team is extraordinary and I look forward to continuing to work with that organisation.

CABARITA WHARF

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [6.22 p.m.]: Following the overwhelming concerns raised with me by my constituents, particularly the residents of Cabarita and Breakfast Point, as well as commuters throughout the Drummoyne electorate, the New South Wales Government has issued a total fishing ban on Cabarita wharf. As at 27 September this year fishing on the wharf was banned and the problems associated with misconduct and anti-social behaviour have been combated as part of the Government's plan to clean up Cabarita wharf. Residents, commuters and lobby groups had contacted my office and had spoken to me at local ferry hubs about troubles they have had on Drummoyne wharves. Their concerns were part of an ongoing problem, one which had not been addressed by the previous Labor Government with its Clean, Safe Wharves initiative, which only saw poorly implemented partial fishing bans.

Despite the inaction of the previous member for Drummoyne on this issue, local groups, residents and commuters continued to fight for a 24-hour fishing ban, often making representations to the City of Canada Bay 6106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

Council and the Minister for Roads and Ports about the appalling condition of the wharf after its use by fishermen. Rubbish, fish scales, bait, fishing lines, old hooks and beer bottles were left strewn over the wharf, which meant that ferry users were unable to use the benches or facilities. If commuters arrived on one of the later ferry services they were often ostracised and in some cases assaulted on the wharf. On occasion residents witnessed lighting and fuelling of fires on the landing stage as well as vandalising of the amenities. They understandably had reservations about using the ferry services whilst this behaviour continued on the wharf.

The ferry commute should not be something that passengers fear, nor should they be subject to this kind of behaviour on wharves. It is for this reason that the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Duncan Gay, issued the total fishing ban at Cabarita and implemented the three-phase strategy to clean up antisocial behaviour on popular fishing wharves in Sydney Harbour and on the Parramatta River. This program involved the "three E's"—education, enforcement and exclusion—to help to combat this type of behaviour affecting commuters throughout Sydney in the future. A security gate has now been installed at Cabarita wharf to exclude the public from entering the wharf late at night and to stem the problems of vandalism and littering, including fish waste and bait, consumption of alcohol, lighting of fires and general antisocial behaviour.

The multi-agency and community effort to clean up commuter wharves will include an education phase, which began on the October long weekend and will continue until Easter 2012. The campaign will include the use of multi-lingual signage and brochures, and media and fishing industry campaigns on raising awareness of the need for anglers to be responsible. The second phase—enforcement—will implement bans on littering and this will begin over the 2012 Easter long weekend and run until the 2012 October long weekend. This is in the event that the enforcement campaign fails to deliver a change in behaviour. Fishing will then be excluded from identified problem wharves.

In addition, NSW Maritime is working closely with the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW, angling groups and the Department of Primary Industries fisheries officers, local councils, the Police Force and the Department of Transport to implement this three-phase action plan. This is yet another win for the people of Breakfast Point and Cabarita. It is very pleasing to see "people power" working in Drummoyne. I have worked with the Friends of Cabarita Park and Wharf and spoken to the ports Minister about this issue. I am pleased we have come up with a solution that will ensure local commuters have a safe and clean wharf. The fishing ban reflects community expectation, something the residents have demanded for the past six months—cleaner public transport and a safer environment. Sadly, these pleas were ignored by successive Labor governments. This announcement made last month is in addition to the extra 25 RiverCat services each week that will service Cabarita and Breakfast Point. This is great news for the local community.

This is a wake-up call for anglers. If they are interested in ongoing access to Sydney's commuter wharves, it is in their hands. That means not impeding the movement of ferries or their passengers, and appropriate disposal of all waste and litter. I also take this opportunity to thank the many residents and community groups that have worked with me on this issue, particularly the Friends of Cabarita Park Community Group, which has met with me regularly to resolve this issue, and to all of those constituents and commuters who expressed their concerns to my office. I hope that these actions will provide commuters throughout Sydney, but particularly those in problem sites in Drummoyne, with access to ferry services uninhibited by the deluge of antisocial behaviour of the few bad apples that give a bad name to anglers who fish off commercial wharves. I look forward to updating the House on the outcome of these measures.

PENRITH VALLEY PRIMARY SCHOOLS PUBLIC SPEAKING COMPETITION

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [6.27 p.m.]: I inform the House of a tremendous initiative by our local public schools within the Penrith Valley district. The Penrith Valley Primary Schools Speaking Competition has been running for five years and involves up to 28 schools across Penrith Valley. The public speaking competition is a modern and challenging opportunity for our young citizens to grow in new life experiences and gain personal skills. It is also an opportunity for students who may have fears of public speaking to face those fears and perhaps overcome any self-esteem issues—it builds strength, confidence and boldness to raise their voice and join in the adult world of discussions. It is also a fabulous opportunity for talented and gifted performers to blend their often humorous and animated delivery with vocal control, physical presentation skills and the precision of connecting with the audience.

The organising committee of three involved Mark Arnold, Deputy Principal, Glenmore Park Public School; David Bamford, relieving Principal, Regentville Public School; and Catherine Smith, Assistant Principal, Surveyors Creek Public School. The competition runs for many weeks across up to 28 schools and 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6107

involves more than 3,000 students. Eventually, after many weeks, 24 students remain, six in each of the four age groups, and they are the 24 students that compete in the finals. I was most proud of the public schools in my electorate of Mulgoa, which provided 16 out of the final 24 students—67 per cent of the students who were competing in the final were from schools in the Mulgoa electorate. Those schools were Regentville Primary School, Luddenham Public School, Orchard Hills Public School, Surveyors Creek Public School, Claremont Meadows Public School, Glenmore Park Public School, Wallacia Public School and Mulgoa Public School.

Of the 24 students who competed for first and second prizes, six of the eight first place winners, or 75 per cent of the students who won, were from schools in the Mulgoa electorate. This is a tremendous achievement for our public schools and is testament to the passionate and dedicated teachers and principals within them. I will highlight the names of the Mulgoa students who won first and second place. In year 3, at Glenmore Park Public School student, Sarah Suydam won with her loud and animated tale of the Oompa Loompas. The year 3 runner-up, Kayla Fenech from the Surveyors Creek Public School, gave a humorous exposé on the length of her ills and woes to avoid school, but miraculously jumping out of bed on hearing that the day was in fact Saturday.

In year 4 the second place winner from the Claremont Meadows Public School was Olivia Smith, who described the smells and misbehaviour attributed to her imaginary friend, Iggy. An Orchard Hills Public School student, Thomas Chitos, achieved second place in the year 5 category with his animated antics of April fools without the use of notes—a very impressive performance. The winner of the year 6 category, Liam Polinsky from the Regentville Public School, spoke on what happens when you get old. His catchcry, "Don't say I didn't warn you", was a message he confidently delivered to us all. Afterwards I pointed out to him that the experience he was describing will impact upon him one day as he proceeds to grow old too. A Surveyors Creek Public School student, Jade Culey, received second place with his insights into a day as a boy.

The teachers and staff of the public schools in the Mulgoa electorate are to be commended, along with these talented students, for such a fantastic achievement. I congratulate the parents and siblings of all the finalists and ultimate winners on the support and encouragement of their family members along the way. I also thank them for their willingness, or otherwise, to be the subject matter of the presentations. I especially know the family of Thomas Chitos was on the receiving end of his April fool practical jokes. As a joint sponsor of the event along with the member for Penrith, the Penrith City Council and the Federal member for Lindsay, I was honoured to present the certificates and trophies to the winners and runners-up in the year 3 and year 5 categories. I congratulate all teachers involved on their initiative and ongoing support for this wonderful experience for our school students, and for a job very well done.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Melanie Gibbons): Order! I welcome to the public gallery members of the Ingleburn Chamber of Commerce, who are guests of the member for Campbelltown, Bryan Doyle. I also welcome members of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce from Menai electorate.

BUSH TO BEACH PROGRAM

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Minister for Western New South Wales) [6.32 p.m.]: I too welcome members of the Ingleburn and Liverpool chambers of commerce, who I am sure will be happy to hear about the Bush to Beach program—a partnership between the Brewarrina community and South Narrabeen—and who are fortunate to be represented by such a good member of Parliament. She is doing a great job.

Dr Andrew McDonald: What about this one?

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: We did the Hurlstone Agricultural High School for the member for Macquarie Fields, and he should hold that thought. I take this opportunity to inform the House of an important program that will soon give a number of young disadvantaged youth from the Barwon electorate an experience that never before has been made accessible to them. This week I had the pleasure of announcing that the Government will provide grant funding for a project to transport disadvantaged young people and their carers from the Brewarrina region in north-western New South Wales to the beaches of Sydney.

Under the Bush to Beach program 42 children and carers from Brewarrina will soon be able to swap the dust of the Western Plains for the sand of Narrabeen. As part of this program young people have the chance to take part in a range of activities including swimming and surfing and have the chance to meet their city cousins. Most of the young children have never travelled outside their region, let alone visit a city like Sydney. 6108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

This is a unique opportunity for them and it will be an experience that will stay with them for life. Bush to Beach is an annual event that young people in Brewarrina look forward to. They know how much their friends enjoyed themselves on previous visits.

Anyone who has seen the excitement on their faces as they see the city for the first time or take their first swim in the surf knows that the funding we provide is worth every single cent. This project is an excellent example of how the Government can work with the non-government sector to provide support for Aboriginal people in regional and remote areas of New South Wales. It is one of many local initiatives being rolled out across regional New South Wales as part of the Government's support for local and community transport solutions. The project will run between 26 and 30 January 2012. Participants will stay at the South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club, which is organising the event in collaboration with local organisations in Brewarrina and Sydney. I congratulate the organisers of the project on their commitment to providing what in many cases may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for Aboriginal youth from Brewarrina.

I acknowledge two people who have been involved in the program for many years. One is Jack Cannons, AM, who is president of Variety and who lives on the northern beaches. He has formed an incredible partnership with an Aboriginal elder in Brewarrina, Aunty Joyce. Between the two of them they have provided literally hundreds of children, not just those from Brewarrina but also from Bourke, Walgett and Lightning Ridge—all those good places, just like Menai and Liverpool—with access to places they would never otherwise see in their lifetime. It is interesting that some communities on the northern beaches have commenced an exchange program whereby some children from the northern beaches and metropolitan areas will visit western areas of the State to experience activities and lifestyles in far-western New South Wales. I commend the project to the House. I thank Madam Acting-Speaker for the great job she does. We missed our guests at Question Time, but they have come back.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Melanie Gibbons): We acknowledged our guests during question time, so they have received double acknowledgement. I acknowledge the presence in the House of the member for Macquarie Fields and the member for Campbelltown.

DISABILITY AND AGED INFORMATION SERVICE INC.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [6.36 p.m.]: I add my congratulations to Madam Acting-Speaker on the fine job she is doing as Acting-Speaker and on behalf of the Menai electorate. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. On 27 September a great event occurred in the Tweed electorate, which is situated at the top of the State. On that day I jointly opened the Tweed branch of the Disability and Aged Information Service Inc. [DAISI], whose headquarters are in the Lismore electorate, which is represented by a great member of Parliament, Thomas George. The Tweed electorate has interesting statistics on population categories. My electorate has more people who are registered as suffering from a disability and more people over the age of 65 years than any other electorate in New South Wales, which creates urgent and high-level need for support services.

On many previous occasions in this House I have discussed cross-border issues, inadequate services and the previous Government's view that the State's jurisdiction ends at Lismore, which would leave the Tweed electorate in never-never land. The Disability and Aged Information Service Inc. is a free and extensive information service whose objective is to ease the lives of elderly and disabled people and their families and carers. I pay special tribute to families and carers of people who have disabilities because they soldier on with great honour and strive tirelessly to improve the lives of others. It is often forgotten that the role of families and carers is seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I tip my hat in tribute to them. The service has been operating for approximately 20 years and operates as a community-based, not-for-profit organisation that is funded by the Ageing, Disability and Home Care Services Program.

The aim of the service is to link often neglected members of our society to community information and fill gaps in service provision by raising funds and building partnerships. The service empowers aged and disabled members of the Tweed community through its information service, which covers everything from access issues and recreational activities to employment services and governmental contacts. However, the service does not stop there. The Disability and Aged Information Service Inc. is also involved in the Resilient Youth Project, which involves a range of activities that are designed to assist independent students at public schools to finish their schooling, find employment and get back to their local community.

A unique aspect of the service is its focus on the carers and families of aged and disabled people— those who tend to get lost in the background, despite their selfless and constant service. The Disability and Aged 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6109

Information Service Inc. gives them the ability to make the lives of people for whom they care easier, but also relieves much of the stress and difficulty of their task. Dona Graham is the chief executive officer of the service and chair of the National Disability Network. She and I were guest speakers at the opening of the Tweed office of the service. We outlined the magnificent benefits that the service will provide to marginalised members of the Tweed community.

Stefan Zak is an outstanding member of my electorate who serves on the boards of five community organisations, one of which is DAISI. Stefan uses a wheelchair. He has been on the DAISI board since 2002. He brings a valuable asset to the Tweed through this information service. The positivity that DAISI brings to the Tweed is an invaluable form of support and comfort of those who are sometimes invisible in our community. I cannot wait to see the changes DAISI will bring in my electorate and I look forward to its continuing provision of this wonderful service.

DAISI is a great benefit to our local community. Every member in this place has an electorate office. Often we are called upon to give advice and redirect people to one of the myriad of adequate services. Any electorate would be proud to have a service such as DAISI. We create a partnership with these services which gives us an ability to communicate with our local people—particularly those marginalised by a disability—and direct them to the appropriate service. In that way we can relieve the stress of that experience. DAISI is a not-for-profit organisation and the work it does is superb. I am pleased to welcome DAISI to the Tweed and I am sure that a large number of people with disabilities in my electorate will benefit greatly. Once again, I am 100 per cent for DAISI and 100 per cent for the Tweed.

GILAD SHALIT

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.41 p.m.]: I welcome the announcement of the agreement to release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who has been held in the Gaza Strip since 25 June 2006. I eagerly anticipate his safe arrival home to his loved ones in Israel. I acknowledge that Gilad Shalit's prospective release is a positive step in both human rights and peaceful relations.

As the proud member for Vaucluse, an electorate home to many from the New South Wales Jewish community, I acknowledge the work and commitment of many Jewish residents and organisations, including the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, who have long advocated on behalf of Gilad Shalit. The Jewish community's strong and enduring advocacy is to be commended. Both Shalit's family and the Jewish diaspora will be relieved by the news of his release, particularly on the eve of Yom Kippur. Israel and Hamas reached a deal to free Sergeant Gilad Shalit, who was being held in the Gaza Strip. Shalit was exchanged for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. This deal was the result of long and complex negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "We have concluded arduous negotiations with Hamas to release Gilad Shalit." The deal was engineered by the new Egyptian government agreeing to bring home Sergeant Gilad Shalit. Little has been known about Shalit's fate since his capture. Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas praised the prisoner swap deal between Israel and Hamas as a "national achievement".

To quote my parliamentary colleague Michael Gallacher in his notice of motion in 2009, my private members statement "is not designed to draw this Parliament into the political and military conflict of the Gaza Strip. It is not suggesting who is right or wrong, nor is it about trying to legitimise the actions of one side of the struggle based on the conduct of the other." Tonight I highlight Shalit's prospective release as a positive step in both human rights and peaceful relations between countries. In 2006, 19-year-old Gilad Shalit was performing military service to his nation as a corporal at a border crossing on the Israeli side of the southern Gaza Strip when Palestinian militants, utilising underground tunnels, attacked the army post and kidnapped Shalit. For the past five years he has been held as a hostage in isolated captivity in places unknown and without any member of the International Red Cross allowed to visit him.

Young Gilad Shalit was denied visitations by his parents, his lawyers and, as I said, even by members of the International Red Cross. He was even forbidden to receive or to send letters and cards. It is imperative at this time to recognise the importance of the humane treatment of prisoners, whether they have been found guilty or are awaiting trial. As a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention we have a moral obligation to see it upheld and advocate when it is not being adhered to. Prisoners have the right to humane treatment at all times; the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis; and the right to unencumbered access to the International Red Cross. There is also the right for one to have knowledge of a prisoner's location.

It is important to state the facts as we know them, so let me recount them. Firstly, Shalit was kidnapped from an Israeli army post and has been held against his will and that of his family and his nation for over five 6110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

years. Secondly, despite countless attempts by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian delegations, Hamas has ignored international humanitarian law and the Third Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of prisoners of war and has denied Shalit access to any outside agency to check on his wellbeing or to convey messages of support from loved ones.

Thirdly, Palestinian organisations such as Hamas routinely utilise the services and support of the Red Crescent to verify the wellbeing of Israeli-held Palestinian prisoners, in addition to delivering mail and other messages from friends and family. It should be remembered that when talking about Shalit we are not talking about a battle-hardened warrior; we are talking about a young man who, since he was a teenager, has been held away from the love of his family. I welcome the announcement of the agreement to release Gilad Shalit and acknowledge his prospective release as a positive step in human rights. A belief in a humane society is not limited solely to New South Wales.

PARTNER HOUSING AUSTRALASIA

Mr JAI ROWELL (Wollondilly) [6.46 p.m.]: Partner Housing Australasia is a wonderful initiative that I have grown to become passionate about. I was fortunate enough to be the keynote speaker at the organisation's annual fundraising dinner on the weekend. I first became involved with Partner Housing many years ago in my capacity as a councillor on Campbelltown City Council. I was approached to take part in the construction of one of the first houses to gain a better understanding of the work that the organisation does and the outcomes that are achieved. During this time that I was able to truly appreciate the beauty of this initiative. This organisation must be congratulated on the value it places on community spirit. The grassroots support, the camaraderie and the selflessness on display that day were nothing short of inspirational. It was inspirational to see how, through teamwork, a band of volunteers were able to transform the lives of a local family by building them a home.

As a new member of Parliament I am constantly discovering new reasons every day to enjoy my role as a local representative. I feel a sense of achievement when I am able to assist a resident with a problem, however big or small, or when I am able to provide funding for projects in my electorate. The recent budget saw record spends on health and infrastructure, with $139 million allocated to Campbelltown Hospital, safety upgrades for Picton Road and multimillion dollar allocations for the M5, Narellan Road and The Northern Road. Towns and suburbs in Wollondilly, after waiting more than a decade, will be connected to sewerage lines, and tourism initiatives will see our local economies thrive.

But these are just some of the projects and services that contribute to a fulfilled life. Equally important is a sense of community, a shared passion for improving the livelihood of our neighbours and a willingness to assist those who may be less fortunate by coming together to ensure they have the basic shelter needed to live a sustainable life. The Partner Housing initiative has embraced this ideal and it is for this reason that I am proud to speak on it tonight. I cannot think of a better purpose than offering local families the chance to enrich their lives through a program such as this. Assisting them to build a home in the wonderful Wollondilly-Macarthur region and reinvest their time to assist others in the future is helping to promote the very essence of community spirit.

Excerpts from Partner Housing's mission statement highlight this ideal in that it builds simple, decent, affordable houses for selected families through the support of volunteers and donors. This statement highlights another important component of Partner Housing: the opportunity it gives TAFE students to gain hands-on experience and contribute to a worthy cause. Students from Chullora TAFE who are studying carpentry help build wooden frames which are then transported to the site, where volunteers from all walks of life help complete the process. This is a fantastic partnership and I would welcome it at our local Campbelltown TAFE, an institution that I visited recently with Parliamentary Secretary Gabrielle Upton.

This concept helps foster community relationships while having the added advantage of being mutually beneficial to both parties. In fact, recent data suggests that organisations such as Partner Housing have a strong track record of housing some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The hard work of volunteer organisations such as Partner Housing is often underappreciated. Organisations such as this contribute not only to the very fabric of our society but also to the health of the State's finances. Without their valuable, selfless input and their support of community-based organisations the Government would be left having to source billions of dollars simply to continue the current level of services provided by those same people.

I certainly recognise the important role community organisations play in transforming lives and communities in New South Wales, and I am proud to do whatever I can as a member of this Government to 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6111

ensure that it continues. Proactive initiatives with long-term strategic benefit are the hallmark of good governance. Our Government has established NSW 2021, a plan to make New South Wales number one again. One example is in the housing market. Housing affordability is already a problem of increasing significance in metropolitan Sydney and a number of other urban centres throughout New South Wales. The lack of affordable housing and particularly a shortage of appropriate rental accommodation have major impacts on families and the wider community.

Our Government is already working to change the supply and demand ratio and is retaining the new home buyer's incentive for new homes. However, the Government recognises that it cannot solve this problem on its own and is keen to work with the community housing sector to develop opportunities to improve housing affordability. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government is committed to the growth of the affordable housing sector, and achieving this relies on strong partnerships between government, community housing providers and others. In my opinion Partner Housing is a wonderful initiative led by dedicated individuals. It is important that organisations such as Partner Housing continue to provide the same service for many more years to come.

I am excited as the local member to see that the next home is to be built in Tahmoor, just up the road from my office. On a daily basis my staff and I see individuals and families in hardship, and we believe that the examples set by volunteers of Partner Housing will be well received not only in Tahmoor but right across Wollondilly. The Partner Housing model is not only life changing for those in receipt but also inspiring for those involved. I commend the organisation to the House.

PHILIPPINE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) [6.51 p.m.]: I inform the House of the work of the Philippine-Australian Community Foundation and, in particular, its project to develop a permanent and lasting Philippine and Australian Cultural Centre on its property at Schofields. The main objective of the Philippine-Australian Community Foundation is the collection, preservation, promotion and dissemination of Filipino culture and heritage in Australia. It also aims to be a broad-based source of information, advice, assistance and interest for the benefit of people of Filipino nationality or descent in Australia as well as for the wider Australian community. I am proud to host this centre in my electorate on the 2.2 hectare property at Grange Avenue, Schofields, which the foundation purchased in recent years. It has a vision to develop it to provide a permanent base for their community.

The Philippine-Australian Community Foundation regularly convenes community events for the Philippine-Australian community of interest and benefit to the wider community. These events include concerts, community markets, car boot sales, community festivals, carols by candlelight, pageants, family days, religious observances and fundraising for worthy community projects. The foundation also acts as facilitator of Philippine dignitaries visiting Australia for talks and tours. One observance particular to Filipinos is the Pabasa or Reading of the Passion. The Philippine-Australian Community Foundation sponsored an observance of this rich cultural tradition back in April. Another is the Feast of St Joseph the Worker, which the foundation sponsored in May.

Last Saturday I had the privilege to attend the Grand Charity Concert of the Philippine-Australian Community Foundation held at the State Sports Centre at Homebush to raise money for the development of the Philippine-Australian Cultural Centre at Schofields. The Grand Charity Concert brought four talented and popular performing artists from the Philippines together in an entertaining production. The mega-show featured renowned singers Pops Fernandez and Vina Morales, dance sensation John Prats and comedian and performer Pooh under the musical direction of Butch Miraflor.

It is commendable that the Filipino community in Australia would mount an event of this scale and professionalism, of interest to the Filipino community but also enriching the cultural diversity of Australia as a whole, and for such a worthy end. The aspiration of the Filipino community for a gathering place in Sydney is worthwhile and noble. It is a cause worthy of wider community support. I was pleased to attend the function representing the electorate of Riverstone and the wider community of the district to support the aspirations of the Philippine community. The event was supported by more than 1,000 paying customers. I can assure members everyone had a good time and laughed at the jokes, many of which I did not get because they were in Tagalog.

The hard work of people working on the community centre—firstly at its original site at Rooty Hill and now on the property at Schofields—has to be commended. In particular, I congratulate Mr Reming Biala, the concert organiser and a key Philippine-Australian Community Foundation supporter, as well as the foundation's 6112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 October 2011

board, comprising Luz Tiqui, Larry Muldong, Manny Villon, Ed Yunon, Minerva Santos and Ric de Vera, on its work on behalf of its community and on what it is contributing to the wider Australian community in which its people have settled. Manny Villon's hope is that the centre will become a bridge between our present generation and our future generation in Australia. That is a natural aspiration of each migrant community that has come to this country. They want to pass on the heritage, culture and traditions that they have brought with them to enrich Australia, while at the same time immersing themselves and enjoying the best of our culture in Australia. I commend the Philippine-Australian Community Foundation for its endeavours. I wish it well and look forward the development at Schofields in the future.

COFFS HARBOUR, BELLINGEN AND NAMBUCCA COMMUNITY TRANSPORT INC.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [6.55 p.m.]: I compliment the volunteers and management committee of Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Community Transport Inc. That group does a phenomenal job in providing transport to many people within the Coffs Harbour and Oxley electorates. The scheme was started in 1986 by Jan Ryan, who worked out of the Coffs Harbour City Council chambers, where she basically had a desk in a corner. Earlier this year Jan retired. I have often said to Ministers of the former Government and this Government that if they ever want transport to run properly in New South Wales they should employ Jan Ryan. In almost 25 years she fostered community transport on a shoestring budget in the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca areas and it was absolutely phenomenal.

The organisation has grown since those early days and now has 90 volunteer drivers and staff in Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca. I compliment John Rooth, President of the Management Committee, and Bethany Simmonds, the new coordinator of community transport on their great work. I also congratulate other board members: Peter Dawson, Deirdre Buttsworth, Selwyn Croker, Brenda Gadsby, John Poynten, Kevin Little and Trevor Wilson. Earlier today the Minister was kind enough to meet with John Rooth and Bethany Simmonds to discuss the future of not only Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Community Transport Inc. but also community transport generally across New South Wales.

They raised the issues of the accreditation process of drivers, the future of the community transport organisation, transport for residents of aged care facilities, which is a real problem, and the networking support for the Aboriginal community transport staff not only in the Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca areas but right across the State. The annual report of Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Community Transport Inc. shows that it conducted 75,000 trips in the past 12 months, which is a huge number. The report also mentions that 20 per cent of the population of this State, as shown by a survey conducted by the NRMA, will be over 65 years of age by 2030 or 2031.

The organisation also thanks the Liberal-Nationals Coalition in New South Wales for its new policy statement that it issued during the election campaign and the direction in which this Government is travelling in relation to community transport since we were elected. The Minister for Transport and his staff gave those people a very fair hearing today. They were thrilled that the Minister found time to see them, something that they found very difficult to do over the term of the former Government. Community transport in the Coffs-Bellingen-Nambucca area has 35 vehicles, which are housed all over the place, from Bellingen to Nambucca, as you can well imagine, Mr Acting-Speaker, purely so the volunteers can access them and ensure that people who are in need of transport can get it.

We do not have transport readily available as our city colleagues do. They can wander down to the corner bus stop and jump on a bus and get to pretty well anywhere they want to go in a very short time. People in my area are extremely reliant on the community transport service and especially those fantastic volunteers who give up their time selflessly. They do so not just to drive people around but also to do their accreditation and occupational health and safety courses. I compliment Col Green, who is the fleet manager for community transport, on not just looking after the fleet and making sure it is housed properly and that the drivers are properly trained, but also for pushing forward occupational health and safety. I commend this organisation to the Parliament and the Minister. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to meet with her today and for the very positive hearing she gave John and Bethany.

GOSFORD ELECTORATE SPORTING ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN (Gosford) [7.00 p.m.]: At this time of the year when the football boots are thrown aside and the cricket whites are pulled from the drawer it is with some degree of pride that I congratulate a number of the sporting teams in my electorate of Gosford for their most recent achievements on the sporting 12 October 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6113

fields across a number of codes. In rugby union, Gosford won the 2011 first grade premiership when it defeated Avoca Beach, from the electorate of the member for Terrigal, for the first time. The game played at Woy Woy Oval resulted in a 26 to 10 win for Gosford, ending Avoca Beach's run of six successive first grade premierships. In junior rugby union, the Woy Woy under-12 team defeated Terrigal 29-15 to win its third straight title. The juniors who will progress to the senior competition in 2012 were Woy Woy, which defeated Avoca Beach by 22 points to 17. Gosford and the peninsula both did my electorate proud in rugby union.

In football, or soccer if you come from the other side of the world, Umina, another team from the peninsula in my electorate, took out the Central Coast first grade grand final in extra time, beating the pre-match favourites Berkeley Vale 4 to 3 at Pluim Park. In the under-10 grand final the Umina United soccer team won its match against East Gosford 2 to 1, but as both teams come from my electorate we could not lose. I want to mention the Central Coast Mariners, who captured the Doug Turnbull Cup recently with a 3 to 0 win over the Bankstown City Lions at Jenson Park, Sefton. At the start of the seventh season of the A league I take the opportunity to acknowledge the mighty Central Coast Mariners, whose tie I wear proudly today. They have been in the grand final three times but are still bridesmaids. However, last year's grand final against the Brisbane Roar was rated as one of the best games of football ever seen in this country. From that we will gain strength and resolve to go one better this year. I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes and congratulations for the year ahead to Graham Arnold, the coach, and Alex Wilkinson, the captain, and all our team and coaching staff.

I dare not forget the ladies. The women's first grade team from Kariong beat Gosford 1 to 0. Again, both teams were from my electorate. In the women's Premier League, Gosford defeated Doyalson to secure another grand final win, which sees them undefeated for the past two seasons. It was not just in ball games that our sporting community excelled. Some newly graded members of the Woy Woy Judo Club competed in the novice competition at Castle Hill in Sydney where a total of 109 bouts were held. Gold medals were won by Sean Keogh in the under 31 kilogram division and by Steven Lill in the junior boys under 36 kilogram division. The team brought back to the Central Coast two gold, three silver and two bronze medals on the day. Only a few weeks ago at Mount Penang the T20 cricket season had a pre-season hit-out with teams from Manly, Sydney Tigers and Warringah. Only one team, Central Coast, won all three games.

Our Central Coast Baseball Association under-10 team took out the New South Wales country championship for the second year in a row at a two-day tournament held recently in the Illawarra. Another outstanding achievement, in rugby league, was the recent historic win by the Brisbane Water Secondary College under-14 team. The Buckley Shield competition is played between 400 schools from around New South Wales. It is the first time since 1975 that this much sought after trophy has been brought back to the Central Coast. I congratulate Rhys Kearns, the captain of the team, who also took out man of the match, and Satali Tevi-Fuimano, who was awarded most valuable player. The principal of Brisbane Water Secondary College paid tribute to the team for the fantastic achievement and to their outstanding mentor and coach, Mr Crouch. I reiterate my congratulations to all the teams and individuals who have done the Central Coast proud. I salute their achievements and take the opportunity to wish all our young and old sporting people all the best for the coming sporting season.

Private members' statements concluded.

The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 7.05 p.m. until Thursday 13 October 2011 at 10.00 a.m.

______