12979

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 19 June 2012

______

The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 12 noon.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

NEWCASTLE INNER CITY BYPASS

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [12.05 p.m.]: A key orbital link designed to connect residents across the Lower Hunter is our quest—to connect those commuting from the northern areas of Sandgate and Hexham to the lower end of the Newcastle region without their having to endure the gridlock traffic that occurs each day. Today this link still remains a dream, with both stages four and five of the Newcastle inner city bypass still not finalised. The bypass, otherwise known as State Highway 23, has been a high priority of mine for some time, given that many constituents have raised its completion as a key issue. Once completed, the long-awaited bypass will provide a link between Windale and Sandgate that will allow Hunter residents to commute at ease, without the bottleneck congestion that features on a day-to-day basis. Right now, the section from Shortland to Sandgate, stage four, is still in mid construction, with the last section still just a plan, nothing more.

Stage four has been halted due to issues with contractors, though that does not mean funding cannot be designated to section five of the project in the next State budget. Many people will benefit from the construction of the Jesmond to Rankin Park section of the Newcastle inner city bypass. The section's completion will finalise the bypass and provide improved connectivity between key destinations such as John Hunter Hospital, the University of Newcastle and the Pacific Highway at Sandgate, as well as the inner western suburbs of the city. Commuters often struggle with severe traffic congestion on the roads leading to John Hunter Hospital and the University of Newcastle, two of the larger institutions in the Hunter. Sarah Walden, a local motorist and architecture student at the University of Newcastle, said she arrives late to class because of the traffic backed up along this road:

"There have been times when it has taken just under half an hour just to get from the end of the bypass to Newcastle Road, it is ridiculous," she said.

"The traffic almost comes to a standstill, especially outside of John Hunter Hospital, because of all the students and workers who commute to class or work."

Speaking of John Hunter Hospital, the proposed route for section five will feature a western entrance for the facility. This no doubt would further alleviate congestion along Lookout Road, as employees and patients will have another way to enter the hospital rather than from the much relied upon eastern entrance. A western entrance is essential especially as John Hunter Hospital campus is currently expanding and will continue to do so. It is important to note that in the next couple of months the Hunter Medical Research Institute will be opened, and that will bring more staff, volunteers and other workers onto the very busy John Hunter Hospital campus, exacerbating the gridlock. The current state of traffic is set to deteriorate further, and according to NRMA's Hunter Director, Kyle Loades, the Hunter's current road infrastructure is at a tipping point. Mr Loades said:

We need to put serious infrastructure in place … because otherwise it'll be gridlock, it'll be diabolical.

At least $3 billion worth of investment is needed for infrastructure in the Hunter in order to meet the demand of an increasing population. The NRMA considers the Glendale interchange, the F3 Freeway to Raymond Terrace

12980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

upgrade and, significantly, the Newcastle inner city bypass, stages four and five, as priority projects. The NRMA's support of the bypass is unquestionable, and justifies the importance of speeding up the project for the people of the Hunter who soon will begin to feel the weight of our pressured road network.

It is clear that the Hunter needs an improved road network without delay. The completion of the Newcastle inner city bypass will alleviate much of the congestion that regularly clogs our roads. The Shortland to Sandgate stage is set to take longer than initially planned. For that reason alone it is vital that planning for stage five, the final piece of the puzzle, begins promptly. With traffic set to intensify in the coming decades due to development and an increasing population, it is important for us to look intently at the fifth stage on which workers and students depend so heavily to commute through Newcastle's inner western suburbs.

TRIBUTE TO JOHN EDLUND, VA

TRIBUTE TO JOAN ROBERTSON

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn—Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Women) [12.10 p.m.]: John Edlund and Joan Robertson, two Goulburn constituents that I bring to the attention of the House today, have both served their community with selfless dedication. Mrs Joan Robertson is the 2012 Local Woman of the Year in my electorate, and former Detective Sergeant John Edlund, VA, was an exemplary member of the NSW Police Force for almost 30 years and received many commendations. Sadly, John died recently after a long and brave battle with cancer which added to his own battle against corruption in the NSW Police Force in which he once served so faithfully. John acquitted himself admirably. In honour of his memory I will speak first about John.

In the 1990s John suffered a great injustice when he and his former colleague Matt Casey brought the corrupt dealings of fellow officers, as they alleged, to the attention of their superiors. Their reputations were sullied by certain types of police officers who thankfully nowadays are a rare breed. Neither John nor Matt resiled from their determination to restore their good names. I am pleased to say that after many years of determined effort they were finally vindicated by the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the current Minister for Police in the other place. John died at the end of last month but not before just compensation had been secured. In 2000 John was diagnosed with cancer. Despite losing an eye to the disease and even though he was often in great pain, he pursued his love of painting. His watercolour of a kookaburra takes special place in my Goulburn home.

The funeral of former Detective Sergeant John Edlund, which was held at the New South Wales Police Academy chapel in Goulburn, was attended by Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas along with family, hundreds of friends and former colleagues who lined the road to farewell his coffin. There were many who spoke of his integrity, honesty and determination while others spoke of his kindness, generosity and sense of fair play. I will continue to remember John fondly, as will all my electorate staff and the wider Goulburn community. I again thank the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the current Minister for Police, for recognising John's plight. Vale John Edlund.

Mrs Joan Robertson is another esteemed member of the Goulburn community. When I met Joan I was instantly impressed by this upright, well-dressed and sprightly woman. Joan, who is in her early eighties, is still actively involved in the soccer world in the Southern Highlands and recently was awarded a distinguished long service award for the sport by the New South Wales Sports Federation. Joan's connection to the soccer world started, like many others, as a soccer mum. In the early 1960s her late husband, Andrew, refereed for the Lane Cove District Soccer Club and her eldest son, Andrew, started playing in the juniors side at the age of seven. Soccer is definitely a family tradition as Joan's father-in-law had been a Glaswegian professional soccer player in the early 1900s before migrating to Australia.

Mrs Robertson volunteered for canteen duty and washing team strips well before the introduction of modern high-speed washing machines and efficient tumble dryers. She stood endlessly at the sidelines cheering on her son in all weather and chauffeuring him to games and training. In 1970, after her son moved to Granville Soccer Club, she was elected recorder for the club and was an active member of the fundraising social committee. When Joan's younger son, David, started playing for the Castle Hill RSL Club in 1972 she became the team's manager, while still juggling the washing for both teams and turning up for canteen duties at both clubs.

Joan's connection to soccer began in the early 1960s when, as a recorder, she typed up match results using an old-fashioned Gestetner machine to print and distribute copies to all clubs. In 1976 she was elected 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12981

secretary of the Granville Soccer Association and retired only when her family moved to the Southern Highlands in the mid-1980s. Joan's retirement did not last long and she soon became involved in the Highlands Soccer Association, firstly as registrar, rising to association secretary and association delegate in 1992. Joan served 17 years in the southern branch, mostly as secretary, and finally retired in 2011. She also served at State level to Football NSW on various committees and remains a member of Football NSW Juniors Standing Committee.

In my ministerial role I often reflect on what we can do to help to keep families together and to ensure that children feel supported and are cared for. Joan's devotion and commitment to the sport began with her desire to support her own children. Actively participating in our children's lives, whether through sport or helping them with their homework, helps them to become wonderful adults. It is on a sad note that I end this private member's statement. Joan is now very ill and is in hospital. I have been unable to speak with Joan's family so I cannot relate her current condition, but my thoughts and prayers are with Joan and her family at this time.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [12.15 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I join the member for Goulburn, the Minister for Family and Community Services, in acknowledging the contribution of former Detective Sergeant John Edlund. I was pleased to hear that the Minister for Police recognised his contribution and that he received appropriate compensation. I also acknowledge the contribution of Joan Robertson who, as a soccer mum, served not only her local community but also the State community. People like that are pretty special. I thank the member for Goulburn for drawing to the attention of members the wonderful contribution of both John Edlund and Joan Robertson.

CASINO TO MURWILLUMBAH RAIL LINE

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [12.16 p.m.]: At the moment much attention is focused on the development of the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan. I take this opportunity to refer to the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line feasibility study that has now commenced. That comprehensive rail study will help to inform the regional transport study that is due to commence early next year. In March this year I, as Minister for the North Coast, announced the appointment of Tim Poole, director of the Casino to Murwillumbah project, who has been charged with leading a broad investigation into the rail line and the public transport needs of communities in the northern rivers region. Mr Poole has extensive experience in rail projects, especially in south-east Queensland, where passenger rail is gradually being extended from Brisbane south, past Robina and eventually to Coolangatta. Mr Poole was the project director of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project and has 25 years experience in the planning, design and delivery of major infrastructure and transport projects.

An important aspect of the study will be to understand the engineering issues, costs and benefits, including the economic, social and environmental benefits. The winning tenderer for the project was Arup, an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists. I am pleased to report that work on this northern rivers rail study is progressing well and Arup's engineers have started the important job of inspecting and documenting the condition of the disused line. The Casino to Murwillumbah rail line was closed by the New South Wales Labor Government in 2004, to the disappointment of many North Coast residents. I remember the outrage in the community and the protests at the time, in which I participated. Eight years on, many people remain passionate about the rail line, although today the community does not want the reinstatement of an XPT service but commuter and tourist trains for the North Coast community with a view to connecting eventually with the Queensland rail system.

Leading up to the 2011 election this Liberal-Nationals Government promised it would revisit the train issue by conducting a comprehensive study. True to our election commitment, Mr Poole and his team are now doing that. We are delivering on our promise to examine options for the line as well as looking at broader transport issues in the northern rivers region. Two teams of engineers are inspecting key points along the 130-kilometre line, checking the condition of the rail line, sleepers, drainage, level crossings, bridges, tunnels, embankments and stations. There are 145 timber bridges, 13 steel bridges and nine substantial tunnels along the route. Many of the timber bridges have been subject to attack by white ants and several sections of the line are now covered by landslip. During the course of the study there will be consultation with stakeholders in the region to ensure expectations are consistent with the objectives of the study. It is important to realise that the rail line has not been used for eight years and we need an accurate, up-to-date picture of the line, its facilities and possible services. Once we know what condition it is in we will be able to better understand the extent of the 12982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

repair, replacement and renewal work that will be needed if we are to make it a safe operating line again. Mr Poole and his staff will also assess the role, function and markets served by the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line and identify alternative transport options for comparison. They will consider future transport needs including connection to the south-east Queensland public transport network. The study also will outline the options to address the short-term, medium-term and long-term community and economic transport needs in the rail corridor.

The scope of the study, which is comprehensive, will examine the condition of the existing Casino to Murwillumbah rail line but also take into account broader issues including the freight network, public transport services, the travel patterns of commuters and visitors, business and regional events. Other transport options, such as high-speed rail, the Casino freight hub, the south-east Queensland public transport extensions and strategic regional initiatives including airports, health, education and development areas, are also being considered. The study will, of course, consider the reinstatement of the rail service on the Casino to Murwillumbah line but also will examine other options for transport in the future. It will determine the engineering issues, costs and benefits associated with reinstating the rail line to current safety standards.

These benefits will include economic, social and environmental benefits. As I said, eventually we hope to be able to connect with the Queensland system at Coolangatta airport, where presumably there would need to be an interchange because of different gauges. I expect the study to be completed by the end of this year. The results of that study will inform the development of the Northern Rivers Regional Transport Plan, which will help to identify the best mix of rail services to meet the current and future needs of people living in the northern rivers region. The Liberal-Nationals Government is honouring its pre-election commitment to undertake this comprehensive study. I look forward to its presentation to the Government at the end of the year.

SCHIZOPHRENIA FELLOWSHIP OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove—Minister for Fair Trading) [12.21 p.m.]: Today I note a small but wonderful recent event in my electorate. On Friday 18 May I was honoured to be asked to open the new kitchen facilities at the Gladesville Hospital site of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales Inc. Joining me on the day were Ms Sue Sacker, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales, and her colleague Mr Rob Ramjan. In 2010, with my encouragement, the fellowship successfully submitted an application to the Community Building Partnership program to renovate the volunteers' work area. It gave me great delight to open the renovated area upon its completion and I encouraged the fellowship to apply again. It did so and in 2011 it applied for a grant to renovate the kitchen, which would enable the fellowship to help teach consumers and carers healthy eating skills and practices. I am glad to say that again the fellowship was successful in its application.

The renovation was recently completed and a special morning tea with staff, volunteers and others was held to officially open the kitchen. This has been one of those little success stories that sadly does not get as much coverage as good news stories should get. The kitchen at the Gladesville site will be used for several purposes, including cooking and nutrition classes for people with mental illness and their families—the fellowship has made an application to Northside Community Forum for respite funding for this purpose—to provide amenities for the fellowship's training room, which is used for internal and external training, and to assist with the running of events such as fundraising activities, staff lunches and the like. The renovation was completed by Perfect Plumbing with the support of the Gladesville Hospital site manager, Greg Fitzpatrick, and his great team. It is worth noting that they had to lay gas piping, for which they paid half the cost.

There were, of course, many challenges as this is an old, heritage-listed building and funds were limited, so ingenuity and thought were needed to complete the project on time and on budget. The project was managed by Susan Freeman from the office of the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales who, according to her colleagues—I know this from my experience—operated with great tact and attention to detail. I congratulate the Schizophrenia Fellowship of New South Wales and I thank it for its contribution not only to my electorate but also to all those people in New South Wales who suffer from schizophrenia. As I said earlier, this is one of those little success stories that helps to remind us all, and especially parliamentarians, of our duty to build a stronger community.

SOUTH WEST COMMUNITY TRANSPORT

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [12.24 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the increasing need for a bariatric transport system. Recently I met with Lyn Bright, executive officer of South West 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12983

Community Transport, an excellent organisation that is based at Minto that services a large area including the Campbelltown, Camden, Fairfield, Liverpool and Wollondilly local government areas. South West Community Transport began at Camden Hospital and was incorporated in 1989. It has an operating budget of $2 million, 85 full-time equivalent workers—some of whom are volunteers—20 drivers and a board comprising nine people from diverse backgrounds including Indigenous and business backgrounds.

South West Community Transport provides transport services for the frail aged and younger people with disabilities and their carers so they can attend doctors' appointments, social events and go on shopping excursions. The organisation cannot cater for people from group homes or aged care facilities, for education, or emergency purposes. It also cannot provide transport for people to access oncology services, for patients following day surgery, or for people undergoing dialysis because those patients need specialised medical transport. However, South West Community Transport is an innovative organisation that provides a wonderful service for frail aged and people with disabilities. For example, it is very helpful for people in wheelchairs who also can access out-of-hours self-drive hire. Its rates are very competitive: A return trip from Casula to Sydney is about $37.00, which is a reasonable cost for such a long trip.

South West Community Transport was the first community organisation in the State to operate a travel training program. The organisation also has a multicultural community transport service. As I said, one of the major emerging needs affecting the ability of the organisation to continue its valuable work is the increase in the number of clients who are classified as significantly obese and who need specialised bariatric transport. Currently the only means of transport available to bariatric clients is via the Ambulance Service of NSW, which places a significant burden on that service as neither South West Community Transport nor the South Western Sydney Local Health District has a vehicle that meets the needs of clients and complies with work health and safety regulations. Bariatric clients are unable to travel to a general practitioner or to specialists; they are unable to access allied health services located in their local communities; and they are unable to go shopping or have general access to other members of their communities. This further compounds their health problems because a lack of engagement with the community contributes to poor health.

South West Community Transport has submitted an expression of interest to Ageing, Disability and Home Care for funds that would enable the purchase of a modified vehicle to provide safe access and transport for bariatric clients. Under this proposal South West Community Transport would be the lead agency providing access to the vehicle, safety equipment and highly trained staff to all community transport groups from Wingecarribee to south Sydney, which would benefit 23 local government areas. The project would operate in conjunction with Great Community Transport, which has also submitted an expression of interest to provide a duplicate service from the mountains to north Sydney. Under this proposal two vehicles could cover the whole of the Sydney Basin and be fully utilised for the purpose of bariatric transport. Without this resource, bariatric clients will continue to suffer from the lack of access to the community transport services they need and deserve. I urge the Government to examine this issue and to support South West Community Transport in addressing this urgent need.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [12.29 p.m.]: I thank the member for Macquarie Fields for raising the important issue of community transport and for bringing South West Community Transport to the attention of the House. Over the past 23 years I have had quite a lot to do with community transport in my area and I can attest to the wonderful work done by community transport organisations. I recognise in particular the importance of volunteer drivers. Community transport organisations could not function without their assistance. A raft of people are assisted by community transport, including the frail aged, those who need to attend medical appointments, older people who need to shop for basic requirements and younger disabled people in need of transport assistance. It fulfils a very important role and I suspect with our aging population it will continue to do so. I thank the member for Macquarie Fields for bringing the issue of community transport to the attention of the House.

BLUE MOUNTAINS, LITHGOW AND OBERON TOURISM WINTER BALL

Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [12.30 p.m.]: On 27 May last, on a cold mountain night, I attended the Blue Mountains Lithgow and Oberon Tourism Winter Ball 2012, which was held at the newly refurbished Fairmont Resort, Leura. The winter ball, which is the flagship event of the Mountains tourism sector, heralds the start of the Yulefest season in the Blue Mountains. Winter is the time when visitors and residents alike celebrate an antipodean Christmas and visitors from far and wide, from Sydney, interstate and overseas, flock to the Blue Mountains to experience cold winter days and nights—if it snows it is an added treat—and the out-of-season Christmas festivities. Christmas carollers, Christmas food, decorations and the odd Santa can be found at various mountain venues. 12984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

The popularity and promotion of Yulefest in the Blue Mountains is the legacy of the ingenuity of the mountains tourism sector to turn the worst tourist season of the year into the highlight of the tourist year, and Garry Crockett, the owner of Mountain Heritage, Katoomba, started it. In 1980 a small group of Irish guests, in search of the crisp, clear winters they were accustomed to in Ireland, visited the mountains and as Garry listened to his guests an idea crystallised in his mind. He offered to recreate at the Mountain Heritage for his guests a Christmas festive atmosphere similar to that enjoyed in Ireland, and year-by-year this festive event grew until it became Blue Mountains wide. The Mountain Heritage is known as the home of Yulefest. The Blue Mountains Lithgow and Oberon Tourism Winter Ball 2012 was decorated with Christmas trees, which local businesses were invited to decorate, and we enjoyed a Christmas menu.

Josophan's Fine Chocolates, Leura, made the most spectacular and delicious edible trees. Media representatives were asked to adjudicate the best tree. Maurice Cooper from Bygone Beauties was the winner. The welcome to country was given by Gundungurra elder Sharon Brown and the Gundungurra dreamtime story was performed by the Gundungurra dancers, with a multimedia backdrop. Michael Brischetto from the Carrington Hotel was the master of ceremonies. We were welcomed by Councillor Daniel Myles, Mayor of the Blue Mountains City Council, and the mayor of Lithgow also addressed us. Joost Heymeijer, from the Wolgan Valley Resort and Spa—the recent wedding venue of Australian Cricket Captain Michael Clarke—gave a short address, and we were treated to a preview of a humorous online commercial promoting the Blue Mountains, which features Jack Thompson.

Randall Walker, Chairman of Blue Mountains Lithgow and Oberon Tourism, informed us of the activities planned for the coming year. We were also entertained by the Lounge Bar Lotharios Dance Orchestra—a Blue Mountains band that showcases music from the 1920s jazz age—and they were really good. Blue Mountains Lithgow and Oberon Tourism does not only promote Blue Mountains regional tourism; its members are also great supporters of many local groups. For instance, it has run successful red balloon balls as fundraisers for the Blue Mountains Rural Fire Service. At the winter ball Superintendent David Hoadley, the acting area commander of the Rural Fire Service, accepted two electronic signboards. One of the boards, donated by Fairmont Resort and Dr Jerry Schwartz, the owner of the resort, was given away by Carencia Harris of the Fairmont.

Over the past 12 months Blue Mountains Lithgow and Oberon Tourism, assisted by Destination NSW, ran a raffle for a handmade Australian Bufori motor car valued at $100,000. Members of the public and visitors were encouraged to enter the raffle when purchasing goods or accommodation in the area. Each month winners were drawn and invited to attend the grand draw at no charge. Winners came from Melbourne, the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Sydney and even a local entrant from Glenbrook. The highlight of the night was the drawing of the raffle. Maurice Cooper, OAM, and I drew the winner, who, as luck would have it, was the local entrant from Glenbrook. He and his wife, a nice young couple, did need a new car but perhaps not of the same quality as a Bufori. They were very pleased. This great night showcased the very best of the Blue Mountains tourism industry.

YARNTEEN LTD

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [12.35 p.m.]: I inform the House about a highly successful community organisation in my region, Yarnteen. The Yarnteen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation was established in 1991. Yarnteen is a not-for-profit company whose objective is to provide Aboriginal people with training and employment opportunities and relief from unemployment. The name Yarnteen comes from the Awabakal people of the Newcastle area and means all or everybody. Since its beginning Yarnteen has successfully achieved its aim of becoming what it terms a "full and free agent in our own development". Yarnteen saw the need to become a player in the mainstream economy of our region in order to support its community focus. This was an important strategy to ensure the sustainability of the organisation, to move away from government funding and to create long-term employment for Indigenous people.

Over time Yarnteen has established three main commercial entities—one is a major bulk warehouse operation in the Port of Newcastle—and it has created initiatives to assist Indigenous people to establish and maintain their own businesses. Specifically, its objectives are to build wealth through sustainable enterprises and investments to increase opportunities for greater Aboriginal participation in the business sector; to create pathways and opportunities for skills development and to contribute to closing the gap in unemployment; to enhance Aboriginal youth cultural leadership and increase appreciation in Aboriginal culture for all Australians; and to develop respectful relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people for shared outcomes and benefits. It also has a range of activities in place to support its objectives. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12985

An appropriate enterprise and investment strategy was developed to help Yarnteen be a self-sustaining corporation and to achieve its vision. Enterprise development and equity investment are the two main elements of that strategy. The enterprise development arm identifies commercially viable opportunities to enable it to generate income for the sustainability of the organisation and to create employment. The equity investment strategy arm aims to increase its asset base to a size that, when established, will give it leverage and economic sustainability. Yarnteen aims to establish a sustainable future that is rich in opportunities for Aboriginal people to share in the wealth of Australia and build respect in the wider community for their culture and environment.

The cultural values of Yarnteen are encapsulated as lore, love, look, listen, learn and lead. Its governance model is held as a benchmark for Aboriginal community and enterprise development. Its success has been attributed to the vision, stability, cohesiveness and cooperation it has generated from all sectors of the Aboriginal and wider community. Yarnteen advocates that the way forward for its people is to continue to place emphasis on the economic empowerment of Aboriginal communities, families and individuals, which will enable the development of financial independence. It believes in empowering family units and youth through participation in education, employment and business development opportunities, which will enable them to make informed decisions about the future.

Yarnteen advocates that the way forward for Aboriginal people is to continue to place a greater emphasis on the economic empowerment of Aboriginal communities, families and individuals and to empower family units and youth to enable them to participate in education, employment and business development. I pay tribute to the board members of Yarnteen: Jim Wright, Ron Gordon, Saretta Fielding, Patricia Capper, Diana Gordon, Doug Gordon, D. J. Faulkner and Warwick (Wok) Wright. Last Saturday was the twenty-first anniversary celebration for Yarnteen, and it was an occasion of great pride for a fantastic local organisation.

Yarnteen is a great example of empowering local communities and people to be in control of their futures. Yarnteen originally developed its financial independence through a grant in 1992-93 with which it purchased a grain shed on Kooragang Island. From that business it has developed a network of businesses that provide financial support for the local Indigenous community. The organisation is a great local treasure. It provides a model which I encourage all other Indigenous and non-Indigenous community organisations to look to as a way to create financial self-sufficiency. I commend Yarnteen and I appreciate the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [12.40 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I thank the member for Charlestown for his interesting address in relation to Yarnteen. I commend the organisation for its success in generating employment for Aboriginal people by providing them with opportunities to improve their skills in business and, essentially, drive their economic empowerment. I endorse the member's comment that this organisation provides a benchmark for other Aboriginal community organisations across the State. I encourage them to look at the successes of Yarnteen and adapt its methods for their own purposes.

TRIBUTE TO WYNNE HAWKINS

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.41 p.m.]: I acknowledge the life of Wynne Hawkins, a great Australian. Wynne was born in 1923 into a farming family in Tocumwal, and there was never any doubt about his future career. Wynne was born with farming in his blood. In 1942 Wynne's family farm was resumed with no compensation by the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] to build a training aerodrome. It was not until 1946 that John McEwen, the leader of the Country Party at the time, was able to get the Federal Government to pay compensation for the land. At that time Wynne had been called up and was serving in the air force. I think it may have been John McEwen's actions that led Wynne not only to be loyal to the Country Party, but also to chair the Murray electorate council for many years.

Wynne joined his father and uncle at Murrangreen and Yarrangerie after he left the air force. Wynne saw the introduction of irrigation into the Berrigan shire and recognised the huge benefits it provided to farming. While Wynne excelled as a mixed farmer, his breeding of Angus cattle was a highlight of his career and he won many show championships. Wynne helped in the Finley Show Society and was a member of Finley Rotary. He served both roles with the same level of diligence. Wynne's greatest achievement was marrying Pat. They farmed at Yarrangerie and raised four daughters and three sons. I first met Wynne when I was a candidate in the 2007 election. I was doorknocking in Finley in summer temperatures of 38 degrees. Wynne insisted on joining me. 12986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

When doorknocking in the community it did not take me long to learn the high level of the respect and regard the community held for Wynne. After I became the member for Murray-Darling I made a point of visiting Wynne and Pat if I could find them at home. Wynne would always be on hand to help his sons and sons-in-law on their farms on any occasion. It was during these visits I became aware of Wynne's greatness. He was never boastful, jealous, or critical of others. His humility and genuine respect for others always shone through. Whenever he spoke of his sons, daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law and grandchildren he spoke with high praise and with a twinkle in his eye. I spent a lot of time discussing the drought with Wynne. While he felt for his family battling the drought, he never lost sight of the future and was always positive. Tim Fischer, who was a great personal friend of Wynne, said the following:

He was a tall proud patriarch of Clan Hawkins and contributed much to the Party, the cattle industry and the community. I learnt much from Wynne and it was a privilege to know him. I salute Wynne as a great Australian.

It was interesting to note that Tim Fischer referred to the Hawkins as a clan—something I commented on in my inaugural speech. Later Wynne's son John said, "We're a clan". I could describe the great family structure as nothing else. Wynne passed away on 12 June 2012. I was privileged to know Wynne. While I know his passing will create great sadness, he passed on his seeds of greatness to two Hawkins generations. His values live on. To his wife, Pat, and his family I extend the sympathies of this Parliament. I know every member of this House who knew Wynne as I did feels the same way. Vale Wynne Hawkins.

TAMWORTH DISTRICT RURAL FIRE SERVICE

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [12.45 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to update the Parliament on the excellent activities and great work being done by Rural Fire Service volunteers in the Tamworth district. Friday 15 June and Saturday 16 June were particularly busy days during which I joined Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons, Superintendent Bryan Daley and Superintendent Allyn Purkiss in handing over some new fire tankers and commissioning new stations. It fills me with pride to be able to do that because the volunteers deserve the very best when they go out to protect our communities. On Friday evening the medals presentation for the Tamworth district Rural Fire Service was held. It was a special occasion during which medals and clasps were presented to 56 proud volunteers. National medals and clasps are presented to members of the service in recognition of their years of diligent service, for members who go above and beyond what is expected of active members within their brigades.

Long-service medals and clasps are presented to members of the service in recognition of their years of active service. All recipients are commended for their dedication, commitment and service to the local community. As I said, there were 56 recipients of medals and clasps on Friday evening. They represented a total of 1,596 years of service, which is quite remarkable. I commend Lewis Slee, who received the national medal for 43 years of combined service with the New South Wales Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Service as a member of the Woolomin-Duncans Creek brigade. While all recipients are highly valued and respected members of the service, I will single out some of the long service medal recipients for special mention. Ian Rennie commenced with the Woolbrook brigade in 1969 and received a long service medal for 42 years of service. John Hall joined the Coolabah brigade in 1970 and received a medal for 42 years of service. These are remarkable periods of volunteering.

Paul Hicks received a medal for 42 years of service. He started out with the Nowendoc brigade as a youngster and rose to the position of senior deputy captain of the brigade. Bob Chaffey was celebrated for 43 years of service. He commenced with the Somerton brigade in 1969 and has been an active member ever since. Bob displays incredible drive and spirit. Tom Woolaston is another 43-year veteran. He also commenced his volunteer career with the Somerton brigade in 1969 and now assists the brigade when he can. Richard Chaffey commenced with the Attunga Bush Fire Brigade in 1967 and was celebrated for 45 years of service. Charles May received his medal for 46 years of service. These numbers are incredible. Don Scott began his career in 1963 and served as a member of both the Garoo and Woolbrook brigades. He was awarded a long-service medal for 48 years of service. Arthur Henry commenced with the Woolbrook brigade in 1962 and received his medal for 49 years of service.

Peter Slacksmith and Paul Streeter were each awarded medals for 52 years service. Ronald Haworth was celebrated for 55 years of service. Kenneth Roach received a long-service medal, first, second, third, fourth and fifth clasps, for 60 years of service with the Rural Fire Service. That is an extraordinary record. Kenneth has dedicated 60 years of his life to the Somerton brigade. He joined at a young age and was very active in the early days. His health has recently prevented him from participating at the front line but he still attends meetings when possible and supports the brigade in any way he can. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12987

There is a strong sense of responsibility for local volunteers. It was an absolute pleasure to spend time with them on Friday and Saturday as a representative of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Michael Gallacher. People such as these volunteers who receive medals and clasps make this organisation truly remarkable. There are many talented and dedicated professionals in the Rural Fire Service, and without them we would be much poorer. I thank them for their continued service. We value them highly.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast) [12.50 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I join with the member for Tamworth on commending the volunteers in the Rural Fire Service. From memory, we have about 80,000 Rural Fire Service volunteers in New South Wales, which is an amazing number of people. This voluntary force is something that we have in Australia but many other countries do not. Sometimes I think about the cost to government if we did not have all those dedicated volunteers prepared to protect property and people, often putting their own lives at risk in the process. I commend the member for Tamworth for raising this important service and the 56 recipients who were recognised with long service medals and clasps. What is happening in Tamworth is happening throughout New South Wales, and as a government, a Parliament and a community we should be proud of that. What is happening is a wonderful thing.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [12.51 p.m.]: Parents, principals and teachers in my electorate are concerned about the future of public schools and the impact of the Local Schools, Local Decisions policy. As a former teacher I know the vital role that education plays in building future citizens, and have long supported better resources for preschools, schools, special needs education, TAFE and adult and community education. Successive governments have failed to plan for inner-city schooling needs, and I have worked with parents and school communities to retain our public schools. Past decisions to close and sell inner-city school sites are now bearing fruit. There are more and more inner-city families with children who need a school nearby, while schools are full or close to full, and options for expanding or opening new schools are limited and expensive.

The Gonski report identified the need for a massive injection of resources into public education to achieve better learning outcomes and reduce the widening gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. The poorest fifth of schools are almost all government schools, and four-fifths of the poorest children attend government schools. We fail these schools and these students unless we put more resources into their futures. As yet there is no commitment from either the State Government or the Commonwealth Government for extra resources. Shifting responsibility for allocating too few resources will not achieve better results. The Government says that its Local Schools, Local Decisions policy will give principals more control over 70 per cent of budgets and 50 per cent of staffing. This sounds positive, but teachers, principals and parents believe that it is about forcing principals to make the hard decisions about who misses out.

The OECD Program for International Student Assessment reports consistently show no correlation between student achievement and school structures or autonomy. Instead, the evidence shows that it is vital to get the right people to become teachers, to develop teachers into effective instructors, and to ensure every student gets the best possible learning opportunities. This means that the New South Wales Government should be improving teacher training, selection and practical skills development. It should provide better pay and higher status for teachers, and classroom coaching and real-life training, with on-site coaches, especially for new teachers. The Government should be developing instructional leaders in schools, increasing professional development, using more co-teaching, and increasing the pay and capacity of principals to be effective leaders.

The evidence shows that the Government should compensate schools working with disadvantaged students and provide extra support to schools whose students compare poorly, with more special education teachers for students who have problems at school or special needs. Instead the Government will force principals to become managers who run schools like businesses, with restricted budgets determining all decisions. Principals will have to take on tasks previously done by the department, such as contracting cleaners, repairing buildings and buying stationery. They will have to redirect school budgets to buy financial, employment, and occupational health and safety expertise. They will have to cut back teacher support and mentoring. While the New South Wales program trial provided extra funds and business managers for schools, the Government does not intend to provide extra resources for schools under the new plan.

Just this week we read reports that student numbers in the pilot schools have dropped—the opposite of what the Government intended. New South Wales schools will no longer operate under a staffing formula that has guaranteed the same education for all students in public schools, undermining the statewide employment 12988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

and transfer system that has ensured teachers for disadvantaged schools, especially in rural areas. Teachers say that budget pressures will result in principals appointing newly qualified, less experienced teachers or casual teachers to save money, with the pilot showing 171 casuals replacing 47 full-time positions. They say experienced teachers will leave and go to private schools, where teachers are already paid more and with better conditions. Principals will be pressed to find cheaper teachers, increase class sizes, reduce specialist programs, and cut English as a second language and special education.

The devolution will not ensure basic provisions for all students; it will reduce consistency for students, and require schools to trade some positions to meet unfunded needs. The New South Wales plan is modelled on the situation in Victoria, where public schools now spend 12 per cent less per student than those in New South Wales. The Boston Consulting Group review calculated that this would mean cutting 7,500 teachers, 1,500 support staff and more than $100 million per year in special education and equity programs. I fear that the long-term outcome will be for government schools to be the schools of last resort, where only students with no choice attend and do not learn what they need to get jobs and be active citizens in a democratic society. Education is too important to be left to market forces, with schools competing against each other. Education in Australia has always been about equity and opportunity for all our children to reach their potential, and we should fight to ensure that this continues.

SWANSEA ELECTORATE EVENTS

Mr GARRY EDWARDS (Swansea) [12.56 p.m.]: Today I pay tribute to a number of groups that have held functions in recent times which my wife and I have attended. I will go into greater detail about each group at a later date, but I will mention each of them briefly today. On Sunday 10 June my wife and I attended a fundraiser organised by Alex and Jenny Gaudron on behalf of the Newcastle kidney transplant group. It was the eighteenth Novocastrian ballroom titles, with competitors and judges from throughout New South Wales. Over the past two years this group, on behalf of the Newcastle kidney transport group, has raised in excess of $13,000 for the purchase of dialysis equipment for John Hunter Hospital.

On Friday 15 June I was fortunate to be invited to the Hunter Surf Lifesaving Awards of Excellence held at West Leagues Club, Newcastle. I am more pleased to advise that out of all the surf clubs in the Hunter region, from Birubi Point all the way down to the southernmost surf club at Catherine Hill Bay, which falls into my electorate, the four clubs in the Swansea electorate—Red Head, Swansea-Belmont, Caves Beach and Catherine Hill Bay—absolutely smashed it. They excelled.

Mr Chris Patterson: How did they go?

Mr GARRY EDWARDS: They absolutely smashed it. They took out a huge number of awards, and I will go into that in greater detail in the future. However, I must mention that the President of Caves Beach Surf Club received the award for Surf Lifesaver of the Year, which is an extraordinary achievement for a fellow who heads up a very active and successful surf club. On Saturday night my wife and I, together with one of my daughters, attended the 114th Philippine Independence Day celebration, which was also held at the West Leagues Club in Newcastle. I congratulate Mrs Virgy Hudson, president of the group, and her hardworking executive. These ladies work extremely hard. They run this function every year and raise a lot of money for charities.

Last Sunday morning I was honoured to represent the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Michael Gallacher of the Legislative Council, at the Lake Macquarie Volunteer Appreciation Day, which particularly honoured The Lakes team of the Rural Fire Service. My colleague the member for Tamworth recently mentioned that he attended his local Rural Fire Service function and noted that his district had accumulated more than 1,500 years in volunteer service. That is a great effort.

Mr Kevin Anderson: Hear, hear!

Mr GARRY EDWARDS: I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the member for Tamworth. The Lake Macquarie team has accumulated 944 years of volunteer service, which is not to be sneezed at. I mention in particular Allen Minslow, who received an award for 35 years service; Jeff Smith, who received an award for 30 years service; and Gwendoline Deaves and Roger Wilson, who each received awards for 45 years service. The awards recognise extraordinary levels of volunteer service. At the awards function, which was a wonderful event, I was accompanied by the Mayor of Wyong, Mr Bob Graham, and the Mayor of Lake 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12989

Macquarie and member for Lake Macquarie, Greg Piper. Recently the Blessing of the Fleet was held and I spent some time with friends at that service, the Joneses from Nords Wharf. I will provide more updates on my electorate in the future. I thank the House for its indulgence.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) [1.01 p.m.]: Macular degeneration is a significant health issue for Australians. The term is used to identify a group of diseases that cause the progressive painless loss of central vision. Macular degeneration has a significant impact on the quality of life of those living with the disease as it affects the ability for one to see fine details, drive, read and recognise people. The damage sometimes may not be apparent. However, this stage is the best time to detect the disease. It is vital to raise awareness of this disease and the importance of early diagnosis in combating the damaging impacts it can have on patients and their families.

There are two main types—wet and dry macular generation. In both cases deposits occur in our eyes caused by a failure of the layer of cells beneath the retina to break down waste. As macular degeneration worsens vision loss occurs because the cells responsible are unable to allow blood vessels to grow into the retina. Currently there is no cure, unfortunately; but there are various treatments that can be used to slow the progression of the disease. Early detection is therefore essential. The earlier the disease is diagnosed the more vision is likely to be retained. The best way to ensure this happens is by circulating awareness campaigns about symptoms to look for and who to consult when experiencing these symptoms.

The Macular Degeneration Foundation is committed to making sure people are made aware of the disease and improving the health of all Australians. As a national patient-driven organisation, the foundation runs various programs throughout each year that are targeted at increasing access to relevant educational materials, raising awareness, ensuring early detection and treatments, as well as providing support services and representation. A key initiative run each year is Macular Degeneration Week between 27 May and 2 June. During that week, events are held to raise awareness. As part of this year's awareness week, a Galaxy survey was commissioned on symptom recognition. The results showed that an alarming number of cases dismissed symptoms of macular degeneration as eye strain or a need for glasses. If symptoms are neglected and allowed to worsen significantly before help is sought that can result in damaging impacts on health.

As a leading State in health care, there is more that we can and will do. That is why I am committed to the cause and furthering our Government's progress on health by assisting the organisation in achieving goals that have positive outcomes for each and every one of us. This year I participated in Macular Degeneration Week. I met with local optometrist Dr Allen Ared in Kogarah to discuss the issue and what more can be done. It is important that individuals in our communities are aware of the main ways to recognise symptoms of this disease. The need for increased illumination, decreased vision sensitivity, decreased night vision, black spots or gaps in vision and poor fine vision can all be symptoms of risk that we should understand and act upon immediately. I commend the Macular Degeneration Foundation for its success thus far in creating awareness and for its programs to assist those living with the disease and those who may be at risk.

I congratulate local eye care professionals, such as Dr Ared, and community groups for the work they are doing not only in the St George region but throughout New South Wales and far beyond to assist those affected. Their work includes generating funding and participating in research as well as raising awareness of the disease in order to find a cure. Just last year the foundation raised more than $750,000 to ensure the eyesight of Australians can be further protected. I encourage all Australians to engage in promoting awareness of macular degeneration not only during awareness week but throughout the year. Any donation, encouragement or involvement goes a long way. Together, our collective efforts can go from strength to strength in continuing to be successful and ensuring real progress in New South Wales. I look forward to partnering with the foundation, doctors and community groups to increase the level of understanding for Australians who may experience or already are experiencing this disease.

EAST HILLS VIEW CLUB

Mr GLENN BROOKES (East Hills) [1.06 p.m.]: Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a very special lunch held by the East Hills chapter of the VIEW Club to celebrate its fifty-first birthday. I must confess that when I first received my invitation through the mail I knew little about this community group. In fact, at first I thought they were birdwatchers or something like that. I was surprised to find out about the activities of this group, and I am glad I did. VIEW, which stands for Voice, Interests and Education of Women, is a women's 12990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

organisation boasting 20,000 members nationwide which was established to give women a network of support, a platform to voice their views on issues of national concern and, most importantly, a forum in which to support the charitable work of the Smith Family.

From what I saw and heard during yesterday's lunch, VIEW Club members are passionate about actively contributing to the community while at the same time building a network of friendships. Given the excellent work undertaken by the ladies of the VIEW Club within the East Hills electorate, I was surprised, and a little embarrassed, when I was announced as the first member of Parliament who had responded to an invitation from this group and the first who had bothered to attend one of its events. I was embarrassed because since 1960 the VIEW Club has been offering companionship to assist in dealing with social isolation, particularly of rural women, and improving opportunities for women to have their say, especially at government level. Currently VIEW sponsors more than 950 disadvantaged Australian children though the Smith Family's Learning for Life program, which provides support in the form of access to literacy programs. The women of VIEW volunteer their time to help disadvantaged children to make the most of their education.

Their efforts include reading to preschool children, mentoring at local Smith Family after-school learning clubs, sharing craft skills through making students' stationery packs and assisting with student breakfast programs at schools. VIEW women run a variety of fundraising initiatives in their communities for the Smith Family, including participating in walks for health and fitness and wrapping gifts at local shopping centres to raise funds to run VIEW's various programs. With more than 350 clubs across Australia, VIEW aims to enrich Australia's future with the Smith Family and to work with other organisations in local communities, such as within the East Hills electorate. I am glad that I met with the ladies of my local VIEW Club. They are an asset to our community and they are all unsung heroes. I look forward to working with the East Hills VIEW Club for many years to come. I encourage all members of the House to get to know their local VIEW Club.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for East Hills may be interested to know that the national President of VIEW lives in Berry in my electorate of Kiama. I will ensure she receives a copy of his private member's statement.

MUSIC FOR LIFE FUNDRAISING EVENT

SHERRINGHAM ROAD UPGRADE

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [1.10 p.m.]: Today I refer to the Music for Life fundraiser and also to an infrastructure project in my local area on the boundary of the Penrith electorate. Last Saturday I attended a fantastic fundraiser at Penrith Panthers, Music For Life, with the money raised to be donated to Cure for Life, a foundation commenced by Dr Charlie Teo. Dr Teo is a renowned neurosurgeon who does great work, especially for people who unfortunately have brain cancer. In attendance at Music for Life was a mother who has made a remarkable recovery from surgery performed by Dr Teo, as well as nearly 600 other guests. The Liberal candidate for the Federal electorate of Lindsay, Fiona Scott, the member for Penrith, Mr Stuart Ayres, Senator Marise Payne, a number of Penrith councillors and also the Federal member for Lindsay and Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, were also in attendance. When I greeted Mr Bradbury he verbally attacked me for a position I had taken on an infrastructure project in my local area. Earlier in the year Mr Bradbury wrote to me about the intersection of Sherringham Road and The Northern Road at Cranebrook and alleged:

As you are aware the Federal Government allocated $450,000 towards the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Sherringham Road and the Northern Road in the 2009 Federal Budget.

Mr Bradbury, in his letter, questioned why Roads and Maritime Services, the Minister and our Government had not got on with the work. I issued a press statement pointing out that the money had not been allocated; it was only a pledge of money in 2009. In this year's Federal budget papers as to the program of works for New South Wales the $450,000 Federal Government allocation for the upgrade of that intersection with traffic lights is in the 2013-14 financial year—not in 2009-10, as Mr Bradbury alleged. It is completely incorrect for Mr Bradbury to suggest that Roads and Maritime Services and the State Government were dragging their feet, as the money is being held back by the Federal Government to balance its smoke-and-mirrors budget. This Government is getting on with planning for the upgrade of Sherringham Road—as is Lend Lease, the developers of Jordan Springs.

Lend Lease is doing a great job on the development of Jordan Springs as well as on road upgrades. During the planning environmental factors had to be considered, including Aboriginal archaeology, as happens on a number of projects. When I was Mayor of Hawkesbury Aboriginal archaeology was found on a museum 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12991

site, which delayed the project for some time and increased costs. This Government is going through the proper process of upgrading the road, as is Lend Lease and Roads and Maritime Services in partnership, with some funding from the Federal Government. On Saturday night at the fundraiser I copped verbal abuse from the member for Lindsay, Mr David Bradbury, which was totally unacceptable, and I told him so. The Sherringham Road work will be carried out and if Mr Bradbury wants the upgrade of that intersection expedited then he, as Assistant Treasurer, can arrange for the money to be allocated earlier.

What has Mr Bradbury done for western Sydney since he became Assistant Treasurer? As a member of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and as the member for Londonderry I called on him to allocate the $2 billion that the Federal Government had promised for the Parramatta-Epping rail link to the North West Rail Link because the State Government is looking to expand the North West Rail Link. At the moment community consultation is occurring as to the allocation of a corridor that would extend the North West Rail Link through to the Richmond line and beyond. The Federal Government has the potential to put $2 billion on the table to build this infrastructure project in western Sydney and enhance the North West Rail Link by extending the line but it has refused to do so. The Hon. David Bradbury has failed western Sydney in relation to the North West Rail Link and the Sherringham Road and The Northern Road intersection upgrade.

COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [1.15 p.m.]: The Community Building Partnership program is a New South Wales Government initiative that provides direct funding to community groups and local councils to invest in community infrastructure and the local environment. In the 2011 program funding up to $300,000 was available for each electoral district, with an additional $100,000 for electorates with higher unemployment rates. Last year I wrote to nearly 100 community groups in the Cronulla electorate and invited them to apply for grants under the program and there was a fantastic response. Community groups in the Cronulla electorate applied for almost $1 million in funding. Before I made my recommendations for funding I was able to visit most of the applicants, which gave me a great opportunity to learn firsthand about some of the excellent work of our local organisations in Cronulla.

Successful applications for the 2011 Community Building Partnership program were recently announced and I am pleased to report that 11 applicants from the Cronulla electorate will receive funding. Education received considerable attention in my electorate. Two school parents and citizens organisations and two preschools were successful in their applications. Cronulla Preschool, Cronulla Public School parents and citizens and Woolooware Public School parents and citizens all received funding to upgrade their playgrounds. Woolooware Public School parents and citizens also received funding for its school hall renovation. Jacaranda Preschool Centre received funding to undertake asbestos removal and to improve disabled access.

Sport was another winner. De La Salle Caringbah Junior Rugby League Football Club received a grant of $60,000 to improve lighting at Captain Cook Oval playing fields. Those fields are used by almost 5,000 registered players. Sutherland Shire Softball Association received a grant to build new dugouts for players. Other community clubs and organisations were also selected. The 1st Caringbah Scouts and Taren Point Scouts received funding for much-needed repairs to their scout halls. Elouera Surf Life Saving Club, the Shire Woodworking Club and the Cronulla School of Arts also received grants for building renovations. I have congratulated the successful applicants. I look forward to visiting the schools and organisations involved to see how the construction of their projects is progressing. I am convinced that there is a strong community spirit in the Cronulla area, and that the funds allocated to the Cronulla electorate by the 2011 Community Building Partnership program will be put to great use.

AL ZAHRA COLLEGE

Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [1.17 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak about a school in my electorate of Rockdale that is well-renowned in our local community not only for its contribution to the Islamic culture but also for its charitable work, which I will touch on briefly in a moment. Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend Al Zahra College, Arncliffe, and spoke with its chairman, Mr Ahmad Mokachar. Over the years I have observed Mr Mokachar's ongoing commitment to the community and his passion for the development of Al Zahra College. I was pleased to inform the school principal that this Government will deliver $5 million for the construction of a pedestrian tunnel on Wollongong Road, Arncliffe, which will improve safety for school students and those who attend the Al Zahra Mosque, as well as local residents. I have worked closely with the Minister for Roads and Ports over the past year and I am pleased that the Coalition Government is able to 12992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

deliver this important piece of infrastructure for the benefit of thousands of people in the community. Al Zahra College is more than just its buildings. As recognised by Mr Mokachar, who is passionate about this school, the students and their many achievements, our students are our greatest asset.

From humble beginnings, in 1998 Al Zahra College commenced classes as an independent primary school operating from two houses opposite Al Zahra Mosque in Arncliffe. Later that year a 20-year plan was launched. In 2002 classes began in the newly built two-storey primary school. Those who have seen the building will appreciate its unique architecture, which reflects its Islamic design and Australian features. In particular, I note the playground shaped as a map of Australia with Aboriginal patterns. In 2002 the school's initial enrolment was 227 students, and currently it has a lengthy waiting list. In 2012 many goals have been realised already.

By 2015 Al Zahra College intends to have a fully equipped and purpose-built secondary school and by 2020 an affiliated campus with a New South Wales university. On 1 February 2010 year 7 girls commenced classes at Al Zahra College. On 5 July I look forward to attending the grand opening of the school's new multipurpose hall and secondary block. Al Zahra College in Arncliffe has an ongoing commitment to its entire school community with a vision built not only on the students but also on the teachers and parents. This vision includes providing high-quality educational programs, encouraging students to pursue personal and academic excellence, a strong and productive relationship between parents and teachers, and providing a foundation for lifelong learning.

Speaking with students and parents yesterday afternoon at the school their pride in their school was evident. But there is more to Al Zahra College than just educational outcomes. Recently, Rayanne and Hassan Makki achieved strong results in the State Cross Country Championships. Perhaps even more noteworthy is the charity work performed by the students. Last week was Clown Day and students dressed up as clowns as they raised money for the Australian Red Cross Disaster Relief Appeal. The students participate also in volunteering efforts such as Jump Rope for Heart, Bandage Bear Day, Jeans for Genes day, Red Nose Day, Daffodil Day and Clean Up Australia Day. Without doubt, these dedicated students are worthy of recognition for their achievements. I look forward to working closely with the Al Zahra College community over many future years and to continuing to be a strong advocate for schools in the Rockdale electorate.

Private members' statements concluded.

[Acting-Speaker (Mr Gareth Ward) left the chair at 1.22 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge some special guests in the gallery today and give a warm welcome to Sir Allan Kemakeza, Speaker of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands, Lady Kemakeza and Sir Trevor Garland Honorary Consul-General of the Solomon Islands. We are engaged in a twinning project with the Solomon Islands.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Administrator:

JAMES ALLSOP Office of the Governor Administrator Sydney, 18 June 2012

The Honourable James Leslie Bain Allsop, Administrator of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Assembly that he assumed the administration of the Government of the State.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: In the absence of the Minister for Education, the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will answer questions in his place today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

[During the giving of notices of motions.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12993

QUESTION TIME

[Question time commenced at 2.22 p.m.]

MULLUMBIMBY HOSPITAL

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is to the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research. Can she inform the House when the New South Wales Government made the decision to replace the emergency overnight doctor at Mullumbimby Hospital with video conferencing, against the wishes of local nurses and the local community?

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I am pleased to have this question from the Leader of the Opposition. It is the first time he has shown the slightest bit of interest in health. The reality is that this hospital and many others in country areas suffer from a shortage of doctors. The lack of foresight by the former Labor Government to recruit doctors and 16 years of neglect has led to a long-term problem, which this Government has inherited.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This Government has put in place a number of measures to attract doctors to country areas.

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

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This Government provides training for doctors in country areas and is investing millions of dollars in infrastructure in country areas to help attract doctors to country facilities.

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

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Northern NSW Local Health District has been on the Mullumbimby Hospital case for a very long time. The Leader of the Opposition says he has been to Mullumbimby Hospital. Does he know how many patients Mullumbimby Hospital has had overnight? Would he like to answer my question?

Mr John Robertson: Tell us.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: No, you are going to tell me. You know everything about Mullumbimby. There has been an average of two patients per night, at the most, with the lowest acuity at Mullumbimby Hospital.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Mount Druitt to order. Members will cease interjecting.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: We are going to provide the hospital with a virtual emergency department by connecting it, through eHealth, to the Tweed Hospital emergency department through the Connecting Critical Care system, with a career medical officer at Byron Hospital on the night shift being considered. I am very pleased to support this innovation of the local health district, supported by many of the people in the local area.

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

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: This is an initiative put in place by this Government, following years and years of neglect by Labor, which did absolutely nothing to address the shortage of doctors in the area. The new information technology system, called Connecting Critical Care, is being introduced into the Mullumbimby Hospital emergency department. As I said, this tele-health system will connect Mullumbimby Hospital emergency department to the Tweed Hospital emergency department, allowing medical officers in the Tweed to assess a patient at Mullumbimby. It also allows Tweed medical officers to give more precise treatment advice to nurses at Mullumbimby Hospital. I have a lot of time for these nurses; they are experienced and have put a great deal of effort into developing the skills required to deal with these small country communities. The people of Mullumbimby and the patients—two, on average—who go to Mullumbimby Hospital each night will be very well served by this innovation, which addresses a longstanding problem—a problem neglected by Labor for years and years.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order. 12994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

WORKCOVER

Mr ROB STOKES: My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on WorkCover reforms?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I thank the member for Pittwater for his question and for his work on the joint select committee that considered reform of the State's WorkCover scheme and made 28 recommendations, having received 353 submissions and heard from 79 witnesses, including 10 injured workers. I am happy to announce that the Government has accepted just about every one of those recommendations. I table the legislation that will be introduced later today.

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

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is no secret that WorkCover is in dire financial straits and that it is in need of urgent reform. As I have said repeatedly, the best protection we can offer to injured workers is a scheme that is financially sustainable and able to be called upon when workplace injuries occur—a scheme that aims to get those capable of returning to work back into the workplace, a scheme that offers those severely injured and unable to work the ongoing support that they need and deserve. Those are the principles at the centre of our WorkCover reforms being introduced into Parliament today. I am proud to be leading a Government team prepared to tackle another hard issue, and determined to see this issue through in the interests of workers of this State. WorkCover provides insurance cover to nearly 270,000 employers and more than three million workers across New South Wales.

At any one time, 42,000 people are receiving WorkCover benefits, and around 46,000 new claims are received each year. As has been well documented, without reforms to WorkCover, workers compensation premium would increase by 28 per cent—a massive increase, which the NSW Business Chamber estimates would cost the State 12,600 jobs. That would be a savage blow to employers, it would be a savage blow to workers who would lose jobs, and it would be a savage blow to our economy. Call me old-fashioned, but I still think it is in the best interests of the worker to have a strong economy and jobs growth.

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

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: A 28 per cent premium increase would see the owners of a small cafe in western Sydney employing 11 people and now paying around $8,600 for workers compensation insurance, paying almost $11,000, that is, more than double that being paid by a similar business in Queensland and almost five times that being paid by a similar business in Victoria. It is certainly in the best interests of workers to have a strong safety net should they be unfortunate enough to suffer an injury at work. As we have set about the business of reforming WorkCover there have been many disturbing examples of workers who have been left languishing for years and years. We make no apology for doing all we can to make sure those who can work, do work. That is in everybody's best interests.

Consider the case of a worker who sustained what was described in his paperwork as a mild back strain back in 1994, that is, 18 years ago. He has refused to attend medical appointments, rehabilitation or return-to-work programs because he believes he is never going to get better and will never be able to return to work. This man visits his nominated treating doctor once a year to get a medical certificate, receives physiotherapy and hydrotherapy, and is now receiving psychological treatment. This worker has received workers compensation benefits for the past 18 years; but in my view—and I suspect the view of any reasonable person—the WorkCover system has failed him dismally.

Our reformed WorkCover scheme is designed to ensure that people can get back to work, if possible. But if they are severely injured and are incapable of working they will have access to payments that are more generous than those currently available. For example, a single 32-year-old worker earning $800 per week who becomes totally incapacitated through a workplace injury currently ends up with just $432 a week. After our reforms that same injured worker will be able to receive up to $640 per week. The reforms are long overdue because those opposite lacked ticker; they lacked ticker to make the reforms necessary to ensure that we had a financially sustainable WorkCover scheme. At the end of last year the current WorkCover scheme was found to have an estimated deficit of $4.1 billion. It was a scheme that those opposite ignored for too long; it was a scheme that, because those opposite ignored it, offered no security. [Extension of time granted.]

It was a scheme that, because those opposite refused to tackle WorkCover and its escalating deficit, would have offered no future protection to workers in this State because it was becoming financially 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12995

unsustainable. Those opposite can cry crocodile tears about these matters, but the fact is that we are making the tough decisions needed to guarantee to the State's workers that we have a workers compensation scheme that, whether a worker is moderately or severely injured, will protect them and will encourage those who can, to get back to work. That is in stark contrast to those opposite, who under the outgoing chair of WorkCover, the Labor-appointed former chair of WorkCover, ignored the scheme. Every Minister since John Della Bosca has ignored the scheme—and that includes the member for Maroubra.

Our reforms are in stark contrast to the actions of the Leader of the Opposition when he was a member of the WorkCover board between 2001 and 2007. He turned up to just half of the board meetings, and in the 2006-07 year he did not turn up to a single board meeting. Opposition members lecture us about workers compensation and they pretend that they are concerned about these issues, but they were not concerned enough a few years ago to attend board meetings. I welcome another class of year 6 students from St Aloysius' College. This afternoon at Drummoyne Public School I launched the Premier's Spelling Bee. I encourage students in the gallery to participate in the spelling bee together with the 115,000 other students across the State from 800 schools that will participate. But I certainly hope for the benefit of those opposite that one of the words in the spelling bee this year is "hypocrite".

PUBLIC HOUSING RENTS

Ms LINDA BURNEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given Budget Paper No. 2 states that Treasury expects to recover the full cost impacts of a carbon price by collecting $235 million extra in mining royalties, why is the Government increasing public housing rents for pensioners?

Ms PRU GOWARD: Our first carbon tax payment from the Federal Government is being paid now and the New South Wales Government is not including that lump sum carbon tax compensation payment in our social housing rents. Treasury advises me that the calculation of the carbon tax cost, which is calculated at $1.5 billion in this year's budget, covered only recurrent expenses in the general government sector. Expenses in the public trading enterprise [PTE] sector were not included and therefore increasing costs due to the carbon tax for the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, which is a non-commercial public trading enterprise, are not being recouped through supplementary royalties.

That leaves us with the legacy of the former Government, which is a waiting list of 56,000 people and a maintenance backlog of 300 million. There are very few choices when we are dealing with that level of need, and when the Federal Government introduces a carbon tax that imposes additional costs not only on individuals but also on landlords—we are the largest landlord in Australia—costs inevitably go up and, according to the Property Council, by a factor of 1.7 per cent. If housing maintenance and delivery costs increase by 1.7 per cent it will end costing this State $50 million over four years. That means fewer houses, fewer upgrades and less maintenance, and that is why, to repeat my words from last Thursday, reluctantly—

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: The Leader of the Opposition obviously has not paid for his own house maintenance or renovations for some time because if he had he would know, like every person who has ever gone into Bunnings on a weekend knows, that building materials are expensive and they are energy-intensive. It is for that reason that we decided to increase—

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. Perhaps the Minister—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is being entirely relevant to the question. There is no point of order. The member for Canterbury will resume her seat.

Ms PRU GOWARD: I think the member is being disingenuous. I repeat, for the benefit of the mathematically illiterate people opposite: The calculation of a carbon tax cost was $1.5 billion in the 2012-13 budget, which covered recurrent expenses in the general government sector but not in the public trading enterprise sector. The NSW Land and Housing Corporation is a non-commercial public trading enterprise and therefore it will not enjoy any recoupment through supplementary royalties. That is why, sadly, it has been important to introduce this increase in public housing rents. The choice for us was doing that or not being able to provide people with the maintenance and upgrades they deserve. I think that is clear to everybody. The choices are never easy in these circumstances, and that is the choice that we made. 12996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

WORKERS COMPENSATION SCHEME

Mr ANDREW GEE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Why does the Government need to reform workers compensation in New South Wales?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for his question and for his ongoing support for his community in Orange. The WorkCover scheme must be sustainable, and that is the simple premise on which we tackle this problem. It is an essential feature of the employment landscape. Workers need to know that a safety net is there if they are injured at work. The scheme collects premiums and invests them to ensure that it can meet the costs of workers injured at work. The WorkCover safety net has to be sustainable. Currently the scheme is broken. As the Premier just outlined, the financial position of the scheme has been deteriorating for a number of years and it is more than $4.1 billion in deficit. We will receive an update shortly, but the expectation is that the deficit is getting larger not smaller. Indeed, it is growing at about $9 million a day—that is how much we are losing on the scheme.

Premiums for the scheme in New South Wales are about 20 to 60 per cent higher than they are for workers compensation schemes in Queensland and Victoria. We are not competitive with those States and a scheme that is broken can provide no reliable protection at all for injured workers either now or in the future. The fiscal mess left behind by Labor means that the Government has no additional capacity to support the scheme and the safety net is unravelling. Workers need to know that they will continue to be protected. That is how we are approaching these reforms. The reforms provide incentives to return to work sooner, they will ensure that seriously injured workers who have been left behind are properly looked after and they will prevent a 28 per cent increase in premiums from 1 July, because that is what would be required to bring the scheme back onto a financially sustainable basis if no action were taken.

Over time the scheme will return to surplus and we hope at that time that premium reductions will fall to bring the scheme back into a competitive landscape with our competitor States Queensland and Victoria. Increasing premiums is not the solution; that is not a claim made by the Government, it is the advice of the State's employers who create the jobs in New South Wales. In its submission to the parliamentary committee the Australian Industry Group warned that increasing premiums would have a dramatic effect on the competitiveness of New South Wales industry, and on industry's experience and perception of New South Wales as a place to establish a business. The New South Wales Business Chamber said:

NSW already has higher premiums than Victoria and Queensland, so any premium increase will only exacerbate the many imposts on business owners throughout NSW, and further weaken their capacity to compete, and to provide employment.

The Business Chamber also said that the impact of even higher workers compensation premiums would be significant. It estimates that under the proposed 28 per cent increase 12,600 businesses would cut jobs and a 10 per cent premium increase would have an impact on jobs in over 8,000 businesses. For manufacturing the story is even worse. Ninety-five per cent of manufacturers said that a 28 per cent increase in premiums would impact employment and that a 10 per cent premium increase would impact 74 per cent of manufacturers. This position cannot be left unchecked. The reforms that the O'Farrell Government is introducing will make New South Wales more competitive. It will build on some of the initiatives that the Government has already undertaken to drive competitiveness for businesses in this State, such as supporting the Small Business Commissioner, increasing the Jobs Action Plan and indexing the payroll tax threshold. Most importantly, the reforms will ensure that the scheme can support injured workers for generations to come. That is what a sustainable scheme is about.

The Government also will make WorkCover more efficient and place accountability on the insurance industry to make sure that it plays its part in turning the scheme around. We have two approaches. First, we have a Government that is prepared to deal with a problem and make some of the tough decisions to get the scheme back to sustainability. Second, we have the approach of those opposite. We heard previously that the former chairman of WorkCover, Greg McCarthy, said that the neglect of former Labor finance Ministers left the State's finances in a parlous state. He said, "They just weren't interested and did not listen to my warnings." That is the reason we are in this position. Today we heard that the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about the position that he did not even bother to turn up to the meetings. That is the approach of those opposite, but the O'Farrell Government will do what is right. These are difficult reforms but they are the right reforms. Ultimately, sustainable finances will ensure that we can look after injured workers and that New South Wales businesses are competitive. That is what the O'Farrell Government is doing. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12997

STATE BUDGET AND FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given the Treasurer's recent announcement of $1.24 billion in service cuts, will the Minister advise the House which community services programs will be cut?

Ms PRU GOWARD: This budget demonstrates that the Liberal-Nationals Government is delivering on its commitment and significant interest to provide support to the disadvantaged. These difficult economic times are a tough period in which to deliver on the Government's priorities, but the budget continues to address Labor's legacy of financial mismanagement. It also continues the reforms that the Government began last year to improve the lives of vulnerable children. The budget makes the right decisions in very tough times. In 2012-13 almost half the Family and Community Services budget will go to the non-government sector. It will provide $2.3 million to non-government organisations to deliver specialist services, and that accounts for 46.1 per cent of the Family and Community Services budget.

The Government has committed $723 million to continue to improve out-of-home care services for vulnerable children and young people who cannot live safely with their parents. That includes an additional $11 million to continue the transfer of out-of-home care services to the non-government sector. A new $6.9 million teenage education payment will help carers to keep young people in their care in school or in training. There is a $336 million budgetary allocation for Stronger Together Two. The Government also is committing $2.2 billion for better social housing, including $134 million for homelessness services to support people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: As the Treasurer has made clear, directors general have the flexibility to decide how savings measures will be implemented.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: So it's up to them now. What about the Government?

Ms PRU GOWARD: Do Opposition members want to know what I have done or do they just want to talk?

Ms Linda Burney: No, we want to know what you are going to cut.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will cease interjecting.

Ms PRU GOWARD: I have directed the Director General of Family and Community Services to meet the labour expense cap without cutting the volume or quality of front-line services for our vulnerable clients. We need more and better services for the people of this State. The Government is committed to improving services and lives through real reform. It will continue the transfer of out-of-home care to the non-government sector, improve child protection and boost parental responsibility.

Ms Linda Burney: They're not very happy.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: That is absolute rubbish. The Government is improving homelessness services and it is continuing to deliver Stronger Together II. The Government is certainly delivering on its commitment to improve the lives of women throughout the State by taking a more coordinated approach to tackling domestic and family violence and with continued funding of $11 million over three years for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program.

Mrs Barbara Perry: Point of order: Madam Speaker, I ask you to bring the Minister back to the leave of the question, which was about what programs will be cut.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did hear the question. At the moment I cannot direct the Minister to answer the question specifically, merely that she be relevant and at the moment she is being relevant.

Ms PRU GOWARD: The budget is another step towards delivering the Government's reform agenda. The NSW 2021 State plan aims to better protect the most vulnerable members of our community and break the 12998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

cycle of disadvantage. New South Wales is fortunate to have great people working in Family and Community Services. I am determined to improve the systems with which they work in order to unleash their full potential to benefit the people of this State. By improving services we can improve lives. This tough budget makes the right decisions in difficult economic times and delivers on the Government's commitments and priorities. After 16 years of mismanagement and waste this Government was entrusted by the people of New South Wales to fix the State. That is exactly what the Government is doing.

RESOURCES FOR REGIONS PROGRAM

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: My question is addressed to the Deputy Premier. How is the Government's Resources for the Regions program helping mining-affected communities?

Mr ANDREW STONER: I thank the member for Tamworth for a good question. Last week the Government delivered on yet another election commitment with the announcement that the Singleton and Muswellbrook communities will receive $9.9 million in funding over two years under its Resources for the Regions program for the following projects: $4 million for the Muswellbrook Hospital emergency department upgrade and $1.9 million towards replacing the timber bridge on Herbert Street in Broke.

Mr John Sidoti: Tick.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Tick, exactly. An amount of $2 million in funding will go towards the widening of Bridgman Road, Singleton Heights, and the intersection upgrade with New England Highway. Another amount of $2 million will go towards the Pioneer Road, Hunterview extension and roundabouts. Despite the predictable moaning from those opposite, which I will address in a moment, the funding allocation has been warmly received by local communities, as attested to by my colleague the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts, and member for Upper Hunter. In addition, Sue Moore, the Mayor of Singleton, said:

This is great news and a good injection to addressing our backlog infrastructure needs. It is pleasing to deliver an important improvement to our road network. This is a very positive result from working closely with the NSW Government over the last 6 months on priority infrastructure needs in the Singleton Local Government Area and will have wide benefit for the Singleton community.

Mr George Souris: Tick.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Tick. News of the upgrade to Muswellbrook's emergency room was equally well received. The Muswellbrook Chronicle of 15 June quoted Jennifer Lecky, Muswellbrook shire councillor and the area's health committee chair, as saying:

I jumped for joy. People with an emergency are relying on a lift to get treatment. Sometimes things go wrong with lifts.

Speaking of things going wrong, the Leader of the Opposition, who is quoted in the same paper, continues his misinformation campaign about the Resources for the Regions program.

[Interruption]

I have to give it to the member for Blacktown: He started with nothing and he still has most of it left. Unintentionally, he got one part right when he noted that this is a plan to return the proceeds of sale to our State's mining communities, which is far more than anything done by Labor members when they were in government. However, he said that the Resources for Regions program "contains barely any resources". While the Leader of the Opposition has used his abacus to calculate that $160 million over four years averages out at $40 million a year, this Government has always said that the $160 million will be allocated to the program over the term of this Government as funds become available from Restart NSW. The proceeds of the sale of the generators, the leases of ports Botany and Kembla and other windfall gains that are expected to result in millions flowing into the Restart NSW Fund make it clear that we are well on track to meet that commitment.

Ms Linda Burney: How many people have taken it up?

Mr ANDREW STONER: The voice that sunk a thousand ships is back.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Canterbury that she is on three calls to order. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12999

Mr ANDREW STONER: Do away with her, please. Our aural senses had a break for a week, but she is back. This is just the start of our Resources for Regions program that will be undertaken to ensure that other mining-affected communities are again considered for their fair share of infrastructure in future years. The second audit later this year will include a re-examination of the definition of "mining-affected community" to ensure that more mining-affected communities receive their fair share of funding in the future. I know this is of great interest to members representing electorates such as Tamworth, Orange, Murray-Darling and other great centres in regional New South Wales that contribute so much to our State's economy. This Government looks forward to working with local communities to address issues arising from the current mining boom.

VISIONCARE PROGRAM

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given that VisionCare's $4.5 million in funding last year ran out after only eight months, leaving an estimated 26,000 pensioners without glasses, why has the Minister issued a tender that caps annual funding at the same amount?

Ms PRU GOWARD: For years the VisionCare program consistently was overspent by the previous Government. It was overspent because it was not properly managed which is why this Government issued a new tender. We want a scheme that runs to the budget that has been allocated. It was previously topped up by a transfer within the portfolio, which meant it was always topped up by money from other areas of need and other client groups within the then Department of Community Services. To make up for Labor's $8 million deficit, issuing a new tender is what had to be done. The Director General of Family and Community Services has confirmed that advice. We have a new tender that I believe will find a service provider that is able to service the needs of people who are eligible for this program without overspending. I remind the House that the Schott report found that only a low level of importance was placed on financial, people and asset management. The report spoke the truth when it comes to the legacy in Family and Community Services [FACS]: We were faced with a gap of $1.9 billion over four years. This Government was elected to fix that mess.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: To do that will require difficult decisions being made, as is always the case.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: The previous Government was totally unprepared to do that because it required negotiations with unions and changing work practices, which Labor was never able to confront.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: The Government has had to improve ways in which the resources of the department have been spent so that the support of children and young people are the department's primary goal. They are the people to whom the Government is committed. Our promise to the people of New South Wales is that we will not ignore problems such as budget overruns in the hope that they go away.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Macquarie Fields and the member for Cessnock that I have given them several warnings. Members will come to order.

Ms PRU GOWARD: This Government will take action to strengthen Family and Community Services and make it eventually sustainable to improve services and improve lives.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: To that end, I confirm that an open tender process has commenced. It was advertised on the eTendering New South Wales website on 1 June to identify a suitable service provider for the future administration of the spectacles program. The application period expires on 2 July. The people of the State elected this Government to deliver on its commitments and to value every taxpayer dollar. The member for Bankstown would not know how well or how badly the previous Government ran the VisionCare program because the previous Labor Government never looked at it. Anybody who allows a budget overrun each year for eight years and does not do anything about it is not looking very closely. 13000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research. How is the Government getting New South Wales back on track in the field of medical research?

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I thank the member for Vaucluse for that question and for her very keen interest in medical research which dates back to her board membership of Neuroscience Research Australia at the Prince of Wales Hospital site. The Government understands that quality medical research leads to much greater knowledge and understanding of specific diseases, new treatments and medicines, new skills, better practices and, above all, better outcomes. It really is what drives improvements in health care. I am honoured to have been appointed as the first Minister for Medical Research in New South Wales and Australia. That reflects the O'Farrell Government's commitment to medical research.

I am very proud that this Government has established the Office for Health and Medical Research, as it promised before the election. We have received a report following the Wills review, which is a task force that was set up to develop a 10-year health and medical research plan for New South Wales. The Government has accepted all the recommendations of that review. I am delighted that the review received such strong support from the community. More than 500 individuals and organisations contributed to the review. I stood alongside Peter Wills when I released the review and the Government's response a couple of Sundays ago at the Garvin Institute. Ninety researchers turned up to hear about it, in spite of the inclement weather. Later I will discuss some of the things that were said. At the time I told those who attended that from the Government's perspective medical research is not an optional extra or an add-on to the suite of health activities that are supported by this Government. It is an absolutely essential and fundamental building block upon which so much rests.

The New South Wales Government currently allocates $200 million to medical research. As an immediate response to the Wills review, an additional $70 million has been committed over a four-year period to implement the review's recommendations. The funding allocates an additional $10 million annually to base funding of the Medical Research Support program to bring the total to $37.3 million a year; an investment of $5 million annually to a Medical Devices Seed Fund, which will encourage and promote investment in some of our existing areas of key strengths. The funding also will go towards establishing a research capacity building program, providing money to support research hubs and research networks. I am very pleased with the response the research paper received. I will now allude to some of the comments I have received. Professor Stephen Leeder, who is well known for his work not only as the Chair of the Western Sydney Local Health District but also for his reputation in public health sent me an email, which states:

It completely recalibrates how research workers feel and fires their enthusiasm. And of course also a wonderful achievement getting those extra dollars in the current climate.

Professor Roger Reddel, director of the Children's Medical Research Institute, stated:

CMRI commends the New South Wales Government and the Minister for Medical Research, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, for their commitment to medical research and their recognition of the vital role it has to play in the future health of our community.

Michael Nilsson, director of the Hunter Medical Research Institute, stated:

We have had single-year funding for the past three years so we welcome this as providing a roadmap for the future while we develop our own strategic plan.

Professor Nicholas Talley, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, Faculty of Health, stated:

In a challenging budgetary climate, I am particularly happy to see a commitment of an additional $70 million over the next four years to fund key research and development initiatives, including the proposed Office for Health and Medical Research.

Anne Trimmer, chief executive officer of the Medical Technology Association of Australia, had this to say:

We are particularly encouraged by the Government's commitment to invest $5 million in a medical devices seeding fund designed to support further development of medical devices in New South Wales.

A medical devices seeding fund means the industry will have the necessary early-stage assistance to translate more excellent research into products for use across the health system for wide community benefit.

As I said, I am proud of the work we have done and the support I have received from all my colleagues in relation to medical research. I believe it will drive much better models of care and improve the future of people across the world and not just in New South Wales. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13001

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

Ms CHERIE BURTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does she consider child protection caseworkers to be front-line workers? If so, can she guarantee that they will be quarantined from the Treasurer's 15,000 job cuts?

Ms PRU GOWARD: I wish the member for Kogarah had been listening to my earlier answer in which I made that quite explicit. To help achieve the identified labour costs cut of 1.2 per cent it is certainly true that directors general have the flexibility to decide how the labour expenses cap is implemented. I clearly instructed my director general that the volume and quality of front-line services to clients was not to be affected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.

Ms PRU GOWARD: This House should not be focusing on public service jobs but rather the delivery of services to vulnerable children and young people. The important commitment we have made is to ensure that the volume and quality of services we provide are not affected by the labour budget changes.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: Given the legacy we inherited—a $1.9 billion funding gap and the extraordinary collapse in GST revenue—this Government has had to deal with a difficult set of circumstances. The guarantee that children and young people need to hear from this Government is that the quality and volume of services that are provided to them will not be affected.

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

Ms PRU GOWARD: There will have to be changes in work practices which have been a long time coming. At the end of the day it is important for children and young people to continue to receive the quality services that they need from the department.

STATE BUDGET AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr JOHN FLOWERS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. How has the State budget strengthened the Government's investment in important local infrastructure projects?

Mr DONALD PAGE: I thank the member for Rockdale for his longstanding interest in local government matters. This Government is strongly committed to increasing its investment in infrastructure, whether at the State level or at the local government level. Our budget certainly delivers on that commitment. By way of background, in 2006 the former head of Treasury, Percy Allen, was commissioned to do a report into the financial sustainability of local government. Essentially he found two things. First, he found that half the councils in this State are struggling financially, and this Government is trying to deal with that issue by strengthening the local government sector. Second, and importantly in the context of this question, he found a huge infrastructure backlog among councils in this State which increased under the former Labor Government which did nothing about it.

By contrast, in opposition the Liberal-Nationals Coalition recognised the increasing infrastructure backlog and the member for Terrigal—the current Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast—announced a policy to support local government infrastructure. Essentially the policy revolved around providing an interest rate subsidy for local councils when they were borrowing money to reduce the infrastructure backlog. True to form, when the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was elected, it honoured its commitment. Last year the Treasurer announced that this Government would contribute $70 million by way of interest subsidies to local councils that were trying to reduce their infrastructure backlog, which can be anything from roads, footpaths, libraries and airports to water and sewerage schemes. There is no real restriction as long as it is an infrastructure backlog.

Last year's budget provided $70 million over five years for interest rate subsidies to help clear that infrastructure backlog. At the time we received strong endorsement from the Local Government and Shires Associations. In a media release dated 11 January Ray Donald, President of the Shires Association, acknowledged and thanked the Minister for Local Government for launching the scheme and said that it "honours an important election commitment to local government in New South Wales". Councillor Keith 13002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Rhoades, President of the Local Government Association, said that the Local Government and Shires Associations strongly advocated for the provision of low-interest loans by the New South Wales Government to help councils with critical infrastructure backlogs. He said, "We are pleased that the latest scheme particularly targets these backlogs", so we have endorsement from the local government sector.

In addition, it is a very popular scheme for councils. When applications were called for, 69 councils applied for a total of 95 projects which varied in size. The smallest project was worth about $1 million and the largest project was worth about $31 million. Currently those projects are being assessed by an independent panel comprising representatives from the Division of Local Government, Treasury and TCorp. I am sure that local members are keen to lobby for their councils, which is fine but most likely that will not be very productive because those projects are being assessed by an independent panel. I expect successful applicants to be notified at the end of July. Those councils that have applied under the scheme can expect the first round of successful applicants to be announced at the end of July.

Because of the popularity and success of the scheme, last week the Treasurer announced an increase in funding for local government infrastructure from $70 million to $100 million. Over the next few years this scheme will give local communities a boost by enabling the building of $1 billion worth of local government infrastructure which would not have been possible without its introduction. That demonstrates this Government's willingness to assist local government in its massive task of addressing the infrastructure backlog. Even in tight economic times when GST revenue is down $5.2 billion over the forward estimates, this Government, unlike those opposite, remains committed to investing in infrastructure—a clear contrast between this Government and the former Labor Government.

Question time concluded at 3.08 p.m.

OMBUDSMAN

Report

Mr Greg Smith tabled the report of the NSW Ombudsman entitled "Report under section 49 (1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 for the six months ending 31 December 2011", dated April 2012.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

Mr Stephen Bromhead, as Chair, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 20/55", dated 19 June 2012, together with minutes of the committee meeting regarding Legislation Review Digest No. 19/55 dated 12 June 2012.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Stephen Bromhead.

PETITIONS

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

Pets on Public Transport

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, 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.

Container Deposit Levy

Petition requesting the Government introduce a container deposit levy to reduce litter and increase recycling rates of drink containers, received from Ms Clover Moore. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13003

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.10 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to:

(1) Permit the passage through all stages at this or any subsequent sitting of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill.

(2) Provide for the following routine of business at this sitting after the conclusion of the motion accorded priority:

(a) Government business;

(b) the Speaker to leave the chair at 6.30 p.m.;

(c) the Speaker to resume the chair at 7.00 p.m. for the continuation of Government business;

(d) Matter of Public Importance at the conclusion of Government business; and

(e) the House to adjourn without motion moved at the conclusion of the matter of public importance.

As has been the subject of some discussion in the House today, the Government proposes to progress the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 through all their stages today. Obviously, the Government is aware of concerns about debating the bills today, but substantial concerns exist also about the current deficit of $4.1 billion in the workers compensation scheme. Of course, in a perfect world certainly we would prefer to consider and deal with this issue in the next session but, unfortunately, the House rises later this week for 51 days for the winter recess before the next session commences and over the intervening period the deficit would grow at $9 million a day to $459 million—nearly half a billion dollars. I recognise the degree of sensitivity about the matter, but there is some urgency also about the issue. The Government wants to deal with the bills through all stages today.

Obviously, the bill addresses meeting the needs of workers and employers and the provisions, which will be detailed during the second reading speech and debate, will ensure not only that employers will have some relief from the pressure of increasing premiums but also that workers are helped to return to work rather than be placed in situations to which the Premier referred earlier. The Government's intention is that the bills will be debated to their conclusion today. While the House normally would rise around 7 o'clock after matters of public importance, et cetera, debate on the bills will continue until its conclusion today. Therefore, I anticipate that a vote on the bills will be taken this evening. If members have other arrangements, they should be conscious of the fact that debate on the bills probably will proceed to at least mid-evening to conclude, but that will depend on the number of members who wish to speak in the debate.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [3.14 p.m.]: The presentation just given by the Leader of the House is absolutely seething with hypocrisy.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Maroubra has the call. Members will resume their seats or leave the Chamber.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Leader of the House says with his hand on his heart that he understands there are some sensitivities around this issue and the bills have been introduced with a slight modicum of discourtesy to the House. But we do not expect that this Government will give a rat's about what anybody on this side of the House says. These bills comprising 100 pages of legislation will bring great misery upon injured workers in this State. This is the cruellest and most draconian piece of legislation I have witnessed after being in this place for nearly seven years. Indeed this is one of the cruellest laws I have witnessed in 17 years of public life. All Government members sitting here laughing will not laugh if one of their family members is injured tomorrow after the passage of these bills. They are a disgrace and Premier Barry O'Farrell and his Government are a disgrace for contemplating this sort of legislation.

The Opposition will have none of it. We will have none of this division. These two cognate pieces of legislation comprise 100 pages. The Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 was not the subject of 13004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

the Minister's discussion paper, nor was it the subject of the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme. The introduction of these bills is a wholly and solely unseen procedure. Both bills were dropped on the Opposition not yet an hour ago and not one member of this Parliament who is not part of the Government has had the opportunity to read them or has been given the courtesy of being briefed by the Government. Government members do not care about injured workers; they do not care about their families. They do not care if injured workers get back to work or where the money to meet their expenses for medical bills will come from. We do not expect to be heard.

Mr Darren Webber: Point of order: The member should direct his comments through the Chair.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The member will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: That is symptomatic of this Government: We are on the verge of discussing the most draconian amendments to workers compensation and the member for Wyong pulls a standing order stunt. We will see what the member for Wyong has to say about these bills. These bills are an absolute disgrace. The Leader of the House had the hide to throw some sort of purported measure of shame for proceeding in this manner because the workers compensation scheme is deteriorating at $9 million a day. I remind him and the House that on 2 February Minister Greg Pearce, that man of great conscience and heart, issued a press release stating that the WorkCover scheme needed urgent reform. So 90 days later he gets around to establishing a joint committee. Do not tell me about $9 million a day. This is a disgrace. We are having none of it.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.19 p.m.], in reply: A question was asked of me about the wording of the suspension of standing orders motion. I want to clarify that the intention of the Government is that debate on the bills will continue until its conclusion and then we will deal with the matter of public importance. I will repeat the words, as there is some confusion:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to:

(1) Permit the passage through all stages at this or any subsequent sitting of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill.

(2) Provide for the following routine of business at this sitting after the conclusion of the motion accorded priority:

(a) Government business;

(b) the Speaker to leave the chair at 6.30 p.m.;

(c) the Speaker to resume the chair at 7.00 p.m. for the continuation of Government business;

(d) Matter of Public Importance at the conclusion of Government business; and

(e) the House to adjourn without motion moved at the conclusion of the matter of public importance.

In response to the comments of the member for Maroubra, I note that arrangements are now in place, which the member is aware of—although I acknowledge they were not in place earlier—for a full briefing by WorkCover to the shadow Minister. Having been a member of this House for some time, I know that the Opposition when in government frequently followed the same procedure. This Government is doing so now because there is a necessity for it to do so.

Mr Michael Daley: We did not.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes, you did. The previous Government never discussed with us anything that went on in this place. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13005

Ayes, 67

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

Noes, 23

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Pacific Highway Upgrade

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [3.27 p.m.]: Earlier I gave notice of a motion that I seek to be accorded priority, which notes that the New South Wales Government is getting on with the job of funding its fair share of the Pacific Highway upgrade and condemns the Federal Government for reneging on its commitment to an 80:20 split in funding. This motion deserves priority because those who live in communities and towns along the Pacific Highway and those who utilise the Pacific Highway on a daily basis for business purposes, such as commercial travellers and truck drivers, should be fully informed about the issue of funding of the Pacific Highway upgrade. They should be informed that under a Federal Labor Government and a State Labor Government the funding split was in the vicinity of 83:17 or 84:16. The community should be informed that the completion date of 2016, promised by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, cannot be attained unless the Federal Government keeps its promise of a funding split of 80:20.

The Federal Government made that promise in writing to two Ministers of the State Labor Government. I will refer to the letters if my motion is accorded priority. The community must be informed that 13006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

even though Mr Albanese promised $3.56 million of Federal funding, he stated that the money could be applied to the Pacific Highway upgrade, not that it would be applied. The community must be informed that the deal proposed by Mr Albanese to the State Government puts a $2.31 million impost on the taxpayers of New South Wales. The community must be informed that the Federal Government has reneged on $2.31 million of funding. Members of the community want the Pacific Highway upgrade finished. They are sick and tired of the carnage. I remind members opposite that only two weeks ago an 11-year-old boy was killed in a car accident north of Coffs Harbour on a section of road currently being upgraded.

Even on roads that are under construction and being repaired deaths are still occurring. We need from the Federal Government the same commitment it gave to the previous Labor State Government—a commitment of $2.31 billion for the Pacific Highway upgrade. The O'Farrell Government has committed an extra $940 million—almost $1 billion—to the upgrade of the Pacific Highway in this year's budget, which followed an extra $468 million allocated to those works in its prior budget. We need to debate this matter to show Mr Albanese and his Federal colleagues for the shysters they are when it comes to funding for the Pacific Highway. The Federal Government recognised the Pacific Highway as a national highway. It should understand that as it has available the lion's share of funding it should pay the lion's share of funding for these works.

Public Housing Rents

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [3.30 p.m.]: The motion that I seek to be accorded priority is that this House condemns the O'Farrell Government for increasing public housing rents for some of the most vulnerable citizens in New South Wales, thereby wiping out Federal Government assistance meant to offset the impact of carbon pricing. This impost will be brought about by the O'Farrell Government's heartless decision to include the Federal Government's regular fortnightly energy subsidy for social housing tenants as part of the department's assessable income guidelines. According to the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward, the changes will result in an increase of between $1 and $2 per week for most social housing tenants. Single pensioners are set to receive around $333 each year and a pensioner couple around $510 under the Federal Government's Housing Assistance Package to offset any increases to low-income households as a result of carbon pricing.

The increase of $1 to $2 per week that will have to be paid by social housing tenants because of the new income assessment regime is nothing more than the O'Farrell Government annexing for itself a large chunk of provisions that have been made by the Federal Government to help low-income households. This is a cruel blow. According to the Minister's own estimates, the increase will see rents go up by $104 per year. For single parents or pensioners trying to make ends meet $104 is a fair chunk, particularly when they have to scrimp and save on a fixed income. The large number of elderly and disabled social housing tenants who have no means of generating additional income will have no option but to watch their entitlements being taken away by the O'Farrell Government. Make no mistake: single parents, pensioners and the disabled, who will feel the brunt of the cruel penny-pinching ways of this Government, are already finding it hard to make ends meet.

Less than 12 months ago the O'Farrell Government increased public housing rents by $10 a week but before doing so approved an increase in average household electricity prices of a whopping 18 per cent—and now this. The effect of including the Federal Government's Household Assistance Package in the income test of the Department of Housing test, according to the Minister for Family and Community Services, will see "most social housing tenants pay between $1 to $2 more in rent per week." That $1 or $2 a week, or $52 or $104 a year, can help a single mum afford sporting gear or school uniforms for her young children; or it can help pensioner couples keep the heater on for longer during winter or the air conditioner going longer during summer; or it can help persons with a disability meet their quarterly water, electricity or gas bills. [Time expired.]

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

The House divided. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13007

Ayes, 65

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

Noes, 22

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Motion Accorded Priority

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the New South Wales Government is getting on with the job of funding its fair share of the Pacific Highway upgrade; and

(2) condemns the Federal Government for reneging on its commitment to an 80:20 split in funding.

In moving this motion and trying to get the people of New South Wales, the people on the North Coast and this Parliament to understand the historical funding levels, I refer to a Senate budget estimates committee hearing on 28 May this year. I quote a statement from Senator Williams:

I notice in answer to a question on notice from the last estimates hearing you advised that not a single project on the Pacific Highway was funded under an 80-20 funding split. I want to refer you to the following projects that were funded at around that level: Urunga duplication, $60 million project, Commonwealth contribution $54 million, a 90-10 split; Bulahdelah bypass, $315 million project, Commonwealth contribution $303 million, 96-4 split; Ballina bypass, $640 million project, Commonwealth contribution $450 million, 70-30 split; Devil's Pulpit upgrade, $77 million project, Commonwealth contribution $62 million, 80-20 split.

13008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

That shows that the funding split between the Commonwealth and the State was an 80:20 split across the board on large projects. I also bring to the attention of the House some correspondence from the then Minister for Transport and Minister for the Illawarra, David Campbell, to the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese, in December 2009. He lists quite a number of projects, but I will quote the most important part:

Accordingly, the estimated cash-flow required, additional to currently committed funding is as follows:

Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Funding $M 200 1200 2000 2200 1800 595 out-turn

If the commitments detailed above are not made within the timetable outlined, the opportunity to complete the upgrade in 2016 will quickly become unachievable.

Subject to your agreement to the above course of action, I will undertake to seek confirmation of a 20 per cent NSW Government commitment to the additional funding required. This would be consistent with the funding arrangements on many other National Land Transport Network projects in NSW, and our recent agreement for funding pre-construction for Frederickton to Eungai.

Those towns are in the electorate of the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Oxley. Historically the split has been 80:20. In this year's Federal budget Mr Albanese came up with the figure of $3.56 billion in a program which, he says, not would but could be allocated to the Pacific Highway. I pressed him publicly on that. During question time in the Federal Parliament yesterday, apart from some erroneous statements he made in response to an answer to the member for Lyne, whilst trying to disparage the member for Oxley and the member for Port Macquarie, Mr Albanese admitted that one section in the Kempsey area was 100 per cent funded by the Federal Government. He bragged to the Parliament that it was 100 per cent funded and he criticised our Government members for turning up.

As you know, Mr Deputy-Speaker, members of The Nationals on the North Coast have pressed for years to get this road completed and to get a commitment from the Federal Government to continue the funding agreements they had with the former Government—not at 80:20. We have increased our commitment in this budget to $940 million—an increase of 20 per cent. Rather than the New England Highway being the national route, as it was identified as years ago, the Pacific Highway is now regarded by all those who use it as the national route. It is the route between Sydney and Brisbane that tourists, businesses and heavy vehicles use. Produce from the Darling Downs goes through Brisbane down the Pacific Highway and into Sydney to make sure it gets here on time. Unfortunately, on many occasions accidents occur. All we are asking is that the Federal Government honour a commitment it made to the former Labor Government and to make the same commitment to us so that we can get this deathtrap fixed.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [3.45 p.m.]: I am surprised that the member for Coffs Harbour has poked his head up on this issue once again given the absolute failure of the O'Farrell-Stoner Government to back up its words with actions in its most recent budget. This year's roads budget has been cut by $400 million compared with last year's budget. That does not include the $200 million that was needed to keep pace with inflation. That is $400 million less straight off the top. The Pacific Highway budget was cut by $60 million compared with last year, and that does not include the $35 million that was needed to keep pace with inflation. On top of that, the Federal Nationals member Warren Truss confirmed that it was unlikely that the Pacific Highway upgrade would be completed before 2020 if the Coalition won government next year—heaven forbid.

Once again The Nationals have walked away from the Pacific Highway and shown that their promises are completely worthless. Last year the Government promised $750 million for new projects for the Pacific Highway, and it went kicking and screaming to the Federal Government to match that dollar for dollar. But the State Government has spent only $468 million. That means that $300 million committed in the budget last year has not been spent on the Pacific Highway. Where is the money going? Here is an opportunity to damn the Government with its own words, to damn it with its own lies and to damn it with its own statements made in the media. Let me start with the comments of a former Nationals Minister and member of Parliament, currently the President of the NRMA, Wendy Machin. Her press release stated:

It was the Howard Government that set the 50/50 funding split for the Pacific Highway from 2006 and the NRMA has supported this approach since day one.

While in Opposition, the current NSW Government frequently called on the NSW Labor Government to match federal funding for the Pacific Highway dollar-for-dollar and we supported this call too.

19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13009

Dollar for dollar means 50:50 for those on the other side who cannot quite work that out. The press release continued:

To now suggest that funding should suddenly be reverted to an 80/20 mode would ensure further long delays in finally upgrading this dangerous highway.

I quote from a press release of the Deputy Premier, the member for Oxley:

Unlike [NSW] Labor, the NSW Liberals & Nationals will immediately fast-track the upgrade of the Pacific Highway if elected in March [2011]. The best way to fix the many black spots on the Pacific Highway is for the road to be dual carriageway.

Where is their commitment now that the Coalition is in government? The Deputy Premier said that the State Government would back that up with $5 billion in extra funding in its first term. Where is the money? The Deputy Premier said:

We have always committed to it as long as the Federal Government is there with us to share the cost.

The State Labor Government must join with the Federal Government and match the $2.4 billion commitment for the vital Pacific Highway upgrade.

If "match" means 50:50 then we are calling for the same thing; that is, for the Government to match the commitment of the Federal Government. "The upgrade of the Pacific Highway is a State Government responsibility, so it is up to them to get the job done." These are the words of the Deputy Premier and he should remember them.

Mr Andrew Stoner: It is a National Land Transport Network project. Don't you know this?

Mr ROBERT FUROLO: What are you saying? The Deputy Premier cannot have one opinion before the election and a different opinion after the election. Of course he can—that is what he has done. He has said one thing before the election and a completely different thing after the election. Let us look at what the member for Coffs Harbour said. Could I have some silence, Mr Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! If the member directed his comments through the Chair rather than to Government members he might get some silence.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO: The member for Coffs Harbour said:

The Federal Government … have been contributing the lion's share of the upgrade and it's high time the State Government … poured the resources into this road which is taking in excess of 50 lives each year.”

Why are you not doing that? Why have you instead cut the budget by $60 million? In last year's budget you allocated $1 billion and this year you have allocated $940 million.

Mr Troy Grant: Point of order: My point of order is that the member for Lakemba is canvassing your ruling by not addressing his comments through the Chair.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [3.50 p.m.]: We have heard from members opposite that this is all about matching funding. Where was the matching of funding when Labor roads Minister David Campbell wrote to Anthony Albanese, the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport? That did not involve 50:50, matching funding. The last two paragraphs of that letter said:

Subject to your agreement to the above course of action, I will undertake to seek confirmation of a 20% NSW government commitment to the additional funding required.

I remind the member for Lakemba that 20 per cent is not 50:50.

This would be consistent with the funding arrangements on many other National Land Transport Network projects in NSW and our recent agreement for funding preconstruction for Frederickton to Eungai. As we have discussed, NSW remains able to manage delivery of the Pacific Highway upgrade to meet the Australian Government's objective of completing a four-lane route in 2016. However, to meet that objective, the additional funding required to complete the remaining projects would needed to be committed as proposed having regard to the time constraints outlined.

13010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

The whole of the North Coast is sick and tired of the carping. That is why I commend the local newspaper, the Daily Examiner, for its bipartisan campaign to fix the Pacific Highway, no excuses. The Government is looking for members opposite to assist it in fixing the Pacific Highway, no excuses. They know what the arrangement was because the member for Coffs Harbour quoted Senator Williams from the Federal budget estimates committee hearings when he spoke about all of the Pacific Highway projects. The projects that the member for Coffs Harbour quoted totalled $1.092 billion. Guess what the split is: It is 79.58 per cent to the Federal Government and 20.42 per cent to the State Government.

Is it not amazing that there is an 80:20 per cent split when the Opposition wants it but not when the Government needs it? The people of my electorate just want it fixed, no excuses. That is how they and I feel whenever we travel on the Pacific Highway. We know that the Federal Government has the money because it has allocated more than $2 billion to the Parramatta to Epping rail line, which is not a number one priority. That project is not on Infrastructure Australia's radar. We call on the Federal Government to redirect the money that we know it has to the Pacific Highway.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [3.53 p.m.]: Today I have sat in the Chamber and watched this debate, as I have on a number of other occasions. I note that the member for Coffs Harbour has brought this issue to the Chamber again, just as he did when he was in Opposition. Some words that might describe the debate are "humiliating", "humbling", "embarrassing" and "insulting". I welcome the member bringing this motion to the House. I hope that he will bring this motion to the House every day for the next four years. I have spent a bit of time on the mid North Coast in the past couple of months and I have had a wonderful time—it is a beautiful part of the world. But it is clear that the member for Coffs Harbour is losing the debate in the media because it homed in on the specific statement that:

Only the NSW Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016.

That is why the member for Coffs Harbour brings this motion before the House time and again. I hope that he continues to do so because it is not an embarrassment to Labor; it is an embarrassment to The Nationals. It shows complete incompetence in The Nationals caucus room. I say that with all due respect to the Deputy-Speaker, who is in the chair. The Leader of the Nationals has said that there is no more important piece of infrastructure in New South Wales than the Pacific Highway, yet the budget handed down last week contained funding for a range of other infrastructure projects, including included $3.3 billion for the North West Rail Link, $2 billion here and additional amounts of $1 billion here, there and everywhere. It is clear that for Liberal Party members there is a bunch of more important infrastructure projects in New South Wales than the Pacific Highway.

The failure to get funding for the highway and to complete the upgrade by 2016 shows that The Nationals are not cutting it in the caucus room. They have said that only the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016, and the Leader of the Nationals has said that there is no more important project. Yet The Nationals cannot get the funding. The appeal by the member for Coffs Harbour to the Federal Labor Government shows nothing other than that he is in an insulting, embarrassing and humiliating position. Members of The Nationals should take this issue up in their caucus room and get the funding delivered. The Nationals need to deliver the funding through the budget of this Coalition Government, of which they are a part. The fact that they cannot do so tells everybody in New South Wales that they cannot deliver on an issue that they have campaigned on for so very long. If only the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are committed to delivering it, then deliver it.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [3.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Clarence for his positive contribution to this debate. I acknowledge the contributions of the members for the electorates of Lakemba and Cessnock. It is hypocritical for them to say that the Government has cut funding when $940 million was allocated in this budget and $468 million was allocated in the last budget. In this budget there was also a funding increase to take it up to an 80:20 split, which historically is 3 per cent more than that allocated by the former Labor Government to the highway. The hypocrisy is demonstrated by two pieces of correspondence from two transport Ministers in New South Wales in which they basically told the Federal Minister, Mr Albanese, that they would endeavour to get 20 per cent—and they never did.

The Federal Government has offered $3.56 billion to New South Wales which could—not would or will—be allocated to the Pacific Highway. At the same time it is offering $2 billion to an infrastructure project that is not even on the radar of Infrastructure NSW or this Government, that is, the Parramatta to Epping rail 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13011

link. The challenge for Labor members, who I doubt have ever travelled the Pacific Highway, is to convince their Federal colleague Mr Albanese to allocate that $2 billion, which is supposedly in the bank in Canberra, to the Pacific Highway where it will be spent. If that amount was contributed along with the $3.56 billion we would be 99 per cent of the way to having the Pacific Highway upgrade funded and completed by 2016. The challenge is in front of Labor, the ball is in Labor's court, and $2 billion has been allocated to a project that is not even in a document.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Lakemba will refrain from interjecting. If he continues with his disruptive conduct, he will be lucky to remain in the Chamber to hear the debate.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: That money could save lives on the North Coast.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Hear, hear!

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The member for Myall Lakes knows that. He was injured in a car accident—not on the Pacific Highway, but close to it. He traverses that highway regularly in his electorate.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Every day.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: He and I know the number of deaths and injuries that occur on the Pacific Highway, and so do the members for Clarence, Oxley, Tweed, Ballina, and you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, as the member for Lismore. We know that the only way the upgrade will be completed by 2016 is for it to be acknowledged as a national highway and for the same funding allocation requested by two previous Labor Transport ministers on a split of 80:20 per cent to be given by the Federal Labor Government. That will save lives and save misery.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May 2012.

Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith) [4.02 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I contribute to debate on the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The bill was introduced by the Attorney General and its priorities are set out in the overview, which states:

The objects of this Bill are:

(a) to provide for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services and confer on that Inspector functions relating to the inspection and review of custodial centres and custodial services, and

(b) to make a number of miscellaneous amendments of a minor or consequential nature to other Acts and regulations.

Division 1 of part 2 of the bill deals with the appointment and staff of the Inspector of Custodial Services. Clause 4 provides for the appointment of the Inspector of Custodial Services. The Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, constituted under the Ombudsman Act 1974, may veto the appointment of any particular person as the inspector. Clause 5 provides for the employment and engagement of staff to assist the inspector. Division 2 of part 2 of the bill set out the functions and powers of the Inspector of Custodial Services. Clause 6 specifies certain principal functions of the inspector. In general, the inspector is responsible primarily for inspecting, examining and reviewing as well as making recommendations in relation to custodial services.

Ms Tania Mihailuk: The inspector is responsible for inspecting?

Mr STUART AYRES: This is very important legislation. The inspector has specific functions.

Ms Tania Mihailuk: Tell me more. 13012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Mr STUART AYRES: I will tell the member for Bankstown more. The inspector's functions are to inspect each custodial centre other than juvenile justice centres and juvenile correctional centres at least once every five years; to inspect each juvenile justice centre and juvenile correctional centre once every three years, which highlights the need to ensure that high-needs centres are inspected and have appropriate oversight; to examine and review any custodial service at any time; and to report to Parliament on each such inspection, examination or review; to report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if, in the inspector's opinion, it is in the interest of any person or in the public interest to do so.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Penrith does not need assistance.

Mr STUART AYRES: Clause 7 sets out the powers that the inspector will exercise in the performance of functions listed in clause 6. On enactment of this legislation the inspector will be entitled to full access to the records of any custodial centre, including health records, and may make copies of or take extracts from those records and may remove and retain those copies or extracts; and may visit and examine any custodial centre at any time the inspector thinks fit, and may require custodial centre staff members to supply information or produce documents or other things relating to any matter or any class or kind of matters concerning custodial centres. This legislation is part of the Attorney General's reform agenda. It is important to continually improve the oversight of custodial services throughout New South Wales. The Attorney General is committed to working towards continual improvement of custodial services. It is worth noting that this reform agenda is ongoing.

In 2009 a general purpose standing committee of the Legislative Council handed down its report on an inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The committee noted that the Corrections Inspectorate was part of the then Department of Corrective Services and therefore lacked independence from the department. The committee also received submissions suggesting that New South Wales does not have appropriate oversight of prison visitors who are outside the control of Corrective Services. The committee therefore recommended that the position of inspector be reinstated. As I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, the inspector will have jurisdiction over correctional centres. The inspector will be given broad powers to perform his or her functions, including the power to access custodial centres and their records, with or without notice; to require the production of information and documents; and to require staff members to attend before the inspector to answer questions and access inmates, and may refer matters to appropriate agencies as well as access special inquiries under section 230 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

The inspector must furnish reports made by the inspector under the Act to the Presiding Officers of each House of Parliament. The inspector will provide the Minister and any government division or person of whom a report is critical with a draft of each report to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to respond. The inspector must not disclose information in a report if there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of that information. The Attorney General has included that appropriate check in this legislation that recognises the importance of the role of the inspector operating outside the Department of Corrective Services. The bill has appropriate clauses to ensure that when it is not in the public interest for information to be disclosed the inspector will not disclose it.

It is worth noting that the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, which currently has oversight of the Ombudsman, amongst other bodies, will have oversight also of the inspector. Once again it is important to let the people of New South Wales know there is parliamentary oversight of our bureaucratic functions. The inspector will be appointed because of a potential conflict of interest in the Corrections department, and the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission will oversee the role of the inspector. The inspector may be appointed for a five-year term and he may be reappointed only once. The inspector will be able to be removed from office in limited circumstances, including incapacity, incompetence, misbehaviour or unsatisfactory performance.

If we are to introduce this type of oversight position we must be given an opportunity to remove an inspector if, for whatever reason, he is unable to continue to operate in that role. The inspector will commence his functions on 1 July this year and every five years there will be a statutory review. It is important to acknowledge the ongoing work of the Government under the dedicated leadership of the Attorney General in the challenging areas of legal affairs and corrective services. A number of corrective service organisations are located in the Penrith electorate, including Emu Plains prison, and the John Moroney Correctional Centre is located in the Londonderry electorate.

Both those facilities are important to the community, which expects appropriate oversight of those who have broken the law. There should be no conflict of interest between the Department of Corrections and the 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13013

Inspector of Custodial Services, and there should be appropriate parliamentary oversight of the inspector to ensure that he is doing his job. This bill, which will result in the appointment of an inspector and the removal of the conflict of interest, is an appropriate piece of reform that will provide us with an effective corrective services regime for both adults and juveniles. I thank the House for allowing me to speak in debate on this important bill. I am aware that other members who are more versed in legal affairs also want to contribute to debate on this bill.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [4.12 p.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012, which, as part of the Australian tradition, will give people a second chance. The appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services will give prisoners across New South Wales the ability to air their grievances to an independent body without fear of retribution. Importantly, this legislation fulfils an election commitment by the O'Farrell Government and follows recommendations from Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 following its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in June 2009. This groundbreaking legislation represents one of the biggest shake-ups in the New South Wales prison system in recent memory.

Under the legislation, an inspector of prisons will be appointed at the same time as a new Corrective Services Commissioner after the retirement of Commissioner Ron Woodham. Mr Woodham's replacement is expected to be in place by 1 July. The Inspector of Custodial Services will work with the new commissioner but will report to Parliament and to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Greg Smith. For the first time in the history of New South Wales prisons we will improve standards within those prisons and we will give people behind bars a better chance for rehabilitation so that when they are released they can re-enter the community on a more positive footing. The role of the inspector will apply also to juvenile detention facilities as part of the provisions of the legislation. He or she will be able to review facilities and report on each prison at least every five years and on each juvenile centre every two years.

Let me now go through some interesting statistics. On 30 June 2009, 11,160 people were in custody in New South Wales. Of those, 92.3 per cent were male and 7.47 per cent were women. Perhaps the most interesting statistic I discovered while researching the bill is that 67.2 per cent of prisoners had experienced previous adult imprisonment. We hope that statistic will be reduced as a result of this legislation. When General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report in June 2009 it noted that England, Scotland, Wales and Western Australia already had in place independent prisons inspectors. For some reason the former Labor Government chose not to adopt the recommendations of the inquiry—surprise, surprise—but to adopt an in-prison support line for inmates to make inquiries and complaints about their conditions.

This Government believes that the appointment of an independent custodial inspector is long overdue and that his or her presence would add weight to, and ensure additional scrutiny of, the system. I would like the House to take note of the fact that this reform has been endorsed and supported by 3,800 prison officers across the State. It makes provision for the inspector to play a proactive role and prisoners will have more than just a voice at the end of a phone. The inspector will conduct regular inspections of prisons and juvenile detention centres and those visits will give him firsthand knowledge of the facilities and how prisoners are adapting to life in those facilities. The inspector's presence at those facilities will enable him to resolve any problems or issues that might have a negative effect.

I want to deal now with existing conditions for prisoners who may have genuine concerns about their assimilation into prison life—a far cry from having the support of family and friends. I am not saying we should feel sorry for those who commit offences but it is our responsibility to ensure that when they are released they are able, as law-abiding citizens, to resume their places in society. In a High Court judgement last year Justice Michael Kirby said, "Prisoners have lost their liberty while they are in prison. However, so far as I am concerned, they have not lost their human dignity or their right to equality before the law." Any inmate in a New South Wales correctional facility who has a complaint can direct his or her complaint to the New South Wales Ombudsman. They will still be able to direct their complaints to the Ombudsman.

Members would be aware that the Office of the Ombudsman deals with an enormous number of complaints relating to the delivery of services to the public. The objectives of that independent and impartial watchdog are to ensure that various agencies in New South Wales fulfil their functions and work to improve those functions. The inspector, upon visiting correctional facilities, will interview staff and visitors to those centres to gain access to relevant information. Prisoners will continue to take their complaints to the Ombudsman. Under this legislation the inspector may refer complaints to other appropriate bodies, such as the Ombudsman, but the idea is that the inspector will focus on issues peculiar to correctional facilities to bring about real change. 13014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Importantly, the legislation will ensure that a person lodging a complaint through the inspector will have his or her information and identity protected. At the same time prison officers will have the ability to air their grievances without fear of harassment or prejudicing their careers. Members will remember with sadness the events of June 2010 when prisoner Ian Klum died of a brain haemorrhage in Grafton jail. He was in prison for traffic offences and not as a threat to society. He died begging for help from prison officers, bleeding and crawling on his knees between cells before dying while prison officers looked on. An inquest was held as a result of his death but it transpired that even the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice could not obtain information relating to that case.

In March this year that inquiry was told that prison guards had acted unprofessionally. Under the terms of this bill the inspector will be given broad powers and will be entitled to full access to the records of any custodial sentence, including health records. That information may have saved Mr Klum's life because at the time he had a history of health problems and had complained about having to share a cell with a smoker. His complaints had fallen on deaf ears and now he is dead. Under this bill the inspector not only will have access to relevant information but also will have the power to visit a correctional facility at any time he or she sees fit. The inspector also will have the power to interview staff members at the facility and may refer information to the appropriate agencies for consideration. Under this law it will be an offence to obstruct information requested by the inspector or, in fact, to lie to the inspector.

Further, it will be an offence to threaten a person reporting to the inspector. All offences will carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty points or 12 months imprisonment. The bill's provisions also will ensure that information held by the inspector remains confidential. Similar exclusions exist regarding confidential information retained by the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Custodial Inspector and the Ombudsman will be permitted to share information; however, information may not be shared if it could not otherwise be obtained under the respective legislation. This will minimise the potential for duplication and will ensure that, where appropriate, those officers are able to assist each other. The inspector will be appointed for a five-year term and will be reappointed only once.

Features of the legislation dealing with the removal of the inspector from office ensure that the office of Custodial Inspector is maintained to the highest degree. Currently a joint parliamentary committee monitors the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. Under this legislation that same committee also will monitor the Custodial Inspector. Reports prepared by the inspector will be referred to the Parliament, which will have the ability to inquire further into matters raised by the inspector. I am so pleased to note that the bill provides for the inspector to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption on any matter he or she sees fit. This is a wonderful bill. I commend the work of the Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Andrew Gee and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

CITY OF SYDNEY AMENDMENT (CENTRAL SYDNEY TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE) BILL 2012

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

WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012

SAFETY, RETURN TO WORK AND SUPPORT BOARD BILL 2012

Bills introduced on motion by Mr Mike Baird, read a first time and printed.

Second Reading

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [4.23 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and its cognate bill, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. These bills will ensure better protection for injured workers, save businesses from unnecessary premium hikes and get the scheme back into surplus. The purpose of 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13015

the bills is to deliver urgently needed reforms to the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. With a deficit in excess of $4 billion, the scheme currently is unsustainable. New South Wales workplace safety outcomes are similar to those of Queensland and Victoria yet our workers compensation premiums costs on average are around 20 per cent to 60 per cent more. Increasing premiums to address the scheme's poor experience would only exacerbate the current discrepancy, to the detriment of jobs growth. As the parliamentary committee states at page 42 of its report:

... there is nothing fair and nothing equitable about pursuing premium increases which would put so many workers out of a job.

If the Government does not act now then, based on actuarial advice to the scheme, the people of New South Wales will face the prospect of a 28 per cent increase in workers compensation premiums when the next insurance premiums order is made at the end of June in order to clear the deficit, with future premium increases also likely. This would have a negative impact on the economy, businesses and jobs growth in New South Wales. The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill responds to the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme, and gives effect to the Government's commitment to introduce legislation during the 2012 budget session.

The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill represents a fundamental shift towards properly meeting the needs of the most seriously injured workers in the scheme while strongly incentivising return to work for those workers who have the capacity to return to work. The Government is committed to ensuring that the income, support and treatment needs of seriously injured workers are met, and the bill will increase the weekly benefits paid to the most seriously injured workers while ensuring such workers have benefits until retirement if they cannot return to work. The Government is taking steps also to ensure insurers direct more resources to support injured workers to improve their return-to-work outcomes and will focus on reducing the costs of insurers, which also are impacting on the scheme.

The joint select committee was established on 2 May 2012 and published its report on 13 June 2012. I thank the committee for its hard work. The committee held public hearings and took evidence from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals. I also thank the organisations and individuals who took the time to make submissions to the committee—over 300 submissions were received by the committee. The committee was tasked with inquiring into and reporting on the performance of the scheme in key objectives of promoting better health and return-to-work outcomes, the financial sustainability of the scheme, and the functions and operations of the WorkCover Authority. Members will recall that the Government's intention in establishing the committee was to find ways of addressing the growing deficit in the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. The Government's concern is that without further reform New South Wales businesses could face large workers compensation premium increases with adverse impact on business and jobs growth together with an inability to provide ongoing support to injured workers.

Additionally and of particular concern is that premiums paid by New South Wales employers are higher than those paid in comparable competitor States—Victoria and Queensland—and that further increases in premiums could drive New South Wales businesses and jobs interstate. The Government released an issues paper entitled "NSW Workers Compensation Scheme" with its proposed reform based on seven principles. Firstly, enhance New South Wales workplace safety by preventing and reducing incidents and fatalities; secondly, contribute to economic and jobs growth, including for small businesses, by ensuring that premiums are comparable with other States and there are optimal insurance arrangements; thirdly, promote recovery and the health benefits of returning to work; fourthly, guarantee long-term medical and financial support for seriously injured workers; fifthly, support less seriously injured workers to recover and regain their financial independence; sixthly, reduce the high regulatory burden and make it simple for injured workers, employers and service providers to navigate the system; and seventhly, strongly discourage payments, treatments and services that do not contribute to recovery and return to work.

The report of the joint select committee and these seven key principles have informed the Government's approach to reform the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. I refer now to the bill that seeks to amendment the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 with amendments ordered in 12 schedules. Firstly, in the area of weekly payments of compensation, the bill makes important changes to the current weekly payments provisions of the Workers Compensation Act. These changes aim to provide support to workers in the initial period following an injury, and encourage them to return to work once they are recovered. The changes implement recommendation 6 of the joint select committee report and are consistent with the recommendation of the report. 13016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Based on the Victorian model, in the initial period, that is, the first 13 weeks of the claim, workers who have no work capacity will receive up to 95 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. From weeks 14 to 130 workers who have no work capacity will receive up to 80 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. The most seriously injured workers will be better off under the bill as they will receive 80 per cent of their pre-injury earnings up to week 130 rather than the current statutory rate of $432.50 which applies after the first 26 weeks.

The bill implements a new scheme for the payment of weekly benefits to partially incapacitated workers. Workers who have a partial incapacity and are able to work during the 13 weeks after their claim is made will receive up to 95 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. This amount will comprise the actual wages they are earning and a top-up of the benefit. Workers who have returned to work for at least 15 hours per week will continue to receive up to 95 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings in total up to week 130 after their claim. Workers who can work but who are working fewer than 15 hours per week from week 14 to 130 will receive up to 80 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. This amount will comprise the actual wages they are earning and a top-up benefit.

If a worker who has work capacity is not working at least 15 hours per week by the end of the 130-week period entitlement to weekly benefits will cease. However, workers who have no work capacity will continue to receive benefits of up to 80 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. This new benefit structure will support workers while they are recovering from workplace injury or illness and provide incentive to workers who have work capacity to return to work. The bill also adopts a similar model to Victoria of calculating pre-injury average weekly earnings by basing the calculation on average weekly earnings of the worker rather than the current method of the worker's current weekly wage rate at the time of injury and removing the distinction between award and non-award workers. This method of calculation is based on what a worker has actually been earning which is inclusive of specified allowances and will result in fairer and more generous payments to injured workers, particularly in the early weeks of an injury when it is important that workers are able to focus on recovery.

It will reduce disputation in the system as this aspect of the current legislation has led in many cases to prolonged disputes. The bill provides for weekly payments to cease after five years with some important exceptions. This is in line with recommendation 7 of the parliamentary joint committee. There will be no time cap on benefits for those seriously injured workers who have been assessed at having a level of permanent impairment of over 30 per cent except for the Commonwealth retirement age, which is consistent with the scheme's support for seriously injured workers. Further, as recommended by the joint select committee there is provision for an intermediate category of workers who have a significant permanent disability. For workers with permanent impairment of more than 20 per cent the bill provides that weekly benefits will not cease after five years provided they have no capacity to work or have work capacity and are working 15 or more hours a week.

In accordance with recommendation 10 of the report of the joint select committee an integral part of the workers compensation reform is the introduction of work capacity assessments. Proposed new section 44A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 provides for the work capacity assessment, which is based on well-established Victorian provisions and practice. Insurers will be required to conduct a work capacity assessment of an injured worker at specified points during the claim, starting from week 78 following the claim and at least every two years from that point. The work capacity assessment will be a holistic assessment that will take into account medical evidence, vocational retraining and other material specified in WorkCover guidelines. Consistent with the recommendation of the parliamentary joint committee, seriously injured workers whose whole-person impairment is more than 30 per cent will not be required to have work capacity assessments. However, those workers may wish to request an assessment to explore their return-to-work options. One of the key goals of the Government is to ensure seriously injured workers receive improved benefits if they cannot work and all possible assistance and support to return to work.

Workers whose whole-person impairment is more than 20 per cent who have total incapacity will receive a benefit of up to 80 per cent of the pre-injury average weekly earnings until retirement age. Seriously injured workers who are able to work more than 15 hours per week will also receive a weekly benefit that when combined with what they are earning will be up to 80 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. Established by schedule 9 to the bill to ensure that workers are treated fairly, the decision of an insurer about a worker's current work capacity can be the subject of an internal review by the insurer, merit review by the WorkCover Authority and procedural review by the proposed WorkCover independent review officer. It is also intended that any review of decisions by the Supreme Court should be undertaken by the court only once the claim has gone through review at all stages, that is, after review by the insurer, WorkCover and the independent review officer. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13017

Schedule 1 to the bill also makes amendments to the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to strengthen the return-to-work obligations of both employers and workers. The enforcement of the return-to-work provisions will be enhanced by new provisions allowing WorkCover inspectors to issue improve notices to employers who fail to comply with return-to-work obligations, such as the provision of suitable work for injured workers wishing to return to work. These new return-to-work provisions will reinforce and support the regime for weekly benefits and work capacity testing, thereby assisting workers who are able to return to work.

Schedule 2 to the bill reforms the scheme for lump sum payment of compensation by removing pain and suffering as a separate category of lump sum compensation and limiting lump sum payments to workers who meet an impairment threshold of greater than 10 per cent, which will be limited to only one claim. The amendment proposes only one assessment of the level of impairment for the purposes of permanent impairment commutation and common law work injury claims and allows workers to waive their requirement to obtain legal advice before agreeing to a lump sum. These initiatives will help to reduce disputes and reduce administration costs while allowing the scheme to focus on the more seriously injured workers.

Schedule 3 to the bill makes a change to the area of work injury damages with proposed new section 151AD limiting common law claims for nervous shock suffered by a relative or dependent of a deceased or injured worker, unless the nervous shock is itself a work injury. This reflects the view that an employer's liability for psychological injury to family members does not fall within the object of the workers compensation legislation. Schedule 4 to the bill concerns medical and related expenses. Medical expenses have been an area of increasing cost to the workers compensation scheme. Under the bill payment of an injured worker's expenses for medical, hospital and rehabilitation services will be limited to a 12-month period after the claim is made or 12 months after weekly payments cease, whichever is the earlier. However, consistent with the Government's objective of directing workers compensation benefits to the most serious injured workers, workers with a permanent incapacity of more than 30 per cent will not be subject to the new restrictions for medical and related expenses. They will continue to be eligible for benefits for medical and related treatment until retirement age.

An employer's liability for medical and related treatment and rehabilitation services will be made subject to preconditions to ensure that the treatment is appropriate and properly provided and approved. WorkCover guidelines will be able to limit an employer's liability for medical and hospital treatment and rehabilitation services. Schedules 5 and 6 of the bill make essential changes to the workers compensation scheme in the area of liability. Proposed amendments to section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act mean that journey claims will no longer be covered by the New South Wales workers compensation scheme consistent with the position in many other Australian jurisdictions. While workers who travel for work will still be covered by the scheme, employees will no longer be liable for a journey between a worker's home and his or her place of work where the risk of injury is outside the control of the employer.

The proposed amendment to section 9B of the Workers Compensation Act will have the effect that worker heart attacks and strokes will not be covered by the scheme unless the nature of the employment concerned gives rise to a significantly greater risk of the worker suffering the injury than had the worker not been employed in employment of that nature. It is considered this is a fairer and more reasonable test for employers to meet than the current test of "substantial contributing factor". Schedule 7 to the bill implements recommendation 14 in the report of the joint select committee. For the scheme to be liable in the case of a disease, as opposed to an injury, the worker's employment must be the main contributing factor in order to address cases where the workplace has only a limited connection with the disease. Schedule 8 to the bill provides for a regulation-making power which will permit insurers to commute workers compensation liabilities in cases prescribed by the regulations that do not meet the current criteria.

This is similar to the position in some other States such as Victoria which provide greater flexibility for commutations and may be able to be used for workers who do not meet the current criteria, such as workers receiving small weekly benefits who would benefit from the commutation of their claims. Schedule 9 to the bill provides for amendments to the insurance provisions of the workers compensation legislation which are intended to permit the entry of new insurers into the New South Wales workers compensation insurance market. These new insurers could include new specialised insurers that could underwrite specified industry classes. It is, however, the Government's intention that where a specialised insurer is approved they must take all of the risk in an industry and will not be permitted to pick and choose which risks are eligible, thus leaving the nominal insurer with the worst risks.

Schedule 10 to the bill amends the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act to provide for the administrative arrangements for establishing the new WorkCover Independent Review Officer, 13018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

who will have the independent review functions in relation to work capacity assessments referred to above. The WorkCover Independent Review Officer will have also the functions of dealing with complaints about insurers, inquiring into and reporting to the Minister on matters concerning the operation of the workers compensation legislation, and such other functions as may be conferred on the Independent Review Officer. The WorkCover Independent Review Officer will have the dual roles of dealing with individual complaints and overseeing the workers compensation scheme as a whole. It will be an important accountability mechanism for the workers compensation scheme.

Schedules 11 and 12 to the bill provide for various miscellaneous amendments and savings and transitional provisions. The amendment to section 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act will reduce red tape by simplifying the notice provisions for an insurer disputing liability, while the amendment to section 341 of that Act will require the Workers Compensation Commission to order that costs follow the event in legal proceedings before the commission unless it appears to the commission that some other order should be made so as to discourage unmeritorious claims. In relation to transitional arrangements, the general principle is that many of the new arrangements for weekly payments will apply to existing claims as well as new claims.

However, there are provisions for staged implementation of the new weekly payments provisions, especially for existing claims. Changes to lump sum compensation and work injury damage will generally apply to claims from the date of the introduction of the bill. A number of the recommendations of the joint select committee that were not legislative in nature involved legislative issues requiring greater consideration or recommended referral to a parliamentary committee for further consideration. The Government is still considering its response to these recommendations. In conclusion, these reforms to the workers compensation legislation provided for in the bill represent an integrated package of reforms that will assist and encourage workers who have work capacity to return to work, while continuing to support and assist seriously injured workers.

I now turn to the cognate bill to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, that is, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. This bill establishes a single board to oversee the functions of the WorkCover Authority, the Motor Accidents Authority, the Lifetime Care and Support Authority and what is currently known as the Sporting Injuries Committee. It is proposed that the board be known as the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board to adequately reflect the diverse functions of the various authorities. The board will comprise seven members, including the chief executive officer. Each of the members will have skills and experience in one or more areas relevant to the functions of the authorities, including insurance, finance, investment, law, health, work health and safety, injury prevention, return to work, disability services, marketing and communications.

Mr John Robertson: Surely all your mates have got jobs now. They don't need a new board so that you can put them on it, do they?

Mr Troy Grant: You shouldn't go there.

Mr John Robertson: I'm happy to go there.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: It's actually less boards.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind Opposition members that a number of them are on three calls to order.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The three key functions of the board will be to determine the general policies and strategic direction of each relevant authority, oversee the management and performance of each relevant authority, and advise the Minister and the chief executive officer on any matter relating to the relevant authorities or arising under any relevant legislation, either at the request of the Minister or the chief executive officer or on its own initiative. Each of these functions is to be carried out properly and efficiently and with regard to the objects of the legislation relevant to each of the authorities. The affairs of each relevant authority also will be managed and controlled by a single chief executive officer, who will be subject to the board's functions and the legislation under which each authority is constituted.

In addition, the board will determine investment policies for each of the funds administered by the authorities, which include the Workers Compensation Insurance Fund, the Lifetime Care and Support Fund, the 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13019

Nominal Defendant's Fund under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the Sporting Injuries Fund and the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Fund. The board will have the ability to establish one or more common funds for the purposes of investment of any of the funds I have just mentioned in order to gain synergies and benefits obtained by jointly managing the various funds. Ownership and investment powers in relation to each of the individual funds will not be affected.

The bill also abolishes a number of advisory councils and industry reference groups which currently have a broad remit of advising the Minister and the authorities on the various schemes. Two mechanisms will replace the advisory councils and the industry reference groups. First, the board will have the power to establish committees to assist it in connection with the exercise of its functions. In particular, the board will have the power to establish a committee to advise it on matters arising under the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978. The bill abolishes the current Sporting Injuries Committee and transfers to the WorkCover Authority the claims and grant determination functions under the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act. Those functions will be exercised by WorkCover under the oversight of the chief executive officer and the board.

Secondly, the Minister will be empowered to appoint advisory committees on an ad hoc basis. The functions of an advisory committee may include investigating and reporting to the Minister on specific matters arising under or in connection with the compensation and other related legislation or any other Act under which a relevant authority exercises functions. The Government has also implemented recommendation 16 of the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme that a committee of the Parliament conduct ongoing oversight of the New South Wales workers compensation scheme and conduct an extensive review of the scheme and have the capacity to engage actuarial expertise to assist it to perform its functions. Proposed part 4 of the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill provides for this parliamentary oversight, which is expected to improve accountability for the scheme. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [4.46 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition and say at the outset that we are totally opposed to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012.

Mr Mike Baird: How are you going to fix it?

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Stick around, don't go anywhere, and I will tell you. The first thing worth noting about this amending legislation is the manner in which it has been introduced in this House today. Two hours and five minutes ago the bills were tabled in this House. Two hours and five minutes ago more than 100 pages of legislation were seen by the Opposition for the first time. Then those on the Government side sought to suspend standing orders to ram this legislation through the House in a mad flurry before the rising of the House for the winter recess. This legislation warrants proper, thorough and full debate. This legislation should be properly analysed and thoroughly debated. One can only assume that those on the other side who were involved in the drafting of this legislation appreciate the significance of these legislative changes and the impacts those changes will have on so many currently injured workers and their families, as well as the impacts that will be felt by workers who at some future time will be injured in the workplace through no fault of their own.

The Government seeks to rush these bills through, with a vote on them late tonight or in the early hours of tomorrow morning in the hope that no-one notices those impacts. Bills like these should have been introduced and allowed to remain on the table for sufficient time to allow appropriate briefings and adequate time for members and others to digest their content. But, no, today the Government—which was elected saying it would be open, honest, transparent and accountable—is trashing all of those principles simply to smash these bills through, probably because the Deputy Premier has another flight booked to New York next week and cannot have the House sit another week.

Mr Andrew Stoner: You are pathetic.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: It cuts close. If it is so pathetic, don't bite.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I was, Mr Deputy-Speaker. 13020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition questioning my ruling?

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Are you arguing with the Deputy-Speaker?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I caution the member for Myall Lakes. The Leader of the Opposition will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The impacts of this legislation will be felt for years by many families across the State. These bills emerge from a joint select committee inquiry, the terms of reference of which were dealt with and made the subject of a report that was delivered in a very short space of time. In fact, in February the Minister for Finance said the scheme was in crisis. In February it was said that the inquiry was necessary because every day the workers compensation scheme is losing money. Yet it took almost three months before the joint select committee was even established. There was a rush, but not that much of a rush. The committee rammed through a report, a dissenting report was issued and today—two hours and 10 minutes later—the bills are tabled and are now being debated. Throughout the whole sad and sorry debate prior to the introduction of this legislation Government members have used extreme examples of people on workers compensation, suggesting that because there is one bad apple everyone receiving workers compensation is somehow rorting the scheme. It is like suggesting that because the member for Coffs Harbour assaulted a person in this House that every member on that side of the House assaults people in the Chamber.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Say it outside.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The closed-circuit television footage shows it. It is like saying that every member on the other side of the House drinks and drives simply because a Government member got done for drink-driving. Government members have used the most extreme examples as some sort of justification for the most draconian changes to workers compensation legislation this State has ever seen. It is interesting to note an interjection at the end of question time from the member for Baulkham Hills who said, "Of course we will all be supporting this bill because we are all here representing employers". That was a very telling comment because it shows a complete disregard for those who will be affected by these changes. Every worker in this State will be affected detrimentally by these changes.

Government members have not talked about the reviews that took place. PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted a review of WorkCover in March 2012 and produced a report entitled, "Actuarial valuations of outstanding claims liability for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer at 31 December 2011". The report spoke of the deficit in the WorkCover scheme and gave reasons for it. In particular, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report identified as factors contributing to the deficit in the workers compensation scheme investment returns and claims management. PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the scheme's deficit was attributable to a drop in claims management experience of insurance agents and external influences on investment returns and discount rates. PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that it was ultimately a matter of government policy whether it was important to return the scheme to full funding and, if so, over what time frame.

Today we see what this Government thinks is important. We see from this legislation that this Government does not think it is important that injured workers are properly remunerated if they are injured at work through no fault of their own. We see a Government that introduces a bill that penalises workers who are injured through no fault of their own at work or on their way to or from work. Let me start with medical benefits. The Government is introducing a cap on medical benefits to within one year of the initial claim or when incapacity to work ceases. We will now have a situation where workers whose injury or medical requirements continue beyond a year are on their own; they can look after themselves or join the queues in the public health system.

In no way will that situation result in more people going back to work. Instead it will impose a penalty on injured workers—injured through no fault of their own—who will be denied access to medical coverage after 12 months. Previously there was no cap on reasonable costs for treatment for workplace injuries. But it gets worse: weekly benefits for injured workers will be reduced. That will put financial stress on injured workers, and their families, while they are off work, through no fault of their own, being treated and undergoing rehabilitation in order to go back to work. These are out-and-out penalties on people who are injured at work through no fault of their own. Those on the other side of this Chamber want to cut those benefits and penalise those workers. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13021

The Government will reduce weekly benefits to 95 per cent of weekly earnings for the first 13 weeks. That means that the first week a worker is off sick he or she immediately takes a pay cut of 5 per cent. I do not understand how the Government believes that because a worker has a step-down in earnings some miraculous healing process will occur. Perhaps during this debate a member on the other side of the Chamber will explain how by cutting a worker's wage by 5 per cent—resulting in the worker being unable to pay the rent or put food on the table—the worker's injury will miraculously heal. Perhaps the injury will heal when the worker receives 80 per cent of his or her weekly pay. Because after 13 weeks and up to 26 weeks that is what injured workers will get—80 per cent of their normal earnings. So the injured worker takes a 20 per cent pay cut.

I do not know how a 20 per cent pay cut can miraculously fix a back injury, a knee injury or a head injury. These penalties are being imposed on injured workers out of sheer spite. These changes are not about encouraging people back to work. For the first time in a long time workers will go from being paid 100 per cent of their earnings for the first 26 weeks to 95 per cent, and on top of that the Government is introducing a cap of five years on weekly benefits for all injured workers except for, as it is described, the most serious cases. In the legislation "most serious" relates to 30 per cent whole of body impairment. Injured workers with 30 per cent whole of body impairment currently make up about 1 per cent of people receiving workers compensation.

Mr Troy Grant: Twenty per cent.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: No, it is 1 per cent. The Government is penalising even further the most severely injured people in this scheme because it will cap the benefits at five years. The threshold for accessing lump sum payments for permanent injury will increase to 10 per cent total permanent impairment. That is up from 1 per cent previously or 6 per cent for injuries relating to hearing impairment. Those are straight-out attacks on conditions. It does not mean that people will avoid injuries that impair their hearing or other injuries and it will not reduce the number of workplace accidents. This is all an act of spite directed at workers who are injured through no fault of their own. That is why those on the other side seek to rush through this legislation today. They fear that the longer people have to digest this bill, the longer people have to trawl their way through it, the more they will realise just how bad these changes are and the effect these changes will have on injured workers in New South Wales.

I turn to death benefits. Payment to the children of workers who are killed in workplace accidents will be limited to those who can demonstrate dependency. As if it is not bad enough that a child loses a parent, the Government now wants to put red tape and complexity in the way so it can make the trauma a little bit worse for families who already have been devastated by the loss of a loved one. The Government does not want to help them; it wants to create another barrier. Let us show them how much we care by telling them that they now have to demonstrate their dependency. It is not enough that their mother or father was killed in a workplace injury; let us make it that much harder.

In 2008 the move to allow the payment to the children of injured workers regardless of dependency status was introduced by members on this side of the House in recognition of the challenges faced by those families and dependants. But from the other side we see a heartless and callous attack on families who are already traumatised because mum or dad walked out the door in the morning, suffered a tragic injury at work or on the way to or from work, and did not come home. It is not bad enough that they suffer the loss of a parent. Thanks to the O'Farrell Government we will now put more bureaucracy and red tape in the way and make it that much harder for them to get any payments and a death benefit.

In this bill we also see the removal of journey claims for everyone on their way to and from work. Those trips will no longer be covered. A series of comparisons were made earlier in question time about the nature of these schemes in different States. Words such as "competitiveness" were thrown around. Comments were made that New South Wales is more generous and that our workers compensation scheme is impacting on the competitiveness of the State. It is true that coverage for journey injuries differs between States, but workers who incur journey injuries are not only covered in New South Wales. Workers also enjoy those benefits in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, although I fear that in the not too distant future that will no longer be the case. We see in the legislation before the House an attempt to remove the rights of workers who up until now have enjoyed that benefit.

It is worth spending a moment to talk about journey claims because they play an important role for so many occupations in this State. Let me start with nurses. Many nurses feel an obligation to patient care. They feel that they should put the patient first, and New South Wales nurses do that on a daily basis. When there is a 13022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

staffing shortage it is not unusual for a nurse who has already worked eight hours to stay on the ward and work another shift simply to ensure that patient care is not compromised. They do that to make sure that patients are properly looked after and their medical care does not suffer because of staffing shortages.

A nurse may work a double shift to do the right thing by the health system and the patients that he or she is responsible for. As a result of these changes that nurse, who then drives home fatigued and has an accident in which he or she is injured or tragically killed, will not be covered for that journey claim. That nurse is not covered for that journey claim even though he or she did the right thing. What about a nurse who works in a regional hospital who goes home and then gets a call back because there is a shortage or a crisis? There may be an issue in the emergency department or in surgery that must be dealt with. That nurse, who has been home for a few hours and then turns around, goes back to work fatigued and has an accident, will have no coverage and will be penalised for simply doing the right thing. That nurse will be penalised because this Government does not consider it is important to cover journey claims.

Another example is volunteer firefighters who assist our fire service. The same situation will apply to them when they drive to and from fire stations. They do the right thing by our community, but they will have no coverage simply because this Government does not think it needs to provide coverage for people on their way to and from work. The Government advances the notion that it is implementing this change because the employer is not responsible for the injury that occurred. Nor is the worker, but the penalty will be applied to the injured worker. Maybe the member for Baulkham Hills was right in his interjection at question time when he said that those on the other side are only interested in employers, because the cost is incurred by the injured worker. Every one of the changes in this scheme is to the detriment of injured workers and will ensure that injured workers are the ones who will carry the can for this scheme.

These changes ensure that benefits are cut for injured workers and that families of injured workers will suffer through no fault of their own. However, these reforms do not deal with the area of claims management. The bill does not go anywhere near that area, which is the area that the inquiry ought to have focused on. The inquiry should have looked at the remuneration paid to claims agents. This legislation is a move to cut workers benefits but it does not deal with claims agents. In 2010-11 the remuneration paid to the seven WorkCover claims agents was $318 million, compared to an amount of $141 million in 1997. That is an increase of 226 per cent in payments to claims agents. Insurance profits continue to skyrocket but there is nothing in the bill to address those issues. There is a bit of window-dressing, but there is nothing in the bill that will deal with the profits that continue to skyrocket for companies such as Allianz, Employers Mutual, QBE and others who provide WorkCover insurance. Their profits will continue to increase rapidly at the expense of injured workers.

We also see an element of retrospectivity in this legislation. It is interesting to see that element of retrospectivity in the application of this legislation because for as long as I can remember those on the other side have argued that they were the champions of ensuring that legislation did not have retrospective application. That has been their position during my time in this House and prior when I dealt with some decent members opposite in the other House. They hated retrospectivity. They opposed it and said they would do whatever they could to ensure that legislation was not applied retrospectively. But this bill is retrospective in its nature. We see the principles of retrospective application in this bill and in the way it will be implemented. That will have an enormous impact on many workers under the scheme.

I will give a few examples. The names have been changed but each of these examples is an actual case study of people who are currently claiming benefits under the workers compensation scheme. The first is Alana, who has had two work-related injuries. The first injury occurred in February 2009 when an eight foot long benchtop fell on and crushed her foot. The second injury occurred in April 2009 when Alana was in a car accident on her way home from work. In the accident Alana fractured the same foot that had been earlier crushed. Workers compensation claims were made for both accidents. Alana needed to take 12 months off work to recover from the car accident but she is now back at work full time.

Alana requires long-term medical treatment in the form of visits to a podiatrist, who has prescribed orthopaedic walking shoes. She still experiences pain from the accident, which her doctor indicates will last indefinitely. It is likely that Alana will continue to require painkillers. Alana is a single income earner and would have experienced significant economic strain if workers compensation did not cover her current or initial medical costs. As a result of these changes she will no longer be covered for her journey claim. As a result of the injury from the accident, her medical treatment is likely to extend well beyond the provisions that will be applied by these reforms. The next case study is Kristen. In 2010 Kristen had an accident on her way home from work. Her car was written off and she spent five days in hospital after fracturing her sternum. She needed to take 10 weeks off work followed by a phase-in period to return to full-time work. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13023

Kristen is a widow and is the single income earner or breadwinner in her family. She was not at fault in the car accident and was considered lucky to have survived. The cost of specialists is not something that Kristen would have been able to afford had she not been covered by workers compensation. Her late husband had a workplace accident and was on workers compensation payments. She recalls that the payments he was receiving were not enough to enable them to survive, which is why she resumed working and continued working after she was widowed. The impact on that family has been devastating. This example illustrates the fate of those who make a journey claim and are the single breadwinner. They illustrate how a family, whether renting or paying a mortgage, will very quickly be unable to keep a roof over their heads, let alone pay the bills and put food on the table. That is simply because this legislation, which the Government is attempting to smash through this House today, will not cover them.

Let me take the example of Mike. Due to a repetitive strain injury caused by his physically demanding job, Mike developed arthritis in his knees. He underwent surgery on his knees in May 2011 when his arthritis escalated and the pain became unbearable. After the operation he was off work for three weeks and then he returned to work on light duties for three months. Mike will require another operation in 12 months time, which is two years from Mike's initial claim. He has been working in his job for 30 years. The injury to his knees is a direct result of hard physical work. Mike's injury will require further surgery and physiotherapy as well as long-term use of anti-inflammatory medication. Mike is someone who describes himself as a skilled and experienced employee who does not want to be medically retired. He wants to continue to contribute to the workforce, but as a result of these changes to the workers compensation scheme and the financial impact they are likely to have he may well be prevented from continuing in his employment.

On top of that, Mike, who lives in regional New South Wales, has to travel to Sydney when he has surgery and visits specialists and that involves additional cost. He does not think that he can pick up and pay the additional costs without assistance from the workers compensation scheme. He is likely to suffer an impact, first, because of the cap on medical costs; secondly, for not being eligible after five years for additional surgery or assistance; thirdly, physiotherapy, medication and travel costs to attend in Sydney will not be covered; and, fourthly, he is effectively being penalised because, in addition to everything else, he may well not be able to continue working in a full-time capacity. In other words, someone will be driven out of the workplace simply because of these legislative changes. In some cases these legislative changes will make it easier, but in other cases they will make it more difficult for people to continue to work.

George works in manufacturing. In 2009 George, while operating a machine, sustained injuries to his arms which included tendon and muscle damage. Since the accident he has undergone surgery twice and has spent two years and two months on light duties. A more recent assessment by a doctor has prevented George from attending work and he is currently on leave. He is using his time to retrain and to find new employment. In the past year he has applied for 166 jobs, but he was offered an interview for only two jobs. His injuries and the restrictions they place on him and the fact that he had a worker's compensation claim make it difficult for him to find a job. In the past year he has taken the opportunity to retrain himself as a trainer. In his time off he was bored and frustrated. He wanted to return to work. He has done the right thing. He is trying to get himself a new set of skills to return to the workforce. His frustration is fuelled by the large-size organisation for which he works being unable to assist him to find appropriate work within the company. George's case illustrates the difficulty of finding work when physical restrictions narrow opportunities and when even large employers at times are unhelpful in making suitable duties available. Neither of those issues is being properly addressed.

Emily is a nurse who sustained a back injury while attempting to resuscitate a patient in April 2007. Last week members may have noticed Emily in the newspapers. Emily is a young nurse in her twenties. Since the injury occurred, she has had four operations on her back. In the five years since the initial injury she has had a number of periods off work and is currently on restricted duties. She works two days a week and has a lifting limit of 10 kilograms. She receives weekly workers compensation payments for three days a week. Emily is somebody who wants to do the right thing. She suffered an injury, through no fault of her own, when she tried to resuscitate a patient. She is a nurse. She fell from a hospital bed and that fall resulted in a back injury. She will be very badly affected by the changes to the scheme. Government members want this legislation rushed through the House because they do not want people outside this Chamber to realise the impacts on a hardworking nurse who is on a bed resuscitating a patient, doing the right thing, and suffers an injury as a result of a fall through no fault of her own.

The changes to the scheme as a result of this legislation will mean that she will not be paid. I am providing real life examples of the impact of changes to the workers compensation scheme. If Emily is at the lower end of the injury scale, she will be cut off from weekly payments as soon as this legislation is passed. Her 13024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

medical payments will continue for only one more year. That is one more year for a woman in her twenties who has suffered a terrible back injury and who faces a lifetime of specialists, physiotherapy, medication and surgery. The response from Government members is, "Thanks very much for all that hard work. We'll look after you for five years. Then you are on your own." That is what this legislation will do to a young woman who was doing the right thing.

I will now talk about Frank, who was travelling to work when he was hit by a car that ran a stop sign. At the time of the accident, Frank was 17 years old. He had his leg broken, sustained nerve damage and fractured his pelvis. The treating doctors told Frank that he was lucky he did not suffer an amputation. Because of the accident, Frank now has a 15 per cent whole-of-body impairment—he does not fit the category of serious injuries—and will require more operations on his leg in the future. Frank is unable to return to his previous job in the construction industry and has been unable to work for a year and a half. It is a journey claim, so he will not be covered. Government members do not seem to care. In April 2010, Jason had a fall at work and sustained a number of injuries, including significant injuries to his leg. Since his injury, Jason's physical state has deteriorated. He is unable to lift a chair or take a shower without assistance. He is currently awaiting a fusion operation. The outcome of the surgery is not even known, but it is likely that Jason will return to his pre-injury state and will be able to return to work.

Unless Jason is assessed at 30 per cent whole-of-body impairment, he will be subject to continuing work capability assessments to determine whether he can work, even though he is badly injured and awaiting further treatment. Jason is another real life example of the effect of this legislation. Veronica has three bulging discs in her lower back as a result of slipping on the floor outside the bathroom in her workplace six months ago. She did not realise the floor was wet because the cleaners had failed to put out a wet floor sign. Veronica needed to take four months off work. She returned to work two months ago on reduced hours, despite ongoing pain and discomfort. This is someone who was suffering, but she went back to work and did the right thing. She struggled financially as a result of her accident. She could not afford any reductions in her weekly workers compensation payment. The Government's proposals will result in someone like Veronica having her pay cut through no fault of her own; she is at work and trying to do the right thing.

After 15 years of serving the community by working with highly traumatic and disturbing cases, Joanne incurred stress-related injuries and needed to take time off work. She took five months off work followed by six months of gradual increases in duties so that she could slowly come back to full-time work. Currently she is on permanently restricted duties and continues to see a counsellor, but she is at work and is trying to come back to full-time work. In an office of six employees, four have taken stress-related leave at a similar time to Joanne. At the moment she is the only employee who has been able to return to work. It is likely that Joanne will require long-term counselling and associated medical assistance because a number of circumstances and situations can trigger her anxiety. Joanne returned to work but her medical coverage is about to run out. She needs long-term counselling and medical assistance, but these changes will deny that sort of assistance to someone in that circumstance.

Henry was travelling home from work when a truck collided with his car. This resulted in Henry's right arm being amputated from the elbow. Henry needed to take five months off work. He was 24 at the time of the accident. It goes without saying that an injury like that will affect him for the rest of his life. Henry is unlikely to make the 10 per cent whole-of-person impairment threshold necessary under the legislation for permanent impairment claims. With only five months off work, he will not receive compensation for the loss of his arm other than income support for those five months. That is going to get worse. Erica was teaching a year 9 class in a makeshift classroom created by partitioned walls. In the classroom next door a student pushed another student onto the wall. The wall collapsed and fell on Erica, and the weight of the male student, the portable whiteboard and the wall knocked her to the floor.

During her fall Erica knocked her head and neck on a desk and was knocked unconscious. The accident occurred just before the two-week school break for Easter. Erica was not working for those two weeks—and would have been unable to work if it was during the school term—but was unable to lodge a workers compensation claim before the school term ended. At the time Erica was a temporary teacher and was therefore not paid a wage for those two weeks that she was off. For five years Erica has battled through pain and is still unable to lift her arm or move her neck. Despite her continued pain and limited movement, the insurance company has told Erica it will no longer pay for her rehabilitation. Under changes to the scheme, Erica would have no hope at all—even if she pursued a disputed claim—of getting any payment out of the scheme for the past five years. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13025

In 2002, Thomas was working in the day surgery when an oxygen bottle fell from a patient's bed, hit the operating room floor and spun back onto his foot. Thomas fractured his right big toe and was unable to work for three months. If the workers compensation payments that Thomas received over those three months were reduced, as is proposed in this legislation, he would have been unable to cover his living costs. The legislation proposes that someone in those circumstances would receive only 95 per cent of his earnings. Effectively, this scheme will ensure that people like Thomas can no longer pay their rent or their utility bills, and cannot put food on the table simply because they suffered an injury at work through no fault of their own. This legislation will not help Thomas get back to work, but it will put him and others like him in a situation where his life will change forever. These days we often hear talk about so many people being only one pay packet away from homelessness. The level of homelessness is growing, yet this legislation is an attempt to drive down people's payments. People live to their means. Those on the Government side seem to think it is okay to penalise anyone who is injured at work through no fault of their own.

Shaun had a car accident while driving to work when a car turned in front of him without indicating. He took four months off work to recover from his injuries. A year later, Shaun had a stroke at work and almost died. If his injuries had not been covered by workers compensation, Shaun would have struggled to cover his financial and medical costs, and he claims that he probably would be dead. This legislation excludes not only journey claims but also strokes, which means that Shaun would have received no assistance whatsoever. Thelma, a schoolteacher, was participating with students in a lifesaving demonstration in a pool. During the demonstration Thelma injured her back, which resulted in a bulging disc and associated sciatic nerve pain. After the injury she took several months off work. She was on the verge of undergoing an operation to relieve the pain until extensive physiotherapy proved successful in relieving it. The injury occurred in 2006 and Thelma continues to experience pain and limited mobility. Simple tasks like tying up shoelaces are near to impossible.

Six years after her accident, Thelma needs to see a chiropractor regularly to assist with pain relief and ensure that the bulging disc, and the associated problems and symptoms are managed. If Thelma were assessed at the lower end of the injury scale, she would have no payments left and she would have to cover the cost of a chiropractor and her medication. At the moment the scheme is helping Thelma to work and helping her to function, albeit with pain; but this legislation will deny her access to that assistance. Thelma would suddenly go from functioning, participating in the workforce and contributing to the community and to her family to being thrown on the scrapheap simply because she will no longer be able to access benefits as a result of this legislation. Eduardo had two accidents while cycling to and from work. In both cases he was hit by cars merging to the left: the drivers did not check their blind spots and collided with him. After both accidents he was off work for three weeks. If this legislation is passed, a person in those circumstances would not have his or her wages or medical bills covered and would be significantly worse off.

Janice finished work, slipped on the steps in the office car park and broke two ribs because the stairwell was not well lit. She was carrying some documents and folders when she fell. She needed two weeks off work to recover from her injury. Her payments during her recovery were essential to her livelihood. In similar circumstances under this legislation, a reduction in payments would mean she would have struggled to continue to pay the mortgage. This woman was a workplace occupational health and safety representative who had been doing all she could to ensure that safety issues were addressed. Janice would not have been covered if this legislation is passed because her injury was classified as a journey claim. The classification would have been disputed, and this legislation will result in more disputed claims as to whether the office car park is part of the workplace or whether it is part of the journey. At the moment workers who are injured in those circumstances are covered. It is as simple as that.

As a result of this legislation one of two things will occur. The most likely scenario is that insurance companies will have a knee-jerk response—and even those on the government side would have to concede that that is the likely response—and their default position will be to deny the claim. In the circumstances I have outlined, the claim will be denied. Then we will go through a disputes process and additional costs will be incurred in resolving whether a person injured in these circumstances is entitled to workers compensation payments. The additional complexity in Janice's case is that her accident, as I said earlier, occurred on the stairs when she was on her way to her car and while she was carrying documents and folders. Why? Like so many people these days she had technically finished work, but she was taking work home so that when she had done what needed to be done at home she could start working again. The tragedy is that as a result of this legislation someone who is injured in those circumstances will be denied coverage.

While walking to work Curtis slipped on a metal stud, which resulted in a sprained ankle and deep lacerations to his hand and arm. Curtis had to take four weeks off work to recover. His workers compensation 13026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

payments ensured that all his medical costs were covered and his additional costs would have been recovered. However, under this legislation—a journey claim, no coverage and medical costs not covered—the question is how long Curtis would have to wait to get his medical coverage. How long is it before someone like Curtis gets to go back to work when he is denied access to medical coverage because he cannot afford it? Ashleigh, a nurse, injured her back in 1998 when moving a deceased patient. The back injury was diagnosed as a ruptured disc and Ashleigh took three months off work. In 2004 she exacerbated her ruptured disc and she had to take another period of leave.

Since 1998 Ashleigh has struggled to remain at work as a result of her chronic pain. She is on limited duties and has restrictions on the load she can lift. Without financial and workplace support, Ashleigh would not have achieved her present level of recovery. Again, contrary to the way in which the Premier and those opposite portray people on workers compensation, Ashleigh was an injured worker who did the right thing and returned to work. However, with the changes proposed in this legislation someone in her position suffering with chronic pain but trying to remain active in the workforce will be denied access to medical assistance. Instead of this scheme looking after injured workers, getting people back to work and making sure that those who want to do the right thing will be looked after, these bills demonstrate yet again that people injured at work through no fault of their own will be penalised. Those opposite will penalise people who want to do the right thing and deny them the support and assistance they need.

Governments are meant to assist and support those who want to do the right thing, those who want to go to work, those who want to support their families and those who try to get on with life. The changes proposed in these bills will deny those people the very support and assistance that governments should provide to anyone and everyone when it comes to getting back to work after injury, and being an active participant in the workplace and in the wider community. In July 2011 Majid was driving home from work when a car travelling at 80 kilometres an hour hit his car from behind. He sustained back and neck injuries and was off work for two weeks. He returned to full duties after four months, but he has been receiving physiotherapy regularly since the accident. Again, Majid would have been unable to afford any time off or afford to see a physiotherapist without the continuing support and assistance of the scheme. This is another journey claim that will be denied and another injured worker who will be denied assistance by the workers compensation scheme courtesy of the O'Farrell Government.

Sandra tore her rotator cuff off the bone while stacking a pallet of photocopy paper at work. This injury required two operations and Sandra took eight months off work. Without workers compensation support and payments she, like so many others, would have struggled to survive a drop in weekly payments. The financial impact would have been substantial and she would have dipped out—she will dip out—dramatically simply because of these changes. There are many examples of workers who will be worse off because of these changes. In August 2002 Lidia injured her neck and shoulder when moving stock in her workplace. In December 2008 as a result of her initial workplace injury Lidia underwent surgery. Her initial injury occurred in 2002 and just over six years later she had to undergo surgery because of that injury. She is now working reduced hours and is on reduced duties. The problem is that people injured in those same circumstances but doing the right thing by working and contributing to their employer's benefit will find they have no coverage under these proposed changes to the scheme.

These people genuinely do the right thing: they continue to work for years and then subsequently find that their injury reaches the point where they need assistance. Claudia was leaving her workplace to attend a work-related event when she missed seeing a newly built step, tripped and sprained her ankle. She had one week off work with visits to her general practitioner and orthopaedic surgeon, and underwent more than six months of physiotherapy. With the same set of circumstances under these changes to workers compensation, Claudia would have been unable to afford the physio and assistance she needed to return to work. Claudia is back at work with 95 per cent functionality with minimal impact on her ability to work. But without that extensive physiotherapy and assistance she gained because of the workers compensation scheme her recovery would have been unlikely; she would not have returned to work. Claudia would have been made to suffer through no fault of her own. Anyone in Claudia's circumstances in the future will be made to suffer because of these changes to workers compensation.

In the past five years Levi has had approximately two years off work as a result of five different workplace-related injuries and illnesses. He works as a caseworker and has had death threats and physical violence from clients directed at him and his family. This has resulted in psychological and physical injuries. He also has sustained psychological injuries through workplace bullying. He needed the time he has taken off work. However, in similar circumstances and under the proposed changes to the workers compensation scheme, his 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13027

time off would have been reduced significantly. By doing the right thing at work and pushing through he will be denied the assistance he needs to continue to function. Aiden was working in a rugged area in regional New South Wales when he fell off a cliff and broke his pelvis. He was unable to work for three months. If the payments Aiden received when he was off work were reduced to the level proposed, he would be unable to pay his mortgage, unable to put food on the table and unable to pay the utilities expenses.

People who are dealing with injuries sustained at work, or while travelling to or from work, should not be forced to contemplate the prospect of losing their house and being unable to feed their family. But they will be forced to contemplate it once these bills are passed by those opposite. These bills are the result of a heartless and callous Government; a Government that seeks to push through the most significant changes to the workers compensation system in living memory. These changes will lead to more families being forced onto the streets and relying on charities to put food on the table. They will place greater pressure on those families simply because through no fault of their own the breadwinner was injured at work. One interesting thing throughout this short debate is that those on the other side seek to characterise those receiving workers compensation as somehow rorters of the system; they seem to suggest that workers compensation claims are illegitimate and if one makes a claim one is a bit dodgy or a bit suss.

The Premier's example today in question time is classic of how those on the other side portray people on workers compensation benefits. Those on the other side have sought to hide the slash-and-burn mentality by saying, "Oh, if you've got 30 per cent whole-of-body impairment, we'll increase your benefits." What they do not say and what they do not want to spend much time defending is the cutting of weekly payments to 95 per cent in the first 26 weeks. What they do not want to spend time defending is cutting weekly payments after 26 weeks to 80 per cent of earnings. What they do not want to spend time defending is capping medical expenses. What they do not want to spend time defending are all the other nasties hidden in these bills that over the next few hours everybody trawling through the legislation no doubt will discover. But we do know two things.

First, those on the other side do not care about injured workers and the evidence is in these bills. Secondly, those opposite do not want to expose how much they do not care about injured workers by rushing through this legislation. If they were serious about this debate and about arguing the merits of this case, they would not have tabled the bills only three hours ago and would not have then sought to debate the bills 45 minutes later. They would not be saying, "We are going to sit here until these bills are finished tonight and vote on them." They would be doing what normally occurs: They would have given us draft bills and at least allowed us a bare minimum five days to digest them. But we did not even get five minutes.

There it is on the table and we are debating it. This piece of legislation will ensure that every injured worker in this State suffers a penalty for being injured on the way to or from work or injured at work through no fault of his or her own. Nobody should be under any illusion about this legislation. The statement by the Government that it is improving benefits for the most seriously injured is reminiscent of a mafia boss who wanders around the street and gathers money by standing over people, then returns to his village where he hands it out to the people in the village and they say what a great bloke he is. This bill is appalling; this bill is heartless. The bill before the House today opens up and exposes to the people of New South Wales the true attitude of the Government to anyone who does the right thing and to anyone who gets injured at work through no fault of his or her own. The Opposition vehemently opposes this bill which is an absolute disgrace.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Deputy Premier, Minister for Trade and Investment, and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services) [5.41 p.m.]: As Deputy Premier and Leader of The Nationals I support the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 and the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. On behalf of the many small to medium enterprises, including farm businesses, that provide the bulk of jobs in regional New South Wales, I support these bills which seek to enact the recommendations in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme. As a result of 16 years of Labor mismanagement New South Wales workers compensation premiums are between 20 per cent and 60 per cent higher than in other States. Yet again the Liberal-Nationals Government has had to take the tough but fair decision to clean up Labor's mess.

Labor allowed the New South Wales workers compensation scheme to fall into a heap. In December 2011 there was a growing $4.1 billion deficit making the scheme unsustainable without strong and decisive reform. PricewaterhouseCoopers advised the Government that without changes workers compensation premiums would need to rise by 28 per cent from 1 July this year in order to get the scheme back on track. It 13028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

would be an unbearable burden on businesses throughout our State that currently are facing a litany of challenges including global economic uncertainty, the impost of the carbon tax and an unstable Federal Labor Government.

Ms Anna Watson: You are joking.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Has the member for Shellharbour ever run a small business? Has she ever employed anyone?

Ms Anna Watson: Yes, I have.

Mr ANDREW STONER: She has no idea. That is probably why she went out of business.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Opposition members will note that the Leader of the Opposition made his contribution to the debate without interruption. If Opposition members wish to contribute to the debate they will have the opportunity to do so. If Opposition members continue to interject while the Deputy Premier is speaking I will have them removed from the Chamber.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Simply put, a 28 per cent rise in premiums would be devastating for businesses across New South Wales and the people they employ. For example, in the beef cattle farming industry WorkCover reports that the New South Wales premium rate in 2011-12 was 7.169 per cent. If a 28 per cent increase were applied that premium would rise to 9.168 per cent. In Queensland the 2012 rate is 5.286 per cent and in Victoria it is 2.856 per cent. Already our system is two and a half times more costly for cattle farm enterprises than in Victoria. Without these changes it would increase and be more than three times as costly for workers compensation premiums. It is a similar story in poultry farming. The current New South Wales rate is 7.928 per cent which would rise to 10.139 per cent if these important reforms were not undertaken. Queensland's system is 3.731 per cent and Victoria's system is 5.019 per cent. Again our farmers in the poultry industry would face double the cost of their southern competitors and nearly three times the cost of their northern competitors.

Grain growers would move from 5.296 per cent to 6.773 per cent while their compatriots in Queensland would pay only 3.116 per cent and in Victoria a very small 1.628 per cent. I could go on. The impact borne by regional businesses under this unsustainable scheme is out of control. Labor and the unions would have these hardworking families, small businesses and regional industries cop a 28 per cent price hike, which is not on. In 2011-12 in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors of the economy, WorkCover estimates there are 13,608 policy holders paying $1.395 billion in wages to workers and $84.4 million in WorkCover premiums. If these reforms are not undertaken those businesses and fishing and farming families could expect to pay $107.95 million in 2012-13 which equates to a premium increase of $1,730 per employer, per annum. Is it any wonder that there has been a string of comments from the business community, particularly those representing businesses in regional New South Wales? Fiona Simpson, President of New South Wales Farmers, welcomed the parliamentary committee's report and stated full support for its recommended changes. Ms Simpson stated:

Our Parliament needs to reform this flawed scheme to better assist injured workers return to work and ensure employers compete against those interstate.

We support the committee's recommendation that seriously injured workers should receive adequate and appropriate support, and injuries not directly related to work (such as journey claims and recess claim when work is not a contributing factor) should be excluded from the scheme's coverage.

We have had similar comments in support of the Government's proposed reform from the NSW Business Chamber, the Australian Industry Group and the State's first small business commissioner, Ms Yasmin King. On behalf of small to medium enterprises across New South Wales, Ms King has called for a major overhaul of the scheme to more closely align us with Victoria and Queensland. The New South Wales Government, in implementing the recommendations in the report of the joint select committee, has listened to the farming, small business and industry communities. It takes seriously the impact that a 28 per cent premium increase would have on the competitiveness and attractiveness of doing business in New South Wales. This Government understands that greater priority needs to be given to rehabilitation and retraining.

Under the former Labor Government, once injured or ill workers were on workers compensation payments minimal effort was made to help them return to some form of work. The kindest thing we can do for 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13029

injured or ill workers is to help them regain meaningful employment. These reforms strengthen return-to-work procedures. This House just listened to a typical red-rag speech from the old union bovver boy, the Leader of the Opposition. I call it a "filibluster". The Leader of the Opposition tried to stretch out his contribution in an attempt to keep all members here until late tonight. We can thank him for that. His speech was more of a "filibluster" than a filibuster. It was full of rhetoric and misinformation opposing these necessary reforms but with no credible alternative solutions to fix the system that Labor broke.

The Leader of the Opposition proposes to allow New South Wales businesses, struggling with increased costs due to the carbon tax and a downturn in sales due to continuing uncertainty associated with their Federal Labor mates, to cop nearly a 30 per cent hike in workers compensation premiums. That would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs across New South Wales. The policy of the Leader of the Opposition would be a lot crueller for working families than these balanced reforms will ever be. These reforms are about striking the right balance. They are about bringing the New South Wales workers compensation scheme into line with schemes applying in other States. This Government will ensure that workers continue to be protected and cared for, at the same time giving businesses the freedom, flexibility and room to move needed to provide the jobs that put the food on the table of working families across this State.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [5.50 p.m.]: It is with an abiding sense of sadness that I speak in debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012—bills that we have just been given and that have not received the consideration that is due to them. It is no answer to the rushed, hatchet job accompanying the passage of this legislation that these proposals have just been considered by a joint select committee. Committees of both Houses of this Parliament are considering bills relating to economic development and water because those bills need to be discussed before they are processed by the Government. None of the bills before those committees have been put together with the haste associated with these cognate bills.

We must remember the philosophy that underpins the workers compensation scheme as we discuss these legislative amendments. That is that, if one is injured at work and cannot work, one should be compensated for as long as one cannot work; and that compensation should include payment of one's' medical treatments and medical bills for as long as one cannot work. The philosophy includes that sometimes negligent employers should be required to contribute their fair share to that payment of compensation so that the burden does not fall on taxpayers. Ironically, these amendments will put a greater impost on the taxpayers of New South Wales. This Government—unfortunately, successfully at times—lives by the mantra that if one repeats a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

The proposition that workers compensation premiums will have to rise by 28 per cent if members do not allow these amendments to pass is, put simply, a bald-faced lie. But do not take my word for that; take the word of the report prepared by the Government's own actuaries, PricewaterhouseCoopers. In the WorkCover New South Wales executive summary "Actuarial valuations of outstanding claims … to 31 December 2011", Michael Playford and David Wright from PricewaterhouseCoopers, talking about premium adequacy, say on page 2 that the buffer between the collection of premiums and payouts is not sufficient to return the scheme to surplus within a reasonable time. That is what they say—"within a reasonable time". What does that mean? Turn to page 3 which states:

The projections indicate that (with no other changes)— and that is the key—

aspiring to return to full funding by 5 years would require a premium rate increase in the order of 28%.

Full funding in five years "with no other changes"—but no-one is proposing that. They go on to say that aspiring to return to full funding by 10 years "would require a premium rate increase in the order of only 8%". I asked Mr Playford in evidence before the committee what would be a reasonable time. He indicated between five and 10 years would be a reasonable time, but ultimately that was a matter for the Government. All those who perpetuate this lie—and it is a lie—also make no mention of the fact that in New South Wales in the past five years premiums have been discounted by 33 per cent. A 28 per cent rise in premiums is a myth. What is true is that premiums have been discounted by 33 per cent—of the order of $7 billion—in the past five years. Government members should stick that in their pipe and smoke it and stop perpetuating this lie.

We all acknowledge that there are problems with the scheme. During its deliberations, in all of its 53-odd submissions and three days of hearings, the committee heard evidence after evidence that the workers 13030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

compensation scheme had not one or two problems—certainly not one problem, that is, the amount of benefits paid to workers—but quite a number of problems. There were in the evidence repeated and numerous instances right across the industrial spectrum, from people like Garry Bracks through to Mark Lennon and from all the injured workers and insurance companies themselves, that there were problems with the scheme's agents and claims management. Not one recommendation embodied in this legislation goes to those pieces of evidence. Insurance companies were getting paid more for processing fewer claims. Allianz Australia Workers' Compensation (NSW) Limited said this about government guidelines:

While there are guidelines and procedures available to Agents to return workers to full health and back into the work place, they are far from effectual as they are:

• Ambiguous and open to variable interpretation • Not enforceable • Inconsistently applied • Not used by all parties involved in decision making regarding claims

In our experience, many claims are extended beyond the treatment of the original injury and regularly encompass related physical conditions, pre-existing or degenerative conditions, and secondary psychological conditions (such as depression and anxiety).

This is one of the insurance companies in the scheme saying that the process is difficult and untenable. Nothing in the report of the committee or in this legislation goes towards fixing up any of those problems. There were repeated instances of evidence about the difficulties in returning people to work; that employers would not give people a job after they had been injured; that people who were trying to get back to work were having quite some difficulty doing so. All those problems were ignored by the Government. There are a great many instances of outstanding matters dealt with in the draft report. For example, concerns were raised by Ernst and Young in its 2012 peer review report which acknowledged the recent changes implemented in 2011, yet nonetheless recommended that WorkCover review its overall approach to management of the scheme, and in particular the management of agents, including their remuneration, and conduct a back to basics review of their remuneration. Nothing in these legislative amendments to the scheme goes towards addressing that matter.

The report that was railroaded through—a sham of a report, from a sham committee, stacked with four Government members and two other members who voted with Government members on 95 per cent of the recommendations, and only two Labor Party members—recommends further and ongoing review of the workers compensation scheme; in fact, that a joint select committee be established to look at the way the scheme is working; and that the New South Wales Government review the functions, powers and behaviours available to the scheme agents, and so on. If it is so important that a joint select committee be established to extensively review WorkCover and the workers compensation scheme in New South Wales, what is the reason for the Government's headlong rush to do one thing, and one thing only—to cut benefits to workers? All that evidence was ignored by the Government in its craven haste to reduce benefits to workers. We cannot blame the bean counters for the situation that we have got ourselves into with the workers compensation legislation; it is driven wholly and solely by politicians. In submission 131 the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, the Treasury, says very clearly:

The impact of any proposed reforms should be scenario tested and actuarially costed for both the TMF [Treasury Managed Fund] and the NSW WorkCover Nominal Insurer Scheme to understand the aggregate effect on the State budget before deciding on the package of reforms to be implemented.

On the following page the Treasury makes its main recommendation:

Our main recommendation is that the Committee seek to have the impact of any proposed reforms scenario tested and actuarially costed to understand the implications on the TMF before deciding on the package of reforms to be implemented.

No way. This Government is not stopping to wait for that. One of the things in the legislation that the Premier was crowing about today in question time was that more payments would be made to seriously injured workers. Under the legislation "seriously injured worker" means a worker whose injury has resulted in permanent impairment and the degree of permanent impairment has been assessed for the purposes of division 4 to be more than 30 per cent. During the committee hearing I asked Michael Gliksman, Vice President of the Australian Medical Association, and Peter John Burke, a medical-surgical specialist representing the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Association of Surgeons delegate to the Medico Legal Committee, the Law Society of New South Wales, what their opinion was of increasing the threshold to 30 per cent. I asked them how many would make it through the 30 per cent threshold. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Dr Gliksman replied:

Very few. In my experience of those I see who I feel have a genuine work-related injury less than one in 100 people would get to the 30 per cent threshold. In my opinion it would shut the system down as a means of support.

19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13031

Dr Burke replied:

I agree with that. It is one in 100. It would severely damage the average person who is genuinely injured at work.

I asked Roshana May and Timothy Concannon, members of the Injury Compensation Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales, and Justin Dowd, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, the same question: What would happen if the 30 per cent impairment level suggested in the issues paper were imposed? Mr Concannon replied:

In my experiences of working under the scheme, I have had two or maybe three workers, amongst thousands of workers I have acted for over that period, who would satisfy that requirement.

I asked Ms May whether it was true that only 100 claimants or so in the scheme were currently receiving ongoing care. Ms May replied:

Yes, I think it is more like 110; I am sorry, I do not have the figure.

I asked her whether there were not thousands and she replied:

There are not thousands ... The best estimate of the Injury Compensation Committee is that it would reduce lump sum payments, if you are talking about that, to more than 95 per cent of the current injured population.

No-one in the general community has a clue about whole person impairment benefits. I will give the House a few examples. A 35-year-old man sustained a crush injury and had a below-knee amputation. He lost his leg and he is assessed at 28 per cent impairment. A 25-year-old man who had the onset of back and thigh pain while twisting underwent a discectomy three months after the injury. He still has back pain but is assessed at 10 per cent. A 35-year-old man had a surgical discectomy three months after an injury and has persistent back and thigh pain, numbness along his foot, is unable to do his usual recreational activities and some household activities, has restricted lumbar motion and chronic back pain. He is assessed at 13 per cent. The Government will say to him, "See you later. No more benefits for you." When people experience back pain, instead of having their medical benefits paid, the Government will tell them to sit in the emergency department of the Prince of Wales Hospital and clog up the hospital system.

A 35-year-old man fell from the second floor of the building on which he was working and sustained a compression fracture of the T8 vertebra. He has minor back pain with heavy physical activity, lower left leg extremity weakness, numbness in his left leg, measurable atrophy of the thigh and leg, his reflexes are hyperactive and he has a compression fracture in T8 with a loss of height of about 30 per cent of the vertebral body. He is assessed at 15 per cent. The Government will say to him, "See you later" and there will be no more benefits for him in Barry O'Farrell's brave new world. A 44-year-old man sustained a blow to his neck from a machine that slipped in a factory. He is unable to use his left hand without considerable pain in the neck, upper back and ulna left upper limb. He has neck pain radiating to his hand and numbness of his fingers. He is assessed at 18 per cent.

All those people do not make the 20 per cent threshold and they certainly do not make the 30 per cent threshold. To impose those sorts of thresholds is simply cruel. One of the cruellest provisions in this legislation is that it will be made retrospective. Those people who have been injured for 10 years who cannot work because they are in pain, even though they want to, and who have structured their lives to the benefits they received so they can put a bit of money away each week for the mortgage and bills will get creamed by this legislation. There is absolutely no justification for that whatsoever. Mr Ivan Simic, a lawyer with Taylor Scott—a good man and a good lawyer—said in his evidence to the committee:

I think everyone has forgotten that the most important purpose of the scheme is to provide insurance for injured people so their families are not left in family ruin.

If we are going to live in a free market society, one of the great things in a free market society is insurance. WorkCover has totally forgotten it is supposed to be an insurer and look after people's families when tragedy strikes. They have just totally forgotten it and lost the plot.

WorkCover has not forgotten it; it is full of good people and many people in WorkCover are pulling their hair out. The people who are bad and who have lost the plot are the members of this heartless Government.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [6.05 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. The WorkCover scheme is in crisis. It has a $4.1 billion deficit that is growing by millions of dollars every day. In 13032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

evidence before the inquiry there was no serious challenge to the actuarial evidence, the calculations or the methodology of PricewaterhouseCoopers. The calculations and methodology were reviewed by Ernst and Young. The methodology had the imprimatur of the New South Wales Auditor-General and it was assisted by another actuarial firm, Cumpston Sarjeant.

To a large extent the methodology was mandated by accounting and actuarial standards. It was methodology that, in the view of Mark Lennon, who sat on the WorkCover board for about five years, gave a true and fair view of WorkCover's position; and it was methodology that reflected common practice interstate. There was no reason to doubt the professional competence and integrity of those giving actuarial evidence, and we have heard nothing from those Opposition members who have spoken to gainsay the proposition that there is a massive and growing deficit. In the 45 minutes in which the Leader of the Opposition spoke and in the 15 minutes in which the member for Maroubra spoke we did not hear one constructive suggestion as to how to deal with that deficit. We heard them say that we should look at the cost of management—

Ms Anna Watson: How about people before profits? How is that for a suggestion?

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I can hear the member for Shellharbour bleating. Let us look at those profits. If we compare the cost of running the WorkCover scheme with the cost of equivalent schemes interstate—and we have prudential information that tells us this—those costs are broadly in line with costs in other jurisdictions. The average underwriting cost for workers compensation schemes across Australia is about 18 per cent and in New South Wales it is 17 per cent. The whole cost of running the scheme in New South Wales is less than the equivalent cost in other States such as Victoria and Western Australia. The workers compensation joint select committee and the Government are not sweeping under the carpet the very serious issues that affect the operations of WorkCover and the remuneration of scheme agents.

The committee recommended that the Government implement a further review of those issues and it will do so. But nowhere in evidence before the committee and nowhere in the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Maroubra did we hear where we would find cost savings immediately to deal with this crisis of an increasing $4.1 billion deficit. The member for Maroubra talked about cruelty. The cruelty in this debate is to perpetuate a hoax on employees in New South Wales by telling them that there is some magic pudding solution to the crisis that WorkCover faces. What are the alternatives? One alternative is to increase premiums. We know that if we want to get the system in the black within five years, premiums will have to be increased by 28 per cent. If we want to do it in 10 years, premiums will have to be increased by 10 per cent.

It is crystal clear that any increase in premiums, whether it is 28 per cent or even a more modest 10 per cent, will result in thousands and thousands of job losses in New South Wales. The NSW Business Chamber tells us—extrapolating from a survey of its members—that 12,600 jobs will be lost in New South Wales if premiums increase by 28 per cent and about 8,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales if premiums increase by 10 per cent. It is all very well to talk about cruelty and fairness. Where is the fairness or lack of cruelty if increases in premiums result in thousands of workers in New South Wales losing their jobs? In the current economic climate and global uncertainty it is madness to look at a solution that would involve people being thrown out of work in this State. The only way to solve this crisis is to take immediate action and restructure benefits. The Government is restructuring benefits in a way that is fair and reasonable and gives people incentives to return to work. It is crystal clear on the incontrovertible evidence that was before the committee that the longer people stay out of work the less likely it is they will return. They reach a stage where they just will not return to work.

It is unfair and cruel to workers to keep them on welfare benefits instead of providing incentives to get them back to work. That is what these reforms do. We have heard complaints about time caps on benefits and about reducing benefits to 95 per cent and then to 80 per cent and having a step down at 13 weeks. Step-down percentages apply in Victoria and have done so for years under a Labor government. A five-year time cap has applied in Queensland for years under a Labor government. Why were the demonstrators in the street last week not told that Mark Lennon believes that the accounts represent a true and fair view that there is a deficit and a crisis? Why were they not told that the sorts of reforms the Government is introducing in New South Wales have existed for ages in the previously Labor-run States of Queensland and Victoria? They were not told that because the Opposition did not want them to know that the reforms the Government is implementing in New South Wales are not nasty, brutal, cruel or unprecedented.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Melanie Gibbons): Order! The member will be heard in silence. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13033

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: These reforms reflect what is happening in other jurisdictions and are not out of kilter with other States. What is the alternative? Is it to let the deficit grow by millions of dollars every day? Does the Opposition want us to run WorkCover the way it ran the Solar Bonus Scheme with deficits growing by millions of dollars a day? Obviously that is not in the interests of employees or employers of New South Wales, and it is certainly not in the interests of the poor old taxpayers if ultimately they are the ones who have to bail out the scheme. The WorkCover scheme typifies the cycle of governments in New South Wales and across Australia. Labor governments create messes. The previous Labor Government presided over a WorkCover scheme that now has a $4.1 billion deficit, and that is growing.

It is always Labor governments that create the mess and it is Liberal-Nationals governments that have to clean it up. We have not heard any constructive suggestions from those opposite about how to solve this undoubted crisis. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to give case study after case study and to filibuster, but he cannot put up a constructive alternative. He cannot identify where we could save billions of dollars in operational costs. He cannot say where we will save billions of dollars in cuts to the remuneration of scheme agents, even though that remuneration is in line with every other jurisdiction around Australia. Unless the Opposition can demonstrate where those savings could be made, any cruelty, brutality or unfairness in this debate lies at their feet for the cruel hoax that they are perpetuating upon the workers of New South Wales.

Let us look at capping. In other jurisdictions there are time caps as well as dollar caps. In Queensland there is a five-year cap and a quantitative cap of $200,000. In Western Australia there is a cap of $190,000 for weekly benefits. In Victoria and Tasmania the liability of costs for medical and related treatment is capped at one year after the cessation of weekly benefits. In Queensland there is a cap of five years. In Western Australia there are monetary caps, which could be as little $57,319 and in some cases $250,000. The point is that other jurisdictions time cap or dollar cap weekly benefits and medical benefits. There is nothing unprecedented or unusual about what is happening in New South Wales. In this debate the Opposition overlooks the fact that the Government is reallocating resources to those most in need. It is increasing the benefits for seriously injured workers.

Mr Michael Daley: One per cent.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: The member for Maroubra says, "One per cent". It is not only those who have a greater than 30 per cent whole-person impairment who will get 80 per cent of their pre-injury earnings; it is those generally who are on weekly benefits. This improves benefits to those who are most in need. It gets people who have some work capacity after five years back to work where they should be and out of the system. It also looks after those who have more serious injuries in a much more compassionate and effective way, which the current scheme fails to do.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [6.15 p.m.]: It is interesting that as part of his argument the member for Cronulla said that if this legislation did not proceed there would be thousands of job losses. I wonder why his concern does not apply to the Government's budget announcement of tens of thousands of job losses. I would have thought that as a barrister the member for Cronulla would sort out his arguments a bit better than that. I strongly oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill for a number of reasons. The shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition went through what this will mean for individuals and outlined a number of the clauses in the legislation in detail. I do not intend to repeat their comments, but I find it challenging to listen to members opposite as they constantly say how much the New South Wales Business Chamber welcomes this legislation. Of course it does.

The people I listen to are those such as the Workplace Tragedy Family Support Group who met outside the Parliament today and distributed material that went to the heart of this issue. The Government has painted this legislation as an important monetary saving, but it is not about that. To turn this debate into an argument about budget blowouts and crises completely dehumanises people and the ways in which this legislation will affect them. I do not accept that argument by the Government for one moment. This debate is about people and the terrible effects this legislation will have on families, children and workers. That is what we should focus on. As members of Parliament we focus on doing the least harm to the greatest number of people. By that I mean that we come into Parliament to make life better for the people of New South Wales. These bills will not have that effect.

These bills arrived in the House in a cynical fashion. We heard screams from the other side that the Labor Party used to do it the same way. We did not do it with important pieces of legislation like this because it is immoral and wrong. To have this foisted on us in the way it was indicates contempt and lack of care on the 13034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

part of members opposite. They seem like a bunch of trained seals when they say this bill is fantastic while in their hearts they know that it is not. We can see it on their faces and in their eyes. How the Premier conducted himself in the Chamber today demonstrates the arrogance of members opposite. I say that because of the way in which the Premier insinuated that people were rorting the scheme and trying to rip it off. We know that this legislation will affect people who have been injured at work and who are in real strife trying to get back to work and deal with the way they feel about themselves. I found the Premier's performance to be a demonstration of contempt and arrogance, and people should not ignore that display of arrogance.

Because of the manner in which the legislation has been introduced, it strikes me that there is very little understanding in the community about the effects of it. Once the community wakes up to what this legislation means and adds it to the cap on public service wages, the overhaul of death and disability benefits and other major reforms that the Government has introduced, the narrative of an uncaring government will become very loud. The shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have examined specific provisions of the bill in some detail, but the issue that concerns me is the one that relates to journey claims. As legislators, we all understand this issue. Journey claims have provided a great sense of comfort to workers injured in a car accident or otherwise injured on their way to or from work because they were covered. It is absolutely appalling that that is one of the workers' benefits that has been ripped away by this legislation. One can well imagine an icy morning and a worker leaving home to go to work at 4 o'clock and being involved in a catastrophic car accident resulting in the death or serious injury of that worker.

That just does not matter to the Government, and I find that to be truly abhorrent. Something else that I find extremely hard to accept is the effect of this legislation on death benefits and the additional red tape involved in qualifying for death benefits. I can assure Government members that people who have lost a husband, a wife or a child are not able to cope with applying for eligibility under a scheme. I am in a position to tell Government members that it will mean that people in that position will not pursue their rights because they are dealing with so many issues associated with the loss of a close family member, besides grief. The Government's proposal truly is cynical, ugly, mean and cruel. It also makes me want to scream that workers compensation has been portrayed not just as an economic issue but as an issue of people trying to get hurt so that they can use the scheme for their own benefits. Who in their right mind would characterise dreadful injuries and disabilities in that manner?

In this bill, the devil is in the detail. Its defects are obvious, and I am sure other members who have more time will pick up further deficiencies. Some of the issues are: no compensation for injury, no compensation for an injury that is a disease even though it has been contracted through the course of employment; the loss of entitlements such as a claim for common law damages and nervous shock; no compensation payable for heart attacks and strokes and their underlying diseases unless the nature of the employment concerned gave rise to significantly greater risk of the worker suffering that injury. All these provisions can be summed up as mean, cynical and cruel. Another point that demonstrates the lack of care and attention shown by the Government in relation to this bill was the performance by the Deputy Premier. I do not know why he thinks he is funny. I do not know why he thinks this legislation is a joking matter. The Deputy Premier referred to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition as a red flag-waving speech. It was not.

It was a speech about real people who will be catastrophically affected by the changes that will be enacted. The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition was about people who have experienced injury and the effect on their lives as well as to the lives of their family. For the Deputy Premier to characterise that as a joke shows how moronic he is. Only someone with a lack of care could possibly come into the House and carry on in that manner about this legislation. In conclusion, I make the point that will be endorsed by my colleagues: Legislation that introduces mammoth change and has serious implications should have had a proper airing in the community. This legislation has not had that scrutiny, and the Government truly will rue this day.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.25 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and its cognate bill, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. As has been noted, the bills make changes to the workers compensation scheme that operates in New South Wales. The reforms are aimed at three things: firstly, to return the workers compensation scheme to financial stability and viability; secondly, to enhance provision and care for seriously impaired workers, regardless of fault; and, thirdly, to provide a renewed focus on returning injured people to employment. No government scheme as important as WorkCover should ever have been allowed to reach a point at which its lack of financial stability threatens its effectiveness and continuation and at which it begins discouraging businesses from investing in New South Wales and from attracting and retaining workers. Unfortunately, that is the situation we are facing. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13035

It is certainly not the time to be placing pressure on business, discouraging growth in the economy or making it harder for job seekers to find employment. What we need, and what this legislation provides, is a scheme that improves return-to-work outcomes for injured workers, increases support for seriously injured workers and reduces pressure on premiums. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme, I am aware that 353 submissions were received by the committee. During public hearings the committee heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses—a total of 79—who included representatives from 32 organisations and agencies, such as Unions NSW, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the New South Wales Nurses Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Housing Industry Association—groups from every side of the debate—as well as 10 individuals who shared their personal experiences of workplace injury and the workers compensation scheme. I thank all those who shared their experiences and their expertise. It informed and shaped the work of the committee.

I turn now to discuss the main purposes of the bills. First I will deal with returning the workers compensation scheme to financial stability and viability. The committee found, on the basis of actuarial reports by the scheme's auditor and a peer review of those reports by another top-tier accounting firm, that the WorkCover scheme faces a deficit of approximately $4.1 billion as at 31 December 2011, and that the deficit has continued to deteriorate by at least another $200 million. The financial position of the scheme is continuing to worsen. A number of parties before the committee sought to challenge this evidence—specifically union groups and some legal groups. However, Mark Lennon, the Secretary of Unions NSW, in his a role as a member of the board of WorkCover NSW accepted the financial statements and notes thereto of WorkCover as providing a true and fair view of the financial position of the WorkCover scheme over the past five years during which he was a member of that board. This is clearly inconsistent with, and in my view undermines, his evidence on behalf of the union movement.

While there was some criticism of the assumptions underlying the financial statements prepared by the scheme actuary, none of that evidence was in the nature of expert evidence. Thus, for the purposes of the tasks given to the joint committee, such evidence was of limited, if any, probative value. On an objective reading of the evidence presented to the committee, it is very clear that the New South Wales workers compensation scheme is burdened by a severe and worsening financial position. If nothing is done the scheme will need an injection of new funds in the form of increased premiums or will continue to spiral towards collapse. Premium increases are not sustainable, particularly in the current economic environment, and premiums in New South Wales already are significantly higher than in neighbouring States to our north and south.

Some suggested that businesses will not really shed staff or will not really relocate to neighbouring States if premiums increase or that premium increases of less than 28 per cent over a number of years could fix the scheme. Quite simply, that does not accord with the evidence. For example, the New South Wales Business Chamber undertook research across 500 New South Wales businesses wherein almost 85 per cent of respondents indicated that a 28 per cent premium increase would have employment effects. More than half in this survey indicated that a 10 per cent premium increase would have employment effects. Such evidence, and other evidence, led the committee to find that premium increases would generate significant job losses, and, therefore, such increases could not be supported.

Let me provide two relevant examples. One example, provided to me by the member for Tweed, is a smash repairer he knows personally who deliberately relocated his business to the other side of the border to escape WorkCover premiums in New South Wales—same employees, same work, same customers, yet a clear response to government policy to move from one jurisdiction to another. Such concerns were supported by the cross-border commissioner in his evidence to the committee. The other example is from my community. My local council has an annual budget of about $90 million. I am advised that about $1 million of that is currently spent on workers compensation premiums. A 28 per cent increase would result in more than a quarter of a million dollars less per year to spend on local community services, jobs and infrastructure.

Obviously, premium increases are simply not the answer. Evidence was presented that the scheme's management costs have increased at an unsustainable level. The committee therefore determined that an extensive, detailed review of the workers compensation scheme should be undertaken with a focus on improving management and administration systems. Indeed, one of the purposes of setting up the Legislative Council standing committee, which is to be established under clause 11 of the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012, is to undertake this work. The second main focus of the reforms is to enhance provision and care for seriously impaired workers regardless of fault. I listened closely to the Leader of the Opposition's speech. He said, and I think I am quoting him accurately, that the legislation is targeted at people who are injured through no fault of their own. This misunderstands the nature of the scheme. It is a no-fault scheme. 13036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Of course, there is nothing fair about workplace injury. As English historian John Acton once observed, "History provides neither compensation for suffering nor penalties for wrong." In the same way, some workers have injuries for which no amount of money can truly compensate. We are seeking to ensure that seriously impaired workers are looked after regardless of the reason for the work-related injury. I also heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the most severely injured workers would not benefit beyond five years. That is not the case. People who are severely impaired will remain on workers compensation permanently until retirement age. The issues paper recommended that weekly benefits be capped for all scheme participants except for the most severely injured. It classified the most seriously injured persons under the scheme as those with a whole person impairment of at least 30 per cent.

To put this in context, I am aware of a case where one person was assessed as 60 per cent whole person impairment for a horrific accident in which that person lost an arm. Yet, there was evidence to the parliamentary committee that the 30 per cent whole person impairment figure could be too high in many instances to include everyone that a fair-minded person might consider severely impaired and unable to work. There was evidence from one person assessed with a whole person impairment percentage in the mid-20s whose psychological disorder prevented them from working. The legislation looks after such people by providing that any person with a whole person impairment of 20 per cent or greater who cannot work will stay on the scheme indefinitely, subject to regular work capacity testing.

The third focus of the bills is on returning injured people to employment. A clear finding of the committee was that leaving employment does not help improve the position of an injured person. When people cannot work, they often become depressed, disempowered, isolated and increasingly dependent on support. The longer someone is on benefits the harder it becomes to return to work. We need a system that recognises that reality. Of course, where someone is literally physically unable to work, society has a clear duty to care for them. But where someone can work, I believe society has a clear role in getting them back to work as quickly as possible. It is vital that we support injured workers and help ensure that they have opportunities and systems for getting back to work as quickly as possible.

There is nothing fair about workplace injury and there are some injuries that no amount of money can compensate for. We need to ensure—and this legislation does ensure—that such people are properly cared for in perpetuity until retirement age. But we cannot continue on the trajectory we have been on. Reform was unavoidable. Of course, this scheme needs constant monitoring. This is one of the clear lessons of the current crisis. If more attention had been paid to the performance of the scheme over recent years this crisis may have been avoided. It is imperative that we take precautions to prevent such a blowout in deficits occurring again. That is why the legislation will establish a parliamentary committee to monitor WorkCover. This parliamentary committee will have the capacity and resources to ensure that the workers compensation scheme becomes and remains financially sustainable so that it continues to serve injured people.

I want to end with the story of a family friend who had a brain aneurysm in the surf. He was 19 years old and at the peak of his fitness. It could have happened anywhere. It could have happened at work, in the car, overseas or in another State. Yet the same injury is treated differently because of where it happened. Surely this is the bigger issue. As a society we should be looking to care for all injured persons wherever and however the injury occurs. That is the basis of recommendation 28 of the joint committee report, which calls for a consideration of opportunities to harmonise compensation schemes so that we focus on injury, not on where it occurs. I reject calls that the legislation is heartless, the statement by the member for Maroubra that we are bad people and the statement by the member for Canterbury that we are ugly, mean and cruel people. The legislation is necessary and, on balance, I believe these bills are reasonable. But circumstances point to the need for constant review to ensure that available resources are directed to those who need them most.

[Acting-Speaker (Ms Melanie Gibbons) left the chair at 6.35 p.m. The House resumed at 7.00 p.m.]

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) [7.00 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012, treacherous legislation that the Premier and his conservative industrial dinosaurs will inflict on the workers of New South Wales. Nothing in any previous anti-worker legislation by this despicable lot opposite highlights the differences between this Government and the Labor Party more than this destructive legislation, which is just unthinkable. Never has any party or any government stooped so low. This Government is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the big end of town. The member for Baulkham Hills confirmed that today when he said:

This bill is about looking after the employers.

19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13037

That is very clear in the legislation before us tonight. I will start be referring to the parliamentary committee inquiry. More than 350 submissions were received and witnesses gave evidence in person. However, prior to the conclusion of the inquiry the Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce, instructed his department to commence drafting legislation to modify the workers compensation scheme. The Government received advice that it was actually possible to arrest the deterioration and improve the claims experience of the scheme by improving claims management and WorkCover guidelines, and that these issues should be given a very high priority.

However neither the issues paper nor the committee recommendations dealt with, or plan to deal with, those issues. This legislation is just another attack on the workers of New South Wales. The O'Farrell Government has never been, nor ever will be, a friend of the worker in New South Wales. Cutting benefits to workers injured on the job will only hurt those workers and their families. The word "reform" to those opposite and conservative governments is code for slash and burn at the expense of workers and their families. The Premier said, "I make no apologies for this legislation." But he should apologise to the people of New South Wales for this deception and outright attack on New South Wales workers. This campaign is run by the business lobby, which states:

Jobs will be lost unless workers compensation is cut.

This legislation is about profits before people, and it is a crock. Businesses believe that injured workers are making false claims—and that says it all. Since 2005 premiums actually have come down by almost one-third and independent analysis shows that workers compensation premiums have very little effect on where businesses establish themselves. Infrastructure, the supply of skilled labour and the broader economy are the main game. Guess what? Business already knows this. This legislation is about making more money for business. These bills are nothing more than a scare campaign, and an attack on sick and injured workers. Last week thousands of workers rallied over these changes to the scheme: they filled Macquarie Street from top to bottom to oppose this Government's unprecedented attacks on them.

I will stand shoulder to shoulder with those workers, union members or not, to defend one of our most sacred conditions and protections. We have to work and, unfortunately, accidents happen at work. We all know that. It is a fact of life. The Premier is taking the axe to these New South Wales workers. The safety net as we know it is being removed for all workers in New South Wales. As a previous union official I have seen many workplace accidents and their physical and psychological effect on the worker. To add more pain to injured workers, these bills are really going to hurt. I do not know where it will end. I was going to talk about Joanne's tragic story but, instead, I will relate my own experience because I have been an injured worker.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: I bet you were.

Ms ANNA WATSON: I was injured at work. Before you say anything, you should listen to my story; you might change his mind.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent. The member will direct her comments through the Chair.

Ms ANNA WATSON: I was working in the office of a small organisation, which I will not name. I was working alone one day when five men came into the office. I was held up. Two of the men pinned me to the wall, another one robbed my cash drawer and the other two were out the back stealing money from the safe. At that stage of my life my children were quite young and all I could think about was what would happen to them if they did not have a mother. That event probably took no more than a few minutes, but it took me years to get over the psychological effects. I am not just talking about counselling; I am talking about the effect on my family and me, how I interacted with others, and how I felt when walking into banks, supermarkets et cetera. One cannot underestimate the psychological effects of these sorts of things.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: I don't think you're over it.

Ms ANNA WATSON: Yes, I am over it. It is cruel and dishonest for this Government to take that assistance away from workers in New South Wales. Physical injuries come with psychological injuries. One cannot have a physical injury without it affecting one's mental health. Quite sadly, throughout my time as a union official I was aware of many people who committed suicide as a result of psychological injuries. Often these occurred in communities with a good support network and working families who were very close, but that 13038 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

did not help. The psychological effects can never, ever be underestimated. By taking away all those benefits and protections with this type of legislation the blood of those injured workers will be on your hands. What you are doing is so wrong and so far off the mark. My prediction is that the people of New South Wales will not forgive you. This will be the noose around your neck and it will get tighter and tighter as no doubt more of these types of injuries occur.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Shellharbour will direct her remarks through the Chair.

Ms ANNA WATSON: This Government will feel the effects of the impact of this legislation on workers. I repeat: Their blood will be on the Government's hands. I absolutely condemn what the Government has done. Each and every member on that side of the House should be very worried. Those opposite will have constituents coming to them saying, "Why did you do this to us?" I hope that they do.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [7.09 p.m.]: I speak against the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. I believe that a decent workers compensation system that looks after people who are injured at work and their families should be a fundamental right of all citizens. In 2009-10 more than 121,000 work-related injuries and illnesses were reported to WorkCover and 133 people died in the course of their employment. Behind every one of those statistics is a real person. It is someone's mother, brother or child who, through no fault of their own, has had their life turned upside down doing that most ordinary of activity, going to work. We know a workplace injury can happen to a person at any time, and as a Parliament we have an obligation to make sure that there is a decent and fair system in place to support these employees financially while they cannot work, provide appropriate medical care and rehabilitate them back into employment wherever possible.

We are debating reforms introduced by this Government to the New South Wales workers compensation system. The reforms achieve none of those obligations. Instead, they reduce weekly benefits after 13 weeks, provide a five-year cap for weekly benefits for most injured workers and introduce a one-year cap for medical benefits payments. If an injured worker does not recover quickly enough, medical bills and weekly payments will be cut off with an exemption for injured workers with more than 30 per cent whole-of-person impairment. However, advice provided to the select committee indicated that only one in 100 claimants get to the 30 per cent of whole-of-person impairment. The result of the legislation is that employees will no longer be covered on their way to and from work, and nervous shock claims by dependants of deceased or injured workers will be abolished.

Depending on the nature of the injury and the recovery time, an injury at work impacts on an employee in many different ways. The select committee heard from many employees about the devastating impact of work-related injuries on them and their families. I think the vast majority of members in this House would have stories from their own constituents about the impact of a work-related injury. I can recall many from my time as a local member. I recall one incident most vividly. A constituent—I do not want to use her name—came to see me about the impact her husband's injury at work was having on her and her family. This woman and her husband had arrived in Australia many years earlier from Portugal. They had worked hard all their lives and were great contributors to the community. Her husband was a carpenter and he worked in the construction industry. He was seriously injured at work.

The effects of his injury were not just physical, they were psychological and emotional. He struggled to come to terms with the fact that he probably would never go back to his original job. His employer refused to find him suitable alternative work. What work his employer did find him only exacerbated his injury. His fellow employees turned on him because they did not feel he was carrying his weight in the workplace. By the time his wife came to see me her family life was severely affected. Her two teenage sons were having bad experiences at school and starting to do poorly at school. Her husband was prone to fits of depression, and anger and she needed counselling. All of this was as a result of a workplace injury. I did not feel like I could do an awful lot to change the circumstances of my constituent's life. But I can try to make sure that the circumstances of people who may find themselves in a similar situation are not made worse by supporting these bills. That is why I will vote against this legislation.

The fear of what the changes to the legislation will mean for ordinary working people in New South Wales prompted thousands to rally outside the New South Wales Parliament last week. It was a desperate attempt to change the Government's mind about these retrograde reforms. The Government has claimed that this legislation needs to be rammed through tonight, even though the Opposition received the bill only a couple of 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13039

hours ago, because reforms to the scheme are urgent. Yet, as we have heard in this debate, following the announcement in February that it would fast-track reforms it took the Government almost three months to announce a parliamentary inquiry and it took a further month for that inquiry to become functional. Despite this the Government imposed on the joint committee an unrealistic time frame that could in no way do justice to the more than 350 submissions received.

This is a serious issue. These reforms will have a devastating impact on the people of New South Wales. The Parliament and the community should have a proper opportunity to scrutinise these changes. Instead what the Government is doing is pushing through the changes in as quick a time as possible because they want to minimise opposition to and scrutiny of the changes. As a justification for these reforms the Government has claimed that the workers compensation scheme in New South Wales is broken. Rather than undertake a comprehensive analysis of all the contributing factors the Government has chosen to pursue only those changes that target employee benefits and penalise those employees injured at work through no fault of their own. This speaks volumes about the Government's true agenda. The Government has ignored advice it received stating that it is possible to arrest deterioration of the scheme and improve claims experience by improving claims management and WorkCover guidelines.

Many witnesses to the select committee gave evidence that the scheme's agents, employed by WorkCover to administer the scheme, were ineffective or inadequate. The insurer's share of scheme expenses and costs has risen from around 7 per cent to nearly 18 per cent over the past decade. Over the same period total compensation benefits received by workers have declined by approximately 20 per cent in real terms. If the Government is serious about genuinely reforming the scheme it is these issues it should be addressing. The Government should be putting pressure on insurance companies to lift their game rather than pursuing injured workers. The Government should be putting in place measures to improve workplace health and safety to drive down the number of workplace accidents and to encourage employers to make greater efforts to assist injured workers to return to meaningful employment. Those are the areas that should be the focus of the Government's attention.

According to Unions NSW, WorkCover is underperforming in these critical scheme functions. Some of the many reasons for this are the failure by some employers to provide suitable employment for injured workers, a lack of focus by claims agents in managing the return to work process and a lack of adequate oversight and strategic direction. The lack of retraining for injured workers is another serious barrier to improving scheme performance. Those issues are not being addressed in the bill we are debating tonight. Instead the Government has taken the easy option of cutting benefits for some of the most vulnerable people in our community—injured workers. These bills must be opposed. I urge all members in the House to oppose the bills. An employee injured at work deserves financial support, medical assistance and rehabilitation to return to work wherever possible. If that is not possible the worker deserves long-term support.

A workplace injury can happen to anyone, as we know. As we debate these bills I cannot help but think of those employees who are particularly vulnerable to workplace injuries; people who work in occupations that are physically demanding, involve heavy machinery or are in dangerous environments. They include nurses, factory workers, prison guards and firefighters. None of these employees earns big salaries. None of these employees is able to take the hit that we know this legislation will visit upon them if they are unlucky enough to be injured in the workplace. They are the people who can least afford it. The Government can try to sanitise this debate by talking in financial and actuarial terms, but it cannot hide from the fact that decent hardworking people in New South Wales and their families will suffer much hardship as a result of the legislation that the House is debating tonight. I urge the House to vote against the bills.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [7.19 p.m.]: As a long-term member of the Australian Labor Party, a lifelong trade unionist and member of a family of battlers, I have no choice but to oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. I will address four issues briefly in this speech. First, I will give a brief background to the bills; secondly, I will provide a summary of the severe cuts to workers compensation payments that will be made if these bills have majority support in this House and the other House; thirdly, I will talk about how my joining the Australian Labor Party reflects why I oppose these bills; and, finally, I will talk about the nuts and bolts problems that these bills will create for rank and file workers, and its impact upon New South Wales families. The first matter is the brief background to the bills.

In quick succession the Government released an issues paper, set up a parliamentary inquiry, and said it would push through the Parliament this session changes to the workers compensation scheme. The 13040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

parliamentary committee was established on 2 May, had three public hearing dates, had only a handful of interested parties that were given an opportunity to put their case, and reported on the inquiry last week. The second matter is that the Government's proposals will reduce weekly payments after 13 weeks; cap weekly payments after 2½ years, and after six months most long-term injured will receive only $432 per week, which is below the poverty line; cap medical payments at 2½ years, ignoring the fact that the severely injured or ill need ongoing treatment even though they may be back at work; stop partners of those killed at work being compensated for nervous shock; stop lump sum payments for pain and suffering; dangerously, remove coverage for trips to and from work; and make harder the test for employer negligence in lump sum claims—a real worry.

The third point is that one of the reasons why members on this side of the House joined the New South Wales Australian Labor Party is that we wanted to support the rights of workers and battlers. When I joined the Australian Labor Party in the 1980s, and joined the trade union movement when I took my first job aged 15 years, not only did I want to ensure that my rights were protected as long as I did a fair day's work but also I wanted to ensure that other people's rights were protected , because that was what I grew up believing in. Finally I come to the nuts and bolts problems of these bills to the rank and file workers and their impact upon New South Wales families. I can imagine what would have happened if these bills had been foist upon my family. My father was an interstate truck driver when I was a young girl, working mostly from New South Wales into Victoria.

At one point my father's stomach ulcer burst when he was driving through the electorate of Goulburn, and he was hospitalised in Goulburn. We kids were little, and mum did not have the opportunity to visit the hospital because she had no-one to care for us. But dad's employer did the right thing and looked after him. Mum was a cleaner for 23 years, doing back-breaking work at West Wallsend Infants School. I know of the problems that she has with her back now. But she was protected if she had been injured; luckily, she was not. My niece Nicole, who is a midwife at Royal North Shore Hospital, talks about not only how she can be injured at work, but the fact that she often does double shifts because, as a midwife, when one of her patients is having a baby she just does not leave her.

The shifts that Nicole takes sometimes are arduously long. I would hate to think that if Nicole was driving home from work, which is some distance, after a double shift she would not be protected by journey claims—a real worry. I worked for two years as a community support worker with Hunter Brain Injury Respite Options, looking after people with acquired brain injuries. I lifted many very heavy people. I knew how to do that because I was taught; but it was still really dangerous because some of these people were immobile and heavy. Often, late at night, somebody would be sick, and you would be looking after them by yourself. Under this workers compensation amendment bill, I can only imagine what would have happened if I had an injury as a result of doing that heavy work, well knowing I would not have been protected.

The cases of the truck driver, the cleaner, the midwife and the community support worker are all examples of people in our community who are working for very low wages but who would not be protected by these bills. That is what really worries me. That is at the heart of these bills, and that is why I oppose them. Those are the sorts of people that I represent in my electorate, and who elected me. I want to make sure that I protect them and their working rights. For those reasons I cannot support these bills, because they are not in the best interests of the workers and the battlers in New South Wales.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn—Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Women) [7.25 p.m.]: I will make a short contribution to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. The reason this reform is before us today is that we are facing a deep philosophical difference between our parties and the Opposition. This is about the dignity of work; the dignity that people gain from being in employment and being able to return to work and fulfil themselves. Obviously people work at different levels and in different ways over a lifetime. But if we do not have a workers compensation scheme that has at its heart the importance of restoring people's working capacity so that they can return to work, then we have a workers compensation scheme that condemns thousands of people to the scrapheap, without any acknowledgement that work gives us friendship, a sense of worth, independence and a sense of contribution.

That applies to workers at all levels. That is the difference between members of the Coalition and members of the Australian Labor Party, who see work as an imposition, as something that people have to suffer—completely denying the fact that for so many people work is a joy and their primary society. Of course, the other aspect of this reform is the 28 per cent increase in workers compensation premiums that are predicted to occur if we do not make these reforms. Again, those opposite seem to have no regard for the employment 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13041

consequences of a 28 per cent increase in premiums. This is about jobs, and preserving and growing jobs in New South Wales. I remember Paul Keating referring to Laurie Carmichael's outrageous wage increases and saying that he had 100,000 dead men around his neck. Well, this Opposition, if it had its way and allowed a 28 per cent increase in workers compensation premiums in July, would have several thousand workers around its neck also. Many members have commented on the detail of the reforms; I think they are now well understood.

I will make just one additional point, about medical costs, a significant cost to the State and to the scheme and a significant part of these reforms. It seems that over-servicing and over-charging in this scheme are rife, and that is one of the reasons that medical costs are so high. I will give some examples. For surgical operations, for example for anaesthetics, Veterans' Affairs pays $35 a unit of work done—a unit being a definition of time spent on a procedure—whereas for workers compensation, the same anaesthetist performing the same procedure is paid $73 a unit, which is more than double the amount paid by Veterans' Affairs, and the Australian Medical Association recommended maximum fee, which I seem to recall in ages past was opposed so fiercely by the labour movement. Compare $73 with $35 and you can understand why doctors seek to over-service patients when they are being paid more than double the Veterans' Affairs rate for exactly the same procedures. I understand orthopaedic surgeons are paid 150 per cent of the Australian Medical Association rate for doing workers compensation work. That is another reason why these reforms are so necessary, and I commend the bills to the House.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [7.29 p.m.]: I speak to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and cognate bill. The O'Farrell Government has again proven itself to be deceitful, uncaring and heartless—an incompetent government led by an uncaring Premier.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent. The member for Murray-Darling and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will remain silent.

Mr NICK LALICH: Since coming to power, the Premier has continually attacked ordinary workers and their families. This latest attack, under the guise of legislation, should surprise no-one. Yet at the same time it should be of great concern to all families in New South Wales. When this O'Farrell-led Coalition came to power in March 2011, people had voted for a change. They did not expect that the new leader of this State would launch continual broadsides against them, their families and their livelihoods.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Government members will assemble quietly.

Mr NICK LALICH: I did not expect so many members to come to the Chamber to hear me speak. People did not expect attacks on public servants' rights and entitlements, attacks on the death and disability benefits of police officers—those who protect and serve our communities and who put their lives at risk for us every day—and now attacks on ordinary workers and their families. This is a sneaky and shameful Government. This Premier and his heartless minions want to leave hardworking families destitute and without a leg to stand on, leaving them most vulnerable during their greatest time of need. When someone is injured, their first thought is: How am I going to support my family? How are we going to survive these tough times? Who can my family turn to for help? They cannot turn to the O'Farrell Government.

Families are getting the message loud and clear: This is an uncaring and incompetent Government that is willing to fast-track legislation through Parliament to suit its own ends, willing to diminish the livelihood of New South Wales' most vulnerable and their loved ones. Make no mistake about it: This is a brazen attack by the Government on workers and workers' rights. For some 20 years I worked as an electrician for Prospect Electricity. Our leader, John Robertson, also worked as an electrician for many years. We know what it is like to work in a dangerous job. Every day you take a risk just by showing up at work; it is dangerous work. But in my time we had the security of workers compensation. We worked for decades in a risky job, where there was an element of danger as you went about your work every day. We understand first-hand the dangers inherent in some professions and the importance of workers compensation.

Although those opposite tell us they know about workers compensation, they lack the hands-on experience of those present on this side of the House. They lack the real-life experience of witnessing workplace tragedies. They do not appreciate the importance of workers compensation and the security it gives to those in need. Getting assistance to provide food for their family is of the utmost concern to anyone who is injured at work. Recovering from a workplace injury can be a long, hard struggle—not just physically but in finding work again. Prospective employers are often not willing to give you a look-in. I will give the House a real-life 13042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

example, or case study. George worked in manufacturing and in 2009 he sustained injuries to his arms, including tendon and muscle damage, whilst operating a machine. Since his accident, George has undergone two surgeries and has spent two years and two months on light duties.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent.

Mr NICK LALICH: A more recent assessment by a doctor stopped George from attending work. George is currently on leave and is using this time to retrain and find new employment. In the past year, George has applied for 166 jobs and has been offered an interview for only two. Finding work has proven difficult for George because of the restrictions his injury places on him. In the past year George has taken the opportunity to retrain as a trainer. In his time off George has felt bored and frustrated; he would like to return to work. George's frustration is fuelled by the large size of the organisation he works for—26 businesses under an umbrella company—and his employer's inability to help him find appropriate work within the company. This illustrates the difficulty in finding work when people have physical restrictions and how large employers can be unhelpful in allocating suitable duties. Neither of those important issues was addressed in the recent parliamentary inquiry. The O'Farrell Government is trying to fast-track this legislation—to shove it down people's throats before they know what has hit them.

The Minister released an issues paper at the end of April this year and barely a month later instructed Parliamentary Counsel to commence drafting legislation to modify the workers compensation scheme. The committee process was incomplete. There was not enough time to investigate thoroughly the more than 350 submissions received. The issues paper lacked detail, was unpersuasive and is now being used by the O'Farrell Government to hurt families. The Premier needs to explain why the Government has ignored actuarial advice that says that the scheme can avoid deterioration by improving claims management and WorkCover guidelines. Instead, this Government has plugged its ears and put on the blinkers and said, "Off we go—the workers can cop it." But the workers will not cop it. The Labor Opposition will not sit here and cop it—and we bet that voters at the next election will not cop it either. The O'Farrell Government's continued attacks on hardworking families have thoroughly eroded the confidence and hope that electors had when they voted this mob in. Mr O'Farrell, enough is enough: Give the workers a fair go before it is too late. The Opposition opposes the bills.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [7.35 p.m.]: I speak to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and cognate bill as someone who I think is qualified to have an opinion on this matter. After 30 years in small business and of paying workers compensation premiums, I understand how those premiums affect businesses and the expense that businesses have to bear to maintain some sort of regime that allows them to meet the outgoings that challenge small businesses. In early 2000, along with many other small business owners, I looked forward to John Della Bosca making some serious reforms to the workers compensation scheme. Unfortunately, I believe John Della Bosca's attempts to reform the Workers Compensation Act at that time were sabotaged somewhat by unions and, as a consequence, the work was unfinished. The reforms in this legislation are left over from John Della Bosca's failed attempt to try to get something done.

There is no doubt that there was a black hole in the workers compensation scheme in those days. In 30 years I had one workers compensation claim that caused me to pay premium adjustments. The legal profession will deny that such a thing exists, but it is absolutely true—there is no doubt once you have experienced it. In some cases, the adjustment is greater than the premium that small businesses pay. It can easily ruin a small business. It is a significant amount of money that businesses need to find over and above the premium and it is driven primarily by the fact that the workers compensation scheme has no capacity to accommodate the claims. It does not matter that businesses pay their premiums and have a good no-claims history; they face the prospect of having their premiums topped up with an adjustment—and then face another three years of sheer and utter pain trying to pay them.

In my case the person who made a claim suffered an injury that occurred over a long period. It was disguised by the fact that he had had a heart attack and was being treated for what were believed to be symptoms of that heart attack. It turned out that he had a rotator cuff injury. He had surgery and then sued me. He was described as being "incapacitated". During the time he was off work and receiving compensation I was visited by the local Repco agent who told me that he was supplying the person with engine parts. He believed the gentleman was working from home as a motor mechanic. At that time there was an organisation called the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which told me that it would be in my best interests to find employment for this gentleman. I was advised not to do so but I did not take that advice and I re-employed him. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13043

I put him in a position where he supervised apprentices, but after some time it became clear that he wanted to be paid out of his position. So that is what I did. A couple of years later he came and told me that he had moved to Gympie and was working with his brother-in-law delivering gas bottles to households. I would have thought that was a fairly strenuous activity and I was surprised that someone who was totally and utterly incapacitated had suddenly rebounded to that extent. I know that there are genuine workers compensation claims. I worked in the mines and I have seen some horrific accidents there. I have had a close shave myself. I know very well the types of accidents that can destroy people's lives. But there are far too many incidents that leave a very bad taste in one's mouth. The changes we are making will not make the system very different from what operates in other States.

In 1999 I set up a motor dealership in Mildura. I employed people there and I paid workers compensation premiums in Victoria. I was surprised by how much lower those premiums were than those in New South Wales. It became clear that if a person was thinking of opening a business and had the choice of doing so in Victoria or in New South Wales that person would certainly choose Victoria because the premiums were much lower. That is because the Victorian Workers Compensation Act was managed much better than the New South Wales legislation. Since former Minister John Della Bosca's time the workers compensation scheme has continued to run off the rails. It is an absolute necessity that some common sense is applied to this issue because Labor members who are complaining about this reform will later come back to this House and complain about the job losses that result from increased premiums.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [7.42 p.m.]: I oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the cognate Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. These bills are an abomination. They are, in the very precise use of the word, offensive. They are the most substantial attack on the rights of injured workers—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent. I remind the member for Murray-Darling that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: These bills are the most substantial attack on the rights of injured workers since 1926, when Jack Lang introduced the Workers Compensation Act. It is worth noting that when he did that there was what my friend the Treasurer would call a market failure and the insurance companies that were in the market at the time refused to issue workers compensation insurance. That is why the Government Insurance Office was formed. The role of insurance companies has not changed much: They have done nothing to assist injured workers and they have done nothing to assist this system.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I will eject the member for Murray-Darling from the Chamber if he continues to interject.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I note the cacophony from the member for Baulkham Hills and comments such as "Who have you ever employed?" One of the glaring weaknesses of this Government is that its only perspective is that of the employer.

Mr David Elliott: Rubbish.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I rest my case by citing your interjection.

Mr Troy Grant: Point of order: I ask you to direct the member to address his remarks through the Chair and not to make asides.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: To the point of order: If the member for Baulkham Hill stops interjecting I will not need to direct comments to him.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The problem is that there are some standing orders in this place that are usually adhered to by those on this side of the House but very rarely by those on the other side. I note that the process of getting the bills to this place is nothing short of a disgrace. They were placed on the table at about 2.30 p.m. and they will be rammed through all stages today. As someone who spent a decade and a half practising in this area 13044 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

and who knows this legislation quite well, I find it particularly offensive that we are expected to make rational decisions on the bills without having had a chance to read them. It is an indication of the contempt that Government members have for the rights of injured workers and for this process. During debate on the oath of allegiance Coalition members talked about the heritage and the history of this place. But when it comes to the crunch—when it comes to making decisions that are important—they treat this place and this institution with utter contempt.

In relation to the process it is also worth noting that we have been told that the bills are urgent and important. The reality is that the Government has been in power for 15 months and has, until now, not done a lot about workers compensation. One is entitled to make the point that if this was as important and as urgent as the Government claims it might have done something about it a bit earlier. I note in particular that the Minister in the other place made some histrionic declarations and declamations on this issue in February and then did basically nothing about it for another three months. It seems to me that that is entirely inconsistent with the rest of his rhetoric about the urgency and the need for speed in this matter.

Also, the measures now before the House do not address the fundamental issues of claims management and what the insurance companies are doing. The changes now before the House do not affect that. Let us assume for the moment that the Government's rhetoric is correct and we have a massive problem—I do not necessarily agree with that, but let us assume we do. These changes will not solve that problem in the long term; we will still need to do something about claims management, which is the biggest single problem with the scheme. That is not addressed in the legislation, which leads one to say legitimately that the bills' entire presentation is a furphy.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I turn to the specifics of the bills. The vast majority of people will now have medical payments terminated after 12 months and the vast majority of those in receipt of weekly payments will have them terminated after five years. There are several particularly offensive things about that, but what I consider most offensive is that injury costs are being transferred from insurers to the public. The costs are being socialised; the profits are being retained by private employers. But if people's payments are cut off after a period the cost will be picked up by Centrelink and by the general health system. That means taxpayers—the rest of us—will be paying a cost that should be paid by insurers and employers. That is the fundamental dishonesty and the fundamental ideological obsession behind these changes.

I note the bizarre provision about ruling out heart attacks. If one accepts the comments in the overview of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, even if a person can prove that their heart attack was caused by work, unless there is an exceptional risk in relation to that particular industry the person still cannot claim compensation. That is an indication of how entirely absurd and unfair this proposal is. Journey claims have been abolished—a number of members have spoken about that. In my view the abolition of journey claims is fundamentally evil. Not a great deal has been said about paragraph (n) in the explanatory note to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. That overturns a provision about legal costs in workers compensation proceedings that I think has been in the legislation since 1926.

Until now, if a person pursues workers compensation costs and loses there is no order for costs unless the person can prove that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious. This provision will change that so the costs follow the event: If a person brings a claim for workers compensation and they lose, they will have to pay costs. This provision is about making sure that no-one brings an application to court because if a person is in enough trouble that he or she is off work and is suffering economic loss as a result of that injury, it inevitably follows that the worker will not run the risk of going to court. Even if a person can jump through the legislative hoops, the bills cut back so dramatically workers' entitlements that an injured worker is not going to have a reasonable chance of going to court to assert their rights. That has not attracted a lot of attention in this debate but it is a particularly insidious proposition.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Spell it.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I can, but Government members cannot.

Mr John Barilaro: That is a lot of rubbish.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13045

Mr PAUL LYNCH: If those opposite interject, they will receive a response.

Mr Kevin Humphries: L-Y-N-C-H.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: H-U-M-P-H-R-I-E-S, boneheaded idiot. They are employers and they have no interest in or capacity to represent workers. The rhetoric of those on the other side is that anyone who makes a claim for workers compensation clearly is dodgy. They cannot resist looking down their noses at those who have had the misfortune of being injured at work.

[Interruption]

What a cacophony; there is no question about it. I have listened to the speeches and I have listened to what has been said. I turn now to the comments of the member for Goulburn in particular. She talked about the differences between us and them. The only thing she said with which I agreed was that there were ideological differences between us and them.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Liverpool will be heard in silence or members will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The philosophy of the member for Goulburn was that it is about people getting back to work. Her logic is to starve people to force them to work when they are unfit to do so. That is what she said. Labor knows that people need to be looked after; that the vulnerable need to be protected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that they will be removed from the Chamber if they continue with their disruptive behaviour.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Those who are interjecting and supporting this bill do not have to worry about workers compensation because the parliamentary pension scheme will look after them. They can sit back and enjoy that scheme whilst condemning injured workers to penury and an inability to pay their bills or to buy food.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [7.51 p.m.]: Before I address the substance of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 I will respond to the last comment made by the member for Liverpool. Two-thirds of the members in this place do not have pensions, and nor will they be entitled to pensions. The member for Liverpool is ignorant, as usual.

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

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Labor Party hates the truth. Every day thousands of men and women across this State go to work. Those men and women expect to do a day's work, wherever it might be, and to return home safely to their families and friends. Unfortunately, despite best intentions and the most safety-conscious workplaces, accidents do happen. When something happens to a worker in the course of his or her employment, that worker wants to know that financial help is at hand for the period during which he or she will spend recovering from injury. Workers will then be able to recover as quickly as possible and get back to their normal working lives. Workers want peace of mind and they want to know that if their injuries are more serious—or regrettably for some people even catastrophic—their needs will be looked after fairly and that if they are capable of continuing to work, perhaps even in a different type of job over a period, they will have the most effective and timely medical help to return to a fulfilling life.

If one were to receive a report that said that WorkCover NSW had a deficit of more than $4 billion, that that deterioration started four years ago and that it had increased by $1.7 billion in the previous six months, one would take immediate action to get it under control. That is exactly the legacy that was left by the former Labor Government—a legacy that this Government is determined to fix for injured workers and employers alike. On 26 March I made a commitment to start this second year of change in New South Wales with a process to repair this broken system; to ensure that injured workers get the best possible and most timely result in returning to a productive and appropriate working life; and to ensure that individuals with catastrophic injury are looked after in the way that any of us would want to see our loved ones cared for. 13046 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

The revelation of the $4 billion deficit highlighted also that the cost of premiums to businesses in New South Wales were between 20 per cent and 60 per cent higher, and therefore less competitive, than similar businesses in other States. For example, currently a New South Wales cafe or small restaurant with 11 staff members pays a base premium of more than $8,600. If the workers compensation scheme were to remain unchanged café premiums would increase by more than $2,400 to almost $11,000, more than double what a similar business in Queensland would pay, around $4,000, and five times more than what a similar business in Victoria would pay, around $2,000. The Government immediately entered into an extensive process of consultation with stakeholders. It also convened a parliamentary committee to conduct an inquiry into the workers compensation scheme, which would make recommendations to make the scheme sustainable. I thank the committee for its hard work and for its significant report and recommendations. The committee received 357 submissions and evidence was taken from more than 70 witnesses, including 11 witnesses representing injured workers. As I said earlier today, 46,000 people enter the scheme each year.

The proposed new scheme is based on the recommendations of that parliamentary inquiry. This fairer, more sustainable scheme will encourage injured workers back into the workplace. The focus of the scheme will be on getting those who can work back to work. The Government acknowledges research demonstrates that the faster someone is helped to return to work, the better the outcome for that person's health, wellbeing and earnings, and the better the outcome for that person's family and loved ones. My colleague the Treasurer and the member for Manly outlined the details of the Government's proposal. Importantly, severely injured workers who cannot return to work will receive generous benefits and there will be no requirement for future work capacity testing. This will alleviate stress and allow people to continue with their lives with the best possible certainty. But similar to jurisdictions such as Victoria, which has a well-regarded system, people other than those with the most severe injuries will be subject to regular work capacity testing.

I believe our system should be geared to recognise the health, social and employment outcomes of work, and to shift the emphasis from an adversarial compensation mindset to one which makes our workplaces safer, gets people back to work as quickly as possible, cares for those who cannot return to work, and strengthens the competitiveness of New South Wales employers and job creators. The bill sets out changes that will result in many less seriously injured workers being able to access higher benefits than under Labor's old scheme, and concentrating on a quick recovery will allow workers to leave the scheme as quickly as possible.

The parliamentary committee made some important observations about other necessary management and administrative improvements in the scheme. The Government agrees with its observations. The proposed package will drive efficiencies across the system and be tougher on those employers who refuse to do their bit to make suitable work available for injured persons, where possible. Penalties of up to $11,000 are proposed in relation to employer obligations to provide injured workers with suitable work. The Government will crack down on the issues raised in several submissions that highlighted concern about medical professionals taking advantage of the system. The Government will reduce medical costs by adopting the recommendations of the committee, including the use of medical assessors. This will lead to a better system for managing medical and health services for injured workers. The Government will reduce legal bills by minimising the need for lawyers to be in the process.

For too long the culture of the New South Wales scheme has been characterised as adversarial and strongly dependent on quasi-judicial resolution and on costly and time-consuming legal wrangling. The Government wants to see people focused on getting better and going back to work where possible and appropriate, rather than briefing lawyers. The Government also will address concerns about the costs of insurers who are the scheme's agents, with tougher claims guidelines on insurance agents. These will include clearer guidelines, less red tape and better performance management. In line with another recommendation of the committee, the Government will be commencing an extensive, detailed review of the administration of WorkCover to make it more efficient. In parallel with legislated reforms, the Government will move quickly to build on work already commenced to streamline costly and complex operating instructions and guidelines.

We will reduce red tape and implement clear accountabilities for insurance pricing, claims performance, regulatory functions and return to work and health outcomes, including the performance of the scheme's agents. The time has come for a critical look at how WorkCover operates and at the ways in which the Government responsibly can make it work better both for injured workers and for employers who pay its operating costs currently through very high premiums. The Government will implement the majority of the recommendations of the committee. The first stage will start today, with provisions in the bill to give effect to recommendations requiring legislative change. These reforms will deliver a higher level of benefits for many injured workers, and move the focus to a stronger system of care for seriously injured workers, with a greater emphasis on getting less seriously injured workers back to work faster. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13047

The reforms also will tackle long overdue improvements to the costs of WorkCover administration, including the performance of scheme agents, and sharpen the focus on making workplaces even safer. Finally, the reforms also will tackle the spiralling costs of unnecessary and ineffective medical inputs, reduce the need for costly legal disputes throughout the system and enable the Government to start to bring premium costs for employers back under control. The parliamentary inquiry has delivered a report that is sensitive to the real needs of injured people and that is realistic about the scale of the problem the people of New South Wales face with this system. I commend the report to everyone in this Parliament. All members should study its recommendations carefully. The committee report sets out a mature and thoughtful approach to reforms to this important part of our working environment. Among its comments the report says:

Some people will object to the recommendations as being 'harsh' or 'unfair'. But workers compensation should not be an open ended welfare scheme.

... workers compensation is not intended to place a worker fully in the position he or she would have been but for the injury. It is a no-fault scheme which has to be affordable and like insurance generally therefore subject to realistic limits and exclusions.

Restructuring of benefits is not a matter of blaming workers for the current scheme's financial predicament. Rather it is a function of the scheme having to live within its means. An alternative of premium increases would have an unacceptable effect on NSW economy and jobs.

I again remind members that the Business Chamber estimated that the suggested 28 per cent premium rises if no other action was taken would cost the State 12,600 jobs. Like all of us, the WorkCover scheme will have to live within its means. It has to provide the best possible outcomes for injured people and it has to provide a competitive context for businesses to thrive and grow. I commend the committee and those responsible for this package. I commend the bills to the House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [8.01 p.m.]: Another sitting week and another betrayal of New South Wales workers. It is easy to tell when the O'Farrell Government knows it is doing something wrong: a handful of Coalition members in the Chamber always have that look of unease—in particular, the Treasurer— because they know they are hurting the people and workers of New South Wales.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! Government members will remain silent.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: But this time the vast majority of Coalition members in the Chamber have a vague look about them because they do not comprehend their Government's agenda. The New South Wales people will be truly disgusted by the way in which this law came into effect. It was commenced by a Minister with an extremist fiscal agenda—not the Treasurer but his good friend the Minister for Finance and Services. The Minister for Finance and Services appointed a conveniently named Joint Standing Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme to investigate areas for reform. However, he made sure that the committee was appropriately stacked with five conservative members to two Labor Party members to ensure it arrived at a favourable outcome. The Government then began a careful media campaign to blame the former Government and to justify the supposed need for an urgent overhaul.

On 30 May—two weeks before the committee tabled its report—the Minister ordered Parliamentary Counsel to commence drafting the legislation. The Government did not even wait for the cursory inquiry to be finalised in its haste to begin drafting the legislation. The Government waited until the last week before the parliamentary break to introduce the legislation and to ram it through both Houses before the Opposition and stakeholders had a chance to review it properly. Finally, the Minister tabled two fairly complex bills a mere hour before the debate on them commenced. That is democracy at work under the O'Farrell Government.

The New South Wales Opposition is completely opposed to these bills. I note that the Leader of the Opposition advised the House that the Labor Party will seek to amend these bills in the other place. I call on Government members to support those amendments. Liberal Party members always champion their right to cross the floor whenever they choose. I call on those members to exercise their right and to vote against this legislation for the sake of their constituents. The New South Wales Opposition is committed to a scheme that supports workers but that does not impose unreasonable burdens on businesses. The Opposition supports providing a balance between the competing complex interests that exist in matters of workers compensation.

The Government has gone above and beyond the call of duty to sell this legislation. Government members came into this Chamber and stated, with the benefit of parliamentary privilege, that the scheme had suffered under the former Labor Government. What Government members did not mention was that employer premiums have reduced by 33 per cent over the past five years, which has led to $7 billion less in costs to 13048 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

employers since 2005. Furthermore, the claim of a $4.1 billion deficit has been questioned by independent bodies, including the Law Society of New South Wales and the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which points to a $1.5 billion variation in its counting of the deficit over the past 2½ years. The Australian Lawyers Alliance makes the extremely valid observation that investment returns for the scheme for the next four years fall below the rate of inflation.

The scheme actuary, PricewaterhouseCoopers, acknowledged that the projected deficit may not be accurate and stated, "It should be recognised that future claim development is likely to deviate perhaps materially from our estimates." If the scheme is to be reformed it must not be only at the expense of workers. PricewaterhouseCoopers attributes the deficit in the scheme to a drop in the claims management experience of the insurance agency and external influences on investment returns and discount rates. As such there are other areas that the Government could reform without cutting workers' entitlements, but it has fallen back on its favourite scapegoat—the hardworking members of the New South Wales public service. The Government would rather slash the entitlements of nurses, teachers and firefighters than take real steps to ensure a fair and sustainable scheme.

One potential area in the workers compensation scheme that the Government could improve would be claims management outcomes. In the past decade the insurers' share of scheme expenses and costs has risen from approximately 7 per cent to 18 per cent. In the same time the total compensation benefits received by workers has declined in real terms by approximately 20 per cent. Many of the submissions to the Government's inquiry outlined this issue, yet no recommendation was made to address the scheme agents' performance due to the Minister's careful stacking of the committee.

I note that part 3 of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill relates to the creation of the position of a WorkCover independent review officer. When I listened to the Treasurer's second reading speech I heard him refer to such an officer who, amongst other things, would be able to address complaints against insurers. While the Opposition welcomes this amendment, the Government must take proactive measures to counter excess costs incurred by insurers. If there is the budgetary crisis that the Government claims or insists upon, it should look to address the blowout of the insurers' share of scheme expenses and costs, which have increased from 7 per cent to 18 per cent over the past decade.

Journey claims are one of the many entitlements to be cut under this legislation. The Government is significantly cutting entitlements to workers injured on their way to work, as contained in schedule 5 to the bill. The Government also should heed the committee's recommendation for a proper review of this legislation. The Government needs to sit down with stakeholders and put together proper legislation to address the real issues that exist in this sector. The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said in his speech that the ramifications of these bills will be felt by families for years to come. There is no doubt that the cursory inquiry and the manner in which these bills have been introduced in this Chamber demonstrate that this Government continues to be contemptuous of workers in New South Wales. A number of Government members argued that there are issues with the workers compensation scheme, so let us look at some of the misconceptions contained in their arguments.

The Government views compensation as a disincentive to work, and we heard the member for Goulburn argue that case. Let us be realistic. Injured workers have mortgages, families and careers. They strive to better their families and their circumstances. It is nonsense to suggest that people rely on compensation more than they should. The compensation as it exists today does not entirely compensate individuals for their loss of income and lost career progression; it is simply a way to pay the bills. The second misconception, as argued by the Government, is that reducing benefits will encourage people to return to work. Let us look at how the legislation will encourage people to return to work. The Government suggested that there are many instances of fraudulent behaviour, but let us be realistic about that. The reality is that we have modern medical technology and independent medical assessors, and recent statistics show that instances of fraud are virtually miniscule. So that argument is—

Mr Ryan Park: Gone.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Absolutely. The member for Keira is correct. The Government further failed to argue the social effects of the changes. It argued that there will not be any social effects from reducing workers compensation benefits. No doubt the Government is being short-sighted in this area. Clearly, when benefits are reduced we will see a rise in welfare dependency, poverty and family breakdowns. A range of social issues will result from reducing the workers compensation scheme. The Leader of the Opposition rightly said— and I reiterate this—that there will be many ramifications for people as a result of this legislation. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13049

Mr Andrew Gee: A lack-lustre speech.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: I remind Government members that this legislation will affect many of their constituents. They are confident now, but they will have to answer to nurses, firefighters, workers in the NSW Ambulance Service, Corrective Services, members of the public service, people who work in factories—you name them, Government members have constituents who rely on a proper, effective scheme. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I will be brief. I know the Treasurer is impatient and wants to see this legislation passed tonight.

Mr Mike Baird: I just want everyone to have their say.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Yes, we want everyone to have their say. I remind members that the inquiry was a cursory inquiry. No doubt the inquiry should have been extensive, and more time should have been afforded to all the interest groups and stakeholders involved. I reiterate that the Minister for Finance and Services called on Parliamentary Counsel to start drafting this legislation prior to the inquiry concluding and the committee finalising its report. That shows how much contempt the Minister has for the parliamentary processes, let alone the people of New South Wales. I urge Government members who care about injured workers, who care about their constituents, to cross the floor. They will not want to be remembered for this legislation. The member for Liverpool rightly said that this is the most significant attack on workers in New South Wales. It clearly demonstrates that yet again the Premier and his cohorts are entirely contemptuous of workers. I oppose these bills.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [8.13 p.m.]: I speak on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. While I am speaking from this side of the House, I will be speaking against the legislation.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! I ask all members to settle down and listen to the member with the call in silence.

Mr GREG PIPER: The debate suggests that everything is black and white. On one side of the House it is black, on the other side it is white; one side is good, the other side is evil; one is the side of the slave driver, the other is the side of the slave; one side is for the perpetrators of workplace injury and the other for the victims of workplace injury. I do not believe that that is the case at all. I believe there are issues, but there must be a greater balance in the debate about workers compensation and the costs that are building in the system. Although I am speaking against the legislation, I am not able to speak clearly about the content of the bills and their impact, the shadow that might be hanging over workers and/or what benefits might accrue to workers, because of the short time we have had to look at the legislation.

Introducing the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and its cognate bill, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012, in this way is a grievous abuse of parliamentary process. As I said, my opposition is not about the content of the bills per se but about the process of pushing the bills through the House without providing adequate time for parliamentary debate. There should be a proper debate. While we have known that legislation was coming, we could not have reasonably expected that legislation of this enormity would be introduced and debated in the House to completion in one evening. This important legislation was not even the subject of a briefing to Opposition members or the crossbench. Yet it would always be one of the most important debates in this House in this term of Government. Some 100 pages of legislation that deserve scrutiny can only be given scant regard by this process.

While I am greatly concerned about the possibility or the likelihood that persons who suffer a genuine workplace injury and wish to return to work may be worse off under this scheme, I do not believe that I am in a position to make a definitive call on the merit or otherwise of components of this legislation and how it might affect them. However, I know that this extraordinary rush through the Parliament denies members the ability to consult with their electorates and seek clarification and greater understanding of the intent of the mechanisms of the bills. That is wrong, and that is a reason in itself that I cannot support the legislation. I note the information provided by the Government on actuarial advice with regard to the current and growing financial burden on the system, and I agree that this needs to be addressed.

I appreciate the position put by the Treasurer in this debate. It was also referred to by the Premier. I believe it has also been acknowledged by Opposition members and the member for Maroubra in particular. 13050 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Clearly the existing scheme has been subject to what I would call compensation creep, whereas compensation in some areas and to some levels has grown beyond the intentions of the designers of the scheme and of the financial capacity to maintain the scheme. We have heard of indefensible examples of the application of workers compensation, but these examples should not be seen as the norm and, while deserving of correction in themselves, should not be referenced in defence of system changes that penalise legitimate cases of workplace injury.

I note that the Deputy Premier referred to the measures as "tough but fair decisions". However, I guess that under these changes there will be many examples that fail the fairness test. There are many things in the bills that I know deserve answers, and without our having the ability to spend a reasonable amount of time on considering those matters those answers will only be provided in hindsight after the passage of the legislation. I note that the Premier in his contribution—it was a well-crafted speech—commended the committee report to members of Parliament for consideration. The irony is that he has commended consideration of a report to members of Parliament after these bills have been passed by the House. That is wrong. At least a few members of this House will have a separate submission. I note the member for Balmain, who represents The Greens in this House, might be able to speak from the Independent perspective.

I put to members on both sides of the House that from my position it is difficult: I do not have the resources to scrutinise a bill of 100 pages in four hours. I admit that I need to take advice from other people. People may say that it is easier for an Independent member to take the high moral ground. I point out to the Government that it is easy to take the moral high ground when not one member of this House, other than those who served on the committee and perhaps some who move in the Treasurer's circle in particular, has the information that would enable them to argue a definitive case for the support or denial of support for this legislation. On the basis of process, I will vote against the bills.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [8.19 p.m.]: Like many members on both sides of the House, unfortunately, I have a family member who has been injured at work and who has experienced the workers compensation scheme. I know members on both sides of the House are aware of the scheme and its operation. What concerns me most about this legislation is that approximately 12 months ago the Government introduced the Library Amendment Bill—a bill that contained approximately 50 words. Day in and day out we heard about some stupid book that Government members read when they were five years old and the name of their local librarian.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members should settle down and allow the member for Keira to be heard in silence.

Mr RYAN PARK: Approximately 12 months later men and women who work in New South Wales are being shown not one ounce of respect by this Government failing to allow the Opposition, the crossbench and community members to examine legislation that will tear out the heart of the New South Wales industrial system. That goes to the core of what makes Coalition Government members what they are, and Labor Opposition members what they are. This is a defining moment that differentiates you lot from us.

Mr Troy Grant: Point of order. I ask you to direct the member to make his comments through the Chair and not to incite comment. You have asked for silence in the Chamber.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! The point of order is upheld. I remind the member for Keira to direct all his comments through the Chair.

Mr RYAN PARK: Today, 19 June, will be remembered very clearly by members of the New South Wales community. Mums and dads who work in our community now can see very clearly the difference between the Coalition and Labor. There is a very big difference in numbers between Government members and Opposition members in this House, but this type of draconian legislation will result in many Government members being wiped out at the next State election. I cannot believe that in 2012 we will have a system whereby a front-line nurse who completes a double shift in a Sydney hospital and drives 90 kilometres back to the Illawarra will have not one ounce of workers compensation cover protection. I cannot believe that in 2012 we have a system whereby a member of my community who works at the Long Bay jail or the Goulburn jail—some of the most difficult and dangerous work environments in the country—will not be covered adequately if something goes wrong. It is okay for us in this House.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! This is my final warning to Government members, some of whom will spend time outside the Chamber if such a high level of conversation continues. I also remind 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13051

Opposition members, especially the member for Fairfield and the member for Bankstown, who have been conversing throughout the entire speech made by the member for Keira, that the member for Keira should be heard in silence.

Mr RYAN PARK: When I think about the mums and dads of the community I represent—some work in our most difficult working environments such as local mines, the jails at either Goulburn or Long Bay, or Sydney hospitals to which they commute 90 kilometres each day and sometimes in the very early hours of the morning or the very late hours at night—I cannot believe that the men and women of this House who are tasked with advancing the communities we represent would think for one moment that this legislation will help our communities. I cannot believe that I am a member of a parliament whose members sit in a comfortable environment in nice clothes and think they have a right to make deleterious decisions about the men and women in our communities who work in our jails, our hospitals, our mines, our manufacturing industries and our steelworks.

The member for Orange calls it government. I call it bad government. He can call it whatever he wants to, but he knows full well and deep down that this is bad legislation. It is peculiar that the Government pushes forward this type of legislation when we have seen a member of this House during this term of government who was hurt in the centre of this very Chamber. What happened to that member? Was he paid? Of course he was paid. Did his salary hit his account each month? Of course it did. Was that member worried where his next pay cheque was coming from? No, of course not. But that is okay: it is okay for members of this House to have a separate standard as long as it is higher than the standard that applies to men and women in our communities whom we are meant to be defending and for whose benefit we are meant to be advocating.

My major concern in relation to this bill is that I come from a city of commuters. A large proportion of the workforce travels up to 100 kilometres each and every day to be able to put food on the table. I cannot believe that I will have to tell those men and women in my community that the Government members for whom many of those men and women voted, which resulted in an 18 per cent swing in favour of the Coalition, introduced this legislation. This is the thanks they get from this Government for their votes in 2011. Many of the men and women in my community said in 2011 they were ready for a change and supported Coalition members. I cannot believe that the Government has dropped its most significant legislation into this House and started debating it without showing an ounce of respect to people who supported Coalition members at the last election.

The Government has not allowed the men and women in our communities, their representatives or the unions to examine the legislation and provide feedback. This is bad legislation that has been introduced by a bad government. I have noticed that every time this Government wants to introduce reforms it attacks the workers. There is a commonality of this Government's approach that is becoming very clear. The moment the Government confronts something difficult that requires change it goes straight for the jugular of the men and women who work damn hard in difficult environments to protect and serve many other people right across our community. As I walked out to last week's rally I looked across the thousands of people attending and wondered how many of them voted for the Government.

Probably most of them did, and the thanks they will get is simple: this Government will attack the fundamental protections in our democracy that ensure people will not be left destitute when they suffer a workplace injury. Unlike the Premier, I do not consider the workers compensation scheme to be some sort of welfare scheme. It is not. Are there people who have done wrong by it? Of course there are. Are there people in this place who have done wrong? Of course there are. But to attack the very system that provides protection to men and women in the community, whom members opposite represent, is shameful. Today the Liberal-Nationals conservative Government has reached another all-time low.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [8.29 p.m.]: I join the Leader of the Opposition, Labor members of the House and now crossbench members in opposing the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, and cognate bill.

Mr Troy Grant: Not all of the crossbench members.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: Well, one of them has spoken in opposition, and I think there will be two. I do not know about the third one. There is another member of the crossbench who has joined The Nationals.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! Government members will come to order. I call the member for Dubbo to order. 13052 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I commend the decision. By recruiting the member for Northern Tablelands they have increased the IQ of The Nationals collectively by 38 per cent. I will not read the overview of the bill in its entirety as it would take up half of my speech. The overview gives the impression that workers are getting something from the Government in this legislation.

Mr Richard Torbay: Only 38 per cent?

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I said collectively. The Government argues that it has a problem with the workers compensation scheme and like all Coalition governments, past and present, the solution to the problem has to be found in the workforce. Despite the comments of the Premier and the Treasurer, they are not taking the tough decisions; they are going for the easy targets, in this case injured workers in the public and private sectors. The Government's strategy is to highlight a few cases that appear to be over the top. Some people have abused the scheme and the Government has used those examples to take benefits away from the majority of injured workers. That is a typical Coalition stunt.

Workers compensation has a long history in this State. Workers compensation is basically a Labor principle and has been protected by the labour movement and its various wings down through the generations. I was pleased to hear the member for Liverpool acknowledge that between 1925 in 1927 the Lang Government expanded workers compensation with the creation of the Government Insurance Office because private insurance companies would not participate. Many claims have been made about the role of the previous Labor Government over its 16 years in office. Indeed, this evening the Premier stated that nothing had been done over those 16 years to rein in the costs of the scheme. Members who have repeated that claim have a short memory, are ignorant or are probably both.

I will give them a history lesson. The previous Government took action with respect to common law aspects of the scheme back in I think 2001 to ensure that workers compensation was sustainable. It was an interesting debate at the time. I was one of the members who came into this House under police guard because of a massive demonstration by people against the Labor Government who saw aspects of the bill affecting workers. That is how passionate Labor has been to defend this principle. The debate highlighted that it was not just workers benefits that were a cost to the scheme. I recall at the time seeing a pie chart from I think the workers compensation scheme or WorkCover—although it may not have been—outlining how money from the fund was allocated. Of this large fund, workers benefits were one part, common law legal fees were the largest slice, and medical expenses were a fairly large part, as were the various subheadings under the heading of administration. The Labor Government examined the common law aspect and the lawyers were very upset with the reforms we introduced.

The member for Maroubra made an interesting contribution to this debate. He referred to a submission from this Government's Treasury stating that the changes now being debated in this Parliament on a few hours notice should be costed and the impacts assessed before the bills were introduced. We are debating major changes to workers compensation legislation that were not costed by Treasury up until a couple of weeks ago. The Government has said it has taken tough decisions. Do these provisions further reduce the cost of administration and legal fees? None of us has had a chance to read the bills line by line because this substantial piece of legislation was tabled in the Parliament by the Premier at question time today. However, from my cursory look I have yet to see anything that will drive down administration costs or legal fees. I was interested in the contribution by the Minister for Family and Community Services and member for Goulburn.

Ms Tania Mihailuk: A bleeding heart.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: No, she raised some interesting points. I will not talk about housing rent and the other compassionate things she does. She made an interesting point about medical expenses paid out of the workers compensation scheme. I stand corrected but I think she said that the medical units are about $35 for Veteran Affairs payments and $73 for workers compensation. She referred to the fact that the workers compensation schedule fee is 150 per cent higher than the Australian Medical Association recommended schedule fee. This may be introduced by regulation, but where is the schedule fee that will bring workers compensation medical expenses in line with the Australian Medical Association, Veteran Affairs or, more appropriately, the Medicare schedule fee structure? These are also major costs on the workers compensation scheme.

I will monitor how the scheme is running in a year's time and I will be interested to see if the schedule fee paid to a doctor out of the workers compensation scheme is the same as the Medicare, Veteran Affairs or 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13053

Australian Medical Association schedule fee. It will be interesting to see one year down the track whether the medical expenses are being reined in to the same extent as are workers benefits. Recently I read a report of how lucrative workers compensation is to private insurance companies. I will be interested to see whether in 12 months time the profit margins of insurance companies that underwrite workers compensation have been reined in to the same extent that workers benefits have been reined in under this legislation. Members should not hold their breath.

I hope that will be the case. I looked at some aspects of the legislation when I was reading through the bills quickly this afternoon. Virtually every clause of the bills talks about cutting the time a person is paid a benefit, the amount of money a person receives and travel claims to and from work. It is the most outrageous legislation to remove benefits I have ever seen. It all seems targeted at workers benefits in the scheme. I would like to think that insurance companies' profits, doctors' schedule fees and legal contributions are reined in by a similar amount. However, I have not seen provisions in the bills relating to those aspects. We can live in hope and be optimistic that that will be in the regulation. But, as I said, don't hold your breath. This is an appalling piece of legislation and it should be rejected.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [8.39 p.m.]: I speak on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and its cognate bill, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. These instruments seek to put in place the so-called reforms to WorkCover that have been flagged by the O'Farrell Government. I oppose the bills. I am pleased to hear that the Premier believes in the validity of WorkCover and its relevance in the workplace. WorkCover provides insurance to the workers of New South Wales in the event that they are injured at work and left incapacitated for a period. It provides that they are given access to a pool of funds so that they are able to make ends meet. However, the difference between the Premier and the Opposition is that the Premier sees WorkCover as a liability and the members who sit with me in Opposition see WorkCover as a lifeline. It is a means by which injured workers are able to maintain their mortgage repayments or pay their weekly rent, put food on the table and pay the bills. For the mums and dads who are injured at work, it is a means by which they are able to continue to provide for their families while they undergo rehabilitation to go back to work.

However, unfortunately, the members on the other side have taken a numerical approach to WorkCover. Here lies the issue with the changes we are debating this evening. The changes—or reforms as the Government would like to call them—have been drafted to treat each WorkCover case as a unit, with set guidelines as to when the subject should be ready to go back to work, rather than as a person who is dependent on a livelihood and may or may not be supporting a family. The proposed amendments answer the question how best to serve the bottom line, rather than introduce provisions that would best support and aid workers and their families as they recover from injuries and get back to work. The legislation seeks to change the key measure upon which compensation is calculated. It changes the basis on which weekly WorkCover entitlements are calculated from current weekly wage rates at the time of injury to a calculation based on the worker's pre-injury average weekly earnings.

The legislation puts in place set time frames to determine the rate of compensation injured employees are entitled to. It introduces three entitlement periods with varying rates of entitlement. The first period covers the first 13 weeks that a worker receives WorkCover benefits. The average rate of benefit in this period is the lesser of either the maximum compensation amount or 95 per cent of their average weekly earnings. The second period covers payments from the fourteenth week to the 130th week. The rate of benefit received by the injured worker is set at the lesser of the maximum compensation amount or 80 per cent of their average weekly income. Further, if injured workers return to some employment of less than 15 hours per week they will be entitled to continue at the higher rate, that is, the rate for the first 13 weeks or 95 per cent of their average weekly earnings.

It is this aspect where the unfairness that is embodied in the changes to WorkCover being proposed by the O'Farrell Government is most evident. It penalises workers who are unable to re-enter the workforce irrespective of the factors that prohibit them from doing so. It automatically reduces the payment received by 5 per cent. It does not put in place any provisions that consider the household bills and expenditures that people have to meet, irrespective of the fact that they have been receiving WorkCover payments. Such mechanisms, which show the fiscal imperatives that undermine the current changes to WorkCover, have been introduced without any consideration of their effect on the livelihood of injured workers and their families. Further, after 130 weeks an employee's entitlement to WorkCover ceases.

Weekly repayments no longer will be made available, unless the worker has been assessed by an insurer as having no current work capacity and is likely to continue indefinitely to have no current work 13054 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

capacity. One needs to ask what measures are in place to ensure that the assessment of a person's capacity is fair and reasonable and take into account the person's employment history and capabilities. For instance, for a person who is employed in a highly specialised field and is injured at work, would repayments cease after 130 weeks because the person has not been fully rehabilitated to go back to work but is able to complete more menial tasks that will earn less money? Is it fair that a worker is no longer able to bring home the level of income or the maximum WorkCover weekly payment amount because of an injury at work? To me and the members on this side of the House the answer to that question is no. However, to Government members it would seem that such a proposition is completely justifiable.

The unfairness that is embodied in this legislation is also clearly evident in the artificial time frames and injury quotients that are being proposed. These proposed amendments limit the payment of an injured worker's expenses for medical, hospital and rehabilitation treatment and services rendered in the first 12 months after a claim for compensation is made or within 12 months after weekly payments have ceased, unless the worker has been assessed as having an injury of more than 30 per cent whole person impairment. Thirty per cent whole person impairment is a significantly high threshold. An example of the unfairness of such a threshold can be seen in the case study of Ashleigh. As a nurse Ashleigh injured her back when moving a deceased patient in 1998. Her back injury was diagnosed as a ruptured disc at L3-L4. Ashleigh took three months off work.

In 2004 Ashleigh's ruptured disc was re-exacerbated and she needed to take another period of leave. Since 1998 Ashleigh has struggled to remain working with chronic pain and has been on restricted duties and lift restrictions. Ashleigh's workplace injury means that she requires long-term pain medication and there is a chance that her ruptured disk could again be re-exacerbated. The injury Ashleigh suffered happened 14 years ago, yet Ashleigh still suffers significant pain and ongoing restrictions. Unless Ashleigh is assessed as 30 per cent whole person impairment she will cease receiving medical payments after the first year, despite ongoing medical needs. I could go on all night examining and analysing the effect of these proposed changes to workers compensation. I have not even touched upon the amendments that will put an end to cover for injuries inflicted whilst travelling to and from work. However, the two sections I have looked at clearly demonstrate my argument. The proposed amendments are unfair to the hardworking families of New South Wales and, as such, I oppose this legislation.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [8.48 p.m.]: Like my colleague the member for Lake Macquarie, I oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and cognate bill, the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012.

Mr Mark Coure: The member for Northern Tablelands will be doing my Chamber duty tomorrow.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: That is an excellent interjection. I acknowledge that the New South Wales workers compensation scheme needs to be reformed and the viability of the scheme is an issue that needs to be considered. However, as a member of this place into my fourteenth year, I cannot support a process where legislation that has such profound implications is introduced and carried on the same day. I say that because after listening to the debate—I have been listening carefully—I have heard many issues raised to which the answers are unknown. The unintended consequences when legislation is rushed through in this way are significant. We are dealing with people's lives. I acknowledge the need for reform and that we need to ensure the viability of the scheme. Why on earth as a member of Parliament did I have to struggle so hard to get a copy of the bills? I was not invited to the crossbench briefing this morning.

Mr Robert Furolo: There wasn't one.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I understand there were members who were spoken to about this particular legislation. I was able to extract a briefing note by other means. I do not object to legislation coming before the House and there being a proper debate, but surely members of Parliament should have the time to scrutinise it. We need the opportunity to consider the impacts on our people and our communities. I understand that some amendments will be proposed in the other place and that we will have the opportunity to reconsider the detail of this legislation, as amended by the other place, at another time. I will reserve my right to speak on the detail of the bills at that time. In my view it would be dangerous to support legislation that, I have to admit, I have not fully read because I simply have not had the opportunity to do so. I have never supported legislation that I have not been able to read in full and understand, and it is on that procedural basis that I oppose the legislation.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [8.51 p.m.]: I am pleased to join the debate this evening on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13055

Bill 2012. I say at the outset that as a Labor member of this House, I welcome reform. I look at our society and I recognise that things can and should be better. I look at the future of New South Wales and I want it to be stronger, more secure and more equitable for my children and those of future generations. And so I acknowledge that from time to time changes are required in our institutions, in our systems and in the laws that govern us. Things rarely improve, year by year or generation by generation, without conscious change. And I accept, as many do, that our system of protection for workers can and should be modified to address its sustainability and effectiveness.

But I do not believe, nor I suspect do many of those on the Government benches believe, that our protection for workers and our system of safeguards for injured employees will be better due to the bills before us. Workers compensation is a many-faceted system. There are the insurance providers, the underwriters, the claims managers, the medical specialists, the rehabilitation managers, the employers and of course the employees, just to name a few. They are all pieces of the workers compensation system jigsaw and the picture becomes clear when all the pieces are in their right place and working together as part of the whole. So I find it disappointing but not surprising that the O'Farrell Government has focused so particularly on one aspect of the puzzle to the exclusion of all others—the injured worker. When faced with improving the sustainability of this essential and critical safety net for families and workers the O'Farrell Government has gone straight for the most vulnerable piece—the injured workers.

Let us look at how these changes will affect them. A working mother in Oatley, for example, who is injured on her way home from work will lose. A bus driver living in Strathfield who is injured on his lunch break will lose. Payment for expenses for medical treatment, hospitalisation and rehabilitation is to be cut after 12 months regardless of whether the worker still requires treatment. There will be no payment for pain and suffering. What I noticed about the provisions of the bills is that the changes focus on cutting benefits to workers and not actually reforming the scheme. This is a reflection of the differing values of the Labor Opposition and the Liberal Government. Labor recognises the need for reform and works to find a fair and equitable method to meet the needs of industry and the community. The O'Farrell Government starts and finishes by cutting the protection of workers.

What could and should have been considered as part of any reforms of workers compensation? Let us look at the recent joint standing committee inquiry and the recently completed review of the scheme by PricewaterhouseCoopers. What did PricewaterhouseCoopers have to say about the scheme? What did they attribute the deficit in the scheme to? It was a drop in claims management experience of insurance agents and external influences on investment returns and discount rates. So there you go. It is not the fault of the injured workers. There is a solution that can include other elements of the jigsaw that does not rely solely on cutting injured workers' entitlements. What else did the review show? Premiums for employers have been cut by 33 per cent over the past five years. This has saved employers more than $7 billion in premiums since 2005.

The review also showed that a mere 8 per cent premium increase would cover the shortfall in 10 years. While I am not suggesting this is the only solution to the problem, cutting protection and payments to injured workers and their families should not be the only solution either. Government is defined by the choices we make. Allocation of limited resources in a society whose expectations for services and facilities never diminishes makes these choices difficult and complex. But our choices are how we are defined, and through our choices we define ourselves. Sadly, the O'Farrell Government has chosen to define itself as a mean, heartless Government prepared to hack the benefits of working families injured doing their job. For shame.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [8.56 p.m.]: The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 are all about ideology. They have all the morals, planning and execution of a Mafia hit. I say: look not at what those opposite say but at what they do. These changes were announced four months ago. There was a sham parliamentary inquiry with a pre-determined result—a result so pre-determined that the drafting instructions for the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 were given prior to the finish of the deliberations. This 100-page legislation was introduced at 2.40 p.m. today and will be rammed through all stages this evening, away from the media cycle. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation in this term of government. It is all being done in an unseemly rush and is designed specifically to limit the scrutiny these changes deserve. There was no briefing; there was no time; there is no justice.

Few of those opposite will even bother to speak on the bills. Thirty-two members spoke on a 52-word library bill in 2011 yet tonight those opposite are mute, laughing and jeering, bored and yawning and all giving the impression they would rather be somewhere else while the lives of many of the families that these bills will 13056 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

cover will be destroyed. The parliamentary report used to ram through these cuts was a complete sham. The majority of the submissions were ignored and the report did not reflect the majority of the submissions. No-one opposite made any mention of this plan to force disabled and injured workers into financial ruin prior to the last election. These bills are all about money. This is a Government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It will mean that injured workers will now be thrown permanently onto the scrapheap. Injured workers need thorough assessment and complex treatment, sometimes for years. The bills will not end the injuries or the need for treatment.

As one who spent many years working in emergency departments with the smell of blood and burnt skin I know how bad workplace injuries can be. These bills will simply mean these workers will no longer get the treatment they need. They are now condemned to a life of poverty and suffering by a bunch of rich, silent and well-fed politicians in this place. You cannot see pain and you cannot see mental distress while sitting in a green leather seat after a parliamentary dinner with wine. This is sausage factory legislation. The words "sausage factory" were used by the current Premier when in opposition, describing the inappropriately rapid passage of a bill in the previous Parliament. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Yet again this is a Government that says one thing in opposition and does the exact opposite when in government. These bills affect every citizen of New South Wales and every worker. Every member of Parliament already has spoken to constituents with workers compensation issues; they are one of the more common reasons constituents need to see their local member. The current workers compensation system still provides protection, but this will be removed through these legislative changes. Constituents who present to a local member of Parliament usually have chronic pain and ongoing disability. In its submission to the inquiry the Australian Medical Association NSW stated:

The Issues Paper makes the comment that the workers compensation is a "broken system that does not produce good outcomes for injured workers".

From a medical perspective, that is not a comment that AMA (NSW) entirely agrees with. The system provides injured workers with excellent medical care generally, and in that sense often the health outcomes for injured workers are very good. Their medical care is accessible very quickly, and is provided by leading medical practitioners in many areas.

I move now to some of the specific areas in the bills and start with journey claims. Speaking as the shadow Minister for Health, I can tell the House that nurses and other health workers are at particular risk in respect to journey claims. Deaths of nurses after night duty are common and regular. One of my colleagues, Dr Susan Faires, was killed in a car accident after completing a night shift at Wollongong. The claims management system needs to be reviewed. Claims agents are still profitable as payments to them have increased significantly. The Australian Medical Association submission further stated:

AMA (NSW) received hundreds of calls from members requiring assistance with the many levels of bureaucracy and requirements, particularly in relation to the conduct of the scheme agents in administering the scheme. This is of particular frustration to general practitioners, who are at the centre of the system ...

An example of this problem is the tendency of the scheme agents to issue "form letters" requiring supplementary information from GPs or specialists. The questions asked in these letters are clearly not specific to the patient's file, and can be identified as form letters issued without thought as to the specifics of the patient's file. Many of the questions seek information which has already been provided in the initial report. These requests for additional information are often answered very briefly by the doctor to reduce costs and time spent, however inevitably the doctor will be required to charge for the time spent responding to the request. Very often the information required is superfluous and is simply increasing the costs of the system for very little benefit.

The submission continued:

The experience of medical practitioners within the system is that reports are over requested by scheme agents and lawyers. This must be increasing the cost of the system.

Schedule 6 to the bill regarding heart attacks and strokes is clearly and simply unfair. It is well known in research by Sir Michael Marmot that the level of employment determines health and life expectancy. This bill will have the greatest effect on those who are most vulnerable. To prove a direct cause and effect of work stress in all its forms in both heart disease and strokes is virtually impossible. That is why the current protections are in place, but they will go under the proposed changes and families of workers who have suffered heart attacks and strokes at work will suffer. [Extension of time agreed to.]

In relation to the capping of medical treatment the Australian Medical Association NSW stated:

... placing a time limit on medical treatments available under the system is not beneficial to those who are genuinely injured and requiring ongoing medical treatment. Workers injured at work deserve excellent medical treatment for as long as there is genuine clinical need.

There are other means of reducing costs within the system which should be utilised before this reform is considered.

19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13057

For example, assessment of causation needs to be examined. These bills also will cause an increased burden on the New South Wales public health system. Injured workers need complex orthopaedic and neurosurgical investigative reporting and treatment, which often is not available in the public health system, and even less so in country areas. These workers often need expensive medications that need to be prescribed off-label and are not covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Workers also need counselling, ongoing physical therapy, and sometimes complex equipment such as nerve stimulators. Last week in Parliament House I met Emily, the young nurse mentioned in the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition. Emily sustained severe injuries during the resuscitation of a critically ill patient. I still teach resuscitation and I know that the injuries workers receive while applying resuscitation are quite common and often debilitating.

Emily still wants to work, but these legislative changes will mean that her dream of working as a nurse now is at significant risk. Those who spoke during question time seek to demonise injured workers. The reality is very different. All members know that, although they will continue to jeer and interject. However, their words say it much louder and their actions speak for them. The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill will have effect immediately. Page two of the bill states that some amendments in this bill will have effect from today. By the time workers awake tomorrow morning their future has been assured and not in a good way. This bill is a dirty deed. It has been rushed through without warning, but with prolonged preparation, in an unseemly haste in the dead of night, and it will affect every citizen and family in this State. These bills will be the lasting legacy of this Government.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [9.06 p.m.]: Of course, it is obvious that this side of the House has grave concerns about the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012 and I wholeheartedly join the Opposition in speaking against these bills. From my perspective and for those members of my community, it is important to acknowledge that what really is sad is that the community has not been allowed to have a full and proper debate about these bills. Those opposite would acknowledge that and I believe they have a conscience in that respect. This Government said that it would be transparent and open. The way these bills are being rushed through is in no way transparent. In fact, the hasty process demonstrates a great deal of lack of transparency by this Government.

Having said that, and as the member for Lakemba said, I am not against reform. I will wholeheartedly embrace reform when a case is made out. No case for reform has been made out in these bills. The objects of the bills have been well traversed, but what is happening regrettably paints a picture of a Government that since the March 2011 election has attacked the most vulnerable. Whether it be through these cognate bills, rent increases for public housing tenants, the NSW Spectacle Program, the imposition of preschool fees in public schools or the attack on foster carer allowances I simply ask: Why does the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government continue to attack those who are disadvantaged and those who are the most vulnerable? Why? These bills propose very short-sighted changes to a significant and important scheme that has protected workers and their families in this State.

No justification exists for these changes. One reason the Government gave for introducing these bills and justifying the changes is that other States do not have the same blowouts and do not have the same scheme as New South Wales. I acknowledge that if more time were given to the committee to examine this bill the Government would clearly see that that is not the case. Apples and oranges cannot be compared, and the Government has to delve deeply into the differences in each State. The evidence given at the parliamentary committee was otherwise from a number of witnesses, many of whom talked about sustainability being achieved in different ways—for example, through improved claims management. I note the dissenting opinion of the member for Maroubra, who served on the committee. He said:

Half the scheme deterioration is due to external economic factors. The Government received actuarial advice that it was possible to arrest deterioration and improve the claims experience of the scheme by improving claims management and WorkCover guidelines, and that a very high priority needs to be given to these issues. Neither the Issues Paper or the Committee recommendations deal with this.

There was no time to test the evidence and deal with it properly. The member for Maroubra stated at the inquiry that the share of the scheme's expenses and costs have increased from around 7 per cent to nearly 18 per cent over the past decade. However, it is important to note that over the same period total compensation benefits received by workers have declined by approximately 20 per cent in real terms. I also note that premiums for employees have been reduced by 33 per cent in the past five years. The Hon. Adam Searle, MLC, gave a dissenting opinion and stated:

All important stakeholders and the committee accept that there needs to be a thorough review of the scheme and the role played by the scheme agents and we believe that this should occur rather than embarking upon wholesale slashing of the benefits to injured workers.

13058 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

That is a fair point that was never considered by the Government before it embarked on this legislation and clearly laid the burden of this legislation at the feet of workers and their families. The member for Maroubra stated:

What is entirely missing in this area of discussion is any proper analysis regarding accident and injury rates, comparable wage and cost of living levels, and benefit levels between jurisdictions.

To further enhance the statement that there needs to be further analysis before this legislation is passed, the Hon. Adam Searle eloquently stated:

… a number of the assumptions used by the scheme actuaries in their deliberations were not able to be properly explored or tested given the way in which the evidence was taken and the extremely compressed timeframe.

It is very telling when he added:

Most of the useful evidence in this regard came through answers to questions on notice rather than through oral evidence.

[Extension of time agreed to.]

Earlier the Premier said that the focus of the Government is to get people back to work, but this legislation effectively means that the burden is not shared and the changes fall clearly on the injured workers. My key concern is: Where in the bill is the ability and support of the Government to encourage employers to ensure that people are returned to work? What support will be given to employers to ensure that they are able and have the capacity and ability to provide for workers to return to work? Many things needed to be considered through a proper analysis in the parliamentary inquiry, which was rushed. In the House we have missed the opportunity to consider the bill in a proper manner. It is shameful that this bill is being rushed through and will pass through the House. It is obvious that deals have been done in the Legislative Council, and it will pass that House.

I am concerned that this bill will have adverse impacts on those it says it seeks to protect. When Government members see the adverse impacts of this legislation, will they have the fortitude to say that they were wrong? Will they have that fortitude when it becomes clear that this bill, and what the Government seeks to do, is wrong? It is fair to say that what is most offensive in this bill is clearly the restriction on medical expenses. The shadow Minister for Health spoke about those things. It is offensive that journey claims have been abolished. The retrospective nature of this legislation is also offensive. What I think says it all is that this bill started from a position of the Government not trusting individuals and workers in this State. I must raise this matter because it smacks of the Government saying it does not trust people. One of the objects of the bill states:

(n) the current restriction on the award of legal costs against a worker in workers compensation proceedings before the Commission (which prevents a costs award except in cases of frivolous or vexatious proceedings) will be replaced by a requirement for costs in proceedings to follow the event,

That means that workers who have brought a genuine case to the relevant tribunal will be punished if that evidence is not accepted. Quite often in the court system that happens but it does not necessarily follow that costs should be awarded against that person who brings a genuine application. This bill seeks to replace the current order for costs, for costs to be followed in the event. Effectively that will mean that many people will have to pay the costs if their case, albeit genuine, is found not to meet the relevant test under this legislation. I believe that provision was inserted in the bill on the ideological premise that workers are not to be trusted. I have no doubt that various schemes are rorted, but generally speaking there has been no proper analysis in the inquiry to suggest that is the reason the Government claims that this scheme costs have blown out. This is an unfair and unjust piece of legislation, and it clearly should be rejected. I hope that in time Government members will see the error of their ways, will have the fortitude to admit they were wrong, and will seek to restore justice to workers and their families.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [9.18 p.m.]: I, like my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. Given that these bills were tabled at 2.30 p.m. today during question time there has been scant time for members to examine them in detail. While I do not apologise for any errors in my contribution, I do offer that explanation. I start with a contribution that has come through my office directly from a constituent. Troy has been working for 22 years since leaving school and has had three jobs. He states:

Jan 2010 got injured, faulty machine (overhead crane/no brakes) tore ACL, MCL clean in half & many tears to the cartilage & bulging discs @ L3, L4, L5. I've had 3 ops, 3 day surgeries, been to docs, specialist, pain specialist, pain management, neurosurgeons, constant physio, hydrotherapy, shrink, ...

19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13059

The treatment continues today. He goes on:

... I've seen everyone who has great experience with my conditions. I've been diagnosed with CRPS type 1 it's complicated, numb from the thighs down to the toes, hot & cold sensations meaning I can sit in a hot bath at 51 degrees & it feels warm/cold, constant pain, can't stand for longer than 15 mins, can't sit for longer than 15-20 mins, I'm honestly a shot duck ... I had to sell my SS ute, my Harley, my boat, mind you ... if they change these laws do they really know the full effect it will have on us fair dinkum ones, homeless, suicide maybe, family breakups, people will lose a lot..... I'll lose my house and everything I've worked for, for all them years & for what? A faulty machine that had been complained about many a time. Why aren't the companies being punished ... What's O'Farrell going to tell my kids when we are homeless cause believe me if it comes to that I'll drive all the way to his office ... with my wife & kids & clothes and I'll be camping on his driveway. I think it's very unAustralian & it will wreck Australia, Clayton, I get $1200 pfn [per fortnight] on workers comp & my house payment is $1,175 pfn ... I didn't work hard all my life to end up here. Like I said it needs to be heard ... about the typical Aussie family, not what the big knobs think how it is in the big world.

The people in my electorate work in dangerous industries. They frequently must travel long distances to work on roads that are in a terrible condition. The solution is not simply to put a line through "journeys" in workers compensation legislation. The bills before the House today have many discrepancies, one of which is the dollar amounts. I will start with that. The scheme is said to be in deficit by $4.1 billion. It is acknowledged by PricewaterhouseCoopers and previous speakers—although not by those in Government—that half the scheme's $4.1 billion deficit is due to external influences impacting investment returns achieved. In delivering the budget the Treasurer acknowledged there are external influences out of our control that affect investment return, but we have to deal with them.

I have listened in this Chamber to several members say that the scheme is losing $9 million per day. According to my calculations $9 million per day equates to $3.285 billion per year. In 2001 the scheme was said to be $2 billion in deficit. If we multiply $3.285 billion per year for 10 years, that equates to $32 billion. That would mean the scheme is $34 billion in deficit. Clearly it is not. I heard more recently that it has been $9 billion a day in deficit for the past six months. In a parliamentary e-brief the actuaries said the scheme was $4.1 billion in deficit as of December 2011. It is June 2012 and the scheme is still said to be $4.1 billion in deficit. If it was $4.1 billion in deficit at the end of December and it is still $4.1 billion in deficit, how much has it been losing? I am not sure where the numbers come from. I am tempted to suggest where they have been plucked from but it would unparliamentary. I welcome a response from the Treasurer in reply explaining the numbers to the House.

I turn to comments by the Deputy Premier. He summed-up the philosophy that underlies the bill. He referred to "for some pretty questionable complaints" and said "or we need a system that does not allow for rorts." The Deputy Premier is talking about people that he feels are better off on workers compensation than at work. I can tell the House that people are not better off on workers compensation and that very few of those receiving workers compensation payments will say they are. People are financially impacted when they are on workers compensation; they are not better off. A number of my constituents rely on overtime and high wages from the mines to make ends meet. The financial compensation offered by these bills would not cover their wages. The figure cited was $1,838 per week. That certainly is not equivalent to a mineworker's wage. It would not meet the debts that mineworkers have incurred through their lifestyles.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke earlier about scaling down payments from 95 per cent to 85 per cent of pay after 13 weeks. The money does not assist recovery. It is a problem from the outset and those who can get back to work will do so, happily and willingly. This is about something other than money. WorkCover and the workers compensation scheme are set up so that workers do not fall through the gaps and are cared and provided for. There are two core elements: The scheme needs to be sustainable and it must look after workers. The Government's approach is to pick only one of those elements. I do not stand here today saying that the Workers Compensation Scheme does not need to be amended. I am not saying that it does not have problems and faults. What I am saying is that the Government has deliberately taken a philosophical approach and supported and backed the employer at the expense of the employee. In essence, that is what undermines the Coalition.

Perhaps the Government can explain the figure of 30 per cent permanent impairment—30 per cent of what? Who determines what is 100 per cent, and consequently what is 30 per cent physical impairment? Who decides what 10 per cent is? Is 10 per cent physical impairment for somebody who was a professional footballer different from 10 per cent for somebody who is overweight and has 12 schooners at the pub every day? Who is going to decide that? Who knows what potential each of us has? Who decided on the figure of 30 per cent? Where did that figure come from? Why was the figure not 25 per cent, 35 per cent, 10 per cent, 5 per cent, 7 per cent, 2 per cent or 15 per cent? Where do the numbers come from? 13060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

I refer to average weekly earnings in relation to provisions for people on leave. The bill refers to average weekly earnings over a 78-week period prior to injury, but what about a casual schoolteacher who has just left university? What about a person who has been travelling and has returned to the workforce to do some casual work? I cannot see answers to these questions in the proposed legislation. I wonder about that. The proposed legislation refers to a deductible amount for a non-pecuniary interest that is being covered by the employer. How will that affect an employee who has a car as part of their package? If they are injured that car will be deducted from their average weekly earnings although the employer is probably going to want the car returned in order to reassign it to another employee. How is that going to work? These bills have not been on the table for very long and I do not seem to be able to get to the bottom of these questions in my reading of the bills. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I thank the Treasurer for his warm support of my extension of time. I note it was mentioned earlier— and is worth mentioning again—that insurance premiums have been discounted by 33 per cent over the past five years and they will increase by 28 per cent on 1 July. I invite the Treasurer to address that in his reply. Let us return to the Deputy Premier's position that workers compensation claims are rorts. The workers in my electorate go out of their way to avoid making workers compensation claims. They are concerned about them and the impact they will have on their future. They are not trying to rort the system; they are trying to avoid the system. For the Deputy Premier to suggest they are bludgers or leeches is extremely insulting and completely unacceptable. If improvements need to be made, why is the Government not reviewing claims agent and administrative costs?

A number of the submissions to the committee, including the submission from Slater and Gordon, identified areas that could be reformed and provided specific savings figures. The fact that those areas have not been addressed is part of the problem. My constituents have spoken to me about their workers compensation claims and their frustration with the medical and legal processes. They go to court and their case is sent back to the doctors and then back to court and back to the doctors again and again. These blokes want to be retrained and to get back to a work, they want their case finalised and they want to find alternative employment. However, they are caught in the hurdy-gurdy of medical and legal processes. We could improve those aspects of the workers compensation legislation—that is, the legal process, the medical process and the administrative process. We do not need to cut journey claims. Workers in my electorate acknowledge and accept responsibility for their travel to and from work.

If workers are required to work after 8.00 p.m. or 9.00 p.m. they are given a Cabcharge docket because their employer acknowledges that at that time public transport can be dangerous and that it is safer to travel home by taxi. That is reasonable, and employers should be responsible for ensuring that their employees get home safely. Some of the large mining companies have invested in improving the roads on which their employees travel or maintaining the aircraft used to ferry their fly-in, fly-out workforce. They want to ensure that the roads on which their employees drive and the aircraft in which they travel are top quality and maintained to the highest standards. What will happen if employers are no longer responsible for ensuring that their employees get to and from work safely? Some mineworkers might be asked to work a double shift and be given a Cabcharge docket to get home from work to ensure they arrive safely. There would not be one person in Cessnock and the surrounding area who does not know of someone who has died while travelling to or from work.

It would not be hard for me to name half a dozen people who have been seriously injured on the way to or from work, often as a result of fatigue. Mineworkers perform very physical work over 12-hour shifts and often they are required to travel for an hour and half to and from work. They are home and in bed for, at best, only seven or eight hours a night. They are the people who will be hurt by this legislation. Members opposite referred to a survey to which the Business Chamber responded that 12,500 jobs could be lost if the workers compensation legislation is not amended. If I asked schoolchildren whether they wanted more lollies and a longer recess they would probably say yes. Asking people with a vested interest what they would like will only get an answer that reflects that vested interest. I point out the hypocrisy of those opposite bleating about the potential loss of 12,500 jobs when they are sacking more than 15,000 public sector workers in this State.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Wollongong and the member for Kiama will come to order. This is my last warning.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: There is no doubt that work in city offices and work in mines and forests is completely different. Travel to work in Victoria is covered by no-fault claims under that State's green slip scheme. New South Wales has no such provision, so we should not compare apples with oranges. It is not practical. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13061

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [9.32 p.m.]: I oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. I will forgo the theatrics that members often indulge in during debates on important bills in this place. I will stick to the facts and to the reality of what goes on in people's lives, homes and workplaces as I address what I can only describe as offensive pieces of legislation. Members must understand that there is a vast gulf between those working in white-collar and blue-collar environments in Australia. I have worked in both. I started work in a blue-collar environment in which it was not unheard of for workers to be struck in the leg by a chainsaw, for a worker to have a tractor turn over on him and, on rare occasions, for someone to be killed. I subsequently moved to a white-collar environment that involved very different occupational health and safety issues. The injuries suffered by workers through no fault of their own are real and they have an impact on not only them but also on their loved ones and friends.

Ian, a constituent of mine, lives at home with his mother and his sister. His mother has a chronic condition and is unable to work and his sister has cerebral palsy and recently had a double mastectomy. A few years ago Ian had his neck broken in a workplace accident. He is hanging on as the sole breadwinner and the only person in that household capable of paying the mortgage. This legislation will strip that house from him and his mother and sister if he is injured. Cases like Ian's will come up again and again when this legislation is enacted. Ian, his mum with her chronic and complex condition that means she is unable to work and his sister, who has cerebral palsy and has had a double mastectomy, will be unable to hang on to their house.

When I first met Louis he was 45 years old and his first wife had died before they could have children. He subsequently met and married another woman when they were in the prime of their lives. Louis works with a Hiab, which is an apparatus attached to the side of a truck that is used to load and unload goods. Through no fault of his own, the Hiab stuck and the truck tipped over. Despite the fact that his leg and spine were crushed, Louis recovered. Although he looks as fit as a Mallee bull, Louis is impotent as a result of the injuries caused in that workplace accident. The legislation before the House will not compensate him or his wife, Fiona, for that injury.

I ask members to consider the 16-year-old and 17-year-old apprentices who while riding to work on their pushbikes—they cannot afford to buy a car because they earn about $6 or whatever the award rate is these days—on a dark winter morning hit a pool of diesel on the road. Over they go and they break their collarbones and they are off work for six weeks because their shoulders are knackered. This legislation will reduce their income to 95 per cent of their apprentice wage. It will surprise members opposite that an apprentice chef earns about $6 or $7 an hour. One would think that such low wages were a feature of a bygone era, but they are not. Apprentice chefs might burn their hands while preparing tucker and be unable to work for a number of weeks. Again, their first-year, second-year or third-year apprentice wage would be cut to 95 per cent, if they were lucky.

The Deputy Premier talked about the benefits of this legislation for those who run farms and agricultural operations because of the purported reduction in premiums. That is a subject to be discussed on another day. I urge the Deputy Premier to think about the impact on farmhands who are out digging postholes on a hot day and, through no fault of their own, keel over with a heart attack. They have done nothing wrong, have probably worked for the one family all their life; but under this legislation they are not covered. I know the draft report prepared by the committee at paragraphs 2.33 and 2.37 was explicit in saying that there had been inadequate time to consider the actuarial advice that should be forthcoming for consideration of an issue like this.

I do not quibble with the notion that there may need to be reform of the scheme. What I do quibble with is an ideological approach on this that screws ordinary Australians who are going about their day-to-day lives working in a place of employ simply to pay their rent, pay their mortgage and rear their children. On the 30 per cent cut-off for medical care, earlier this evening we heard that a person who has a lower leg amputation has a 28 per cent whole person impairment. A 38-year-old woman dental assistant who contracts severe chronic hand dermatitis, angioedema of the face, rhinitis and asthma, and all the rest of it, in a physical ailments assessment, will be assessed as having a 15 per cent impairment, with no consideration at all given to the impact of those conditions on her self-confidence, or any consideration for anything other than the effect on her skin.

We in this place stand charged with the enormous responsibility of making laws from which we believe the people of this State will benefit, whether it relates to financial sustainability or whatever it might be. What sticks in my craw is that, whilst the Government is taking a stick to the legitimate entitlements of people who are just going about their day-to-day work, members on that side and this side of the Chamber are all looked 13062 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

after. When a member of the other place was severely injured in a very serious car accident in the bush a couple of terms ago, no-one had any quibble at all about that fellow taking as much time off work as he needed to get better. No-one had any quibble with that at all.

When in October 2010 one of the people in this place was injured on the way to work, and subsequently attended this place in a wheelchair after a time in rehabilitation, no-one in this place—certainly no Coalition member—had any quibble at all about that. Only a couple of weeks ago a Government member—and I will not name him—when off site was bumped by a vehicle, and subsequently had serious pain which, had it been even slightly worse, would have seen him in hospital. That sort of injury is not covered under this legislation. Here is the clincher. When some months ago we were all in this place in question time and one of our own got up to ask a question and broke a leg, that person was entitled to the full wage received every week every other time. Under this legislation, his wage would have been capped at $1,800 a week; his wage would have been halved. That is the hypocrisy of these bills. This Government is saying that it is one thing for us and it is another thing for ordinary people—the men and women across our State who do nothing wrong other than work as pay-as-you-earn taxpayers each and every day.

Mr Mike Baird: It is the same scheme for us—the same scheme.

Mr NATHAN REES: It is not the same scheme. It is a nod and a wink. The Treasurer should not start me on this or I will go the whole hog. It is a nod and a wink. The Treasurer knows better than to say that. I do not believe that the unintended consequences of this legislation have been fully raised with the Opposition, fully canvassed in a Cabinet meeting, or fully canvassed in a backbench briefing. I know there are too many decent people on the government side of the Chamber to have allowed this to go through without comment. [Extension of time agreed to.]

But it has to be said that this is an assault on working families across New South Wales—the men and women who do nothing wrong other than get up to go to work at the time we are going to bed. These are the people who are trying to rear a family, trying to pay a mortgage, and trying to pay rent in financial circumstances that some of us can only begin to imagine. But we are applying one law to them and another law to all of us. There is a term for this—I will not use it in this Chamber—but this is seriously ordinary form. If Coalition members think, as per the comments of the Premier and Deputy Premier made earlier today, that the only people who use workers compensation are rorters, I task them to check this out.

There are any number of politicians, State and Federal, who have rorted entitlements available to them. Saying that all Coalition members do the same is exactly what members opposite are saying about legitimate claimants to workers compensation. Members opposite know in their hearts—I can see it in their eyes now— that this is rubbish legislation. It goes too far. And whilst there might be rorters out there, here the Government is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Clean up the actuarial impacts, clean up the process impacts; do not condemn families to an inability to pay their mortgages and an inability to pay their rents, the resultant stress on the marriage or relationship, the resultant breakup of the marriage and relationship, and put kids in penury simply because members have an ideological obsession and a learning that says that this scheme is characterised by rorters.

I can tell members that it is not characterised by rorters. I can tell members that I have dealt with hundreds of people who have been through the workers compensation mill. And I can tell members that the vast majority of them are decent, genuine people who do nothing wrong other than go to work and try to earn a bob, but they are being screwed by these bills. These bills are offensive. They impact on the fabric of our society. The bills mean that we are saying to people, "If you lob a workers compensation claim, you are not worthy of employment." It is wrong. It goes against the Australian way. I urge members to consider seriously arguing with their colleagues for amendment in the other place.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [9.46 p.m.]: This evening I speak in debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. I start by expressing my disappointment in the process. The House has heard from several speakers this evening that the process has been very poor. The bills were presented in the House a matter of hours ago. As members, we should be vigorously reviewing bills such as these—addressing matters in the legislation and having the opportunity to review the bills in detail. As the members for Lake Macquarie and the Northern Tablelands mentioned, members of Parliament and the community as a whole have the right to sufficient time to review the legislation. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13063

I take my role in this place seriously, and I believe my community and the people not only of my electorate but also all around New South Wales expect their members to review legislation in detail. We have not had that opportunity. Nor have we had the opportunity for a briefing. Many issues that I raise tonight may well have been satisfied by a crossbench briefing that I, or my staff on occasions, attend. Those briefings allow for significant discussion and inquiry, and an opportunity to address some of the issues that arise. I look at those issues seriously because there are consequences that need to be examined, and I am particularly interested in the numbers. Looking at the financial implications in this bill, if nothing else, has a lot to do with how well the financial management of the system has worked. So I wanted to put on record my disappointment.

When it comes to specific elements in the bills, their impact on workers is indeed alarming. Previously, whilst injured workers had an incapacity for work because of injury and that would have caused them a loss of income, they were entitled to make-up pay at their full weekly rate for 12 months, and then to a reduced statutory rate. The statutory maximum after the first 12 months is approximately $400 a week for a single worker and up to $950 for a worker with a dependant spouse and four children dependants. Now they will only have to be paid full make-up pay—or what is defined as full make-up pay—for 13 weeks, and a reduced rate thereafter. We know there will be cut-offs in weekly payments. We know, as we have heard tonight—I will not go through the detail—that journey claims by workers, with the exception of coalminers and police, will no longer be covered by workers compensation.

I think of my family members. For 30 years my father worked as a shift worker and left home at 3 o'clock in the morning to drive to work. There is increased risk in driving at that time of the morning, with a lot of fatigued drivers around. My father and my brother, who works 12-hour shifts and gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning to go to work, will not be covered under this scheme. In my view, that is an incredible reduction in the rights that working people currently enjoy and it should not be tolerated. Medical expenses will be slashed and lump sum payments reduced and so on. In order to review the bills in the short time I have had I wanted to address some facts taken from WorkCover's annual reports. From 1997 to 2010 major workplace injuries fell by 53 per cent—a positive thing. From 1997 to 2010 inflation increased by 44 per cent. From 1997 to 2010 management fees increased by 236 per cent.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! Members who wish to have private conversations should do so outside the Chamber. Hansard is having trouble hearing the member for Balmain.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: From 1997 to 2010 management fees increased by 236 per cent—that is five times the rate of inflation. From 1997 to 2010 benefits paid increased by 43 per cent—less than the rate of inflation. From 1997 to 2010 management fees per major injury increased by 620 per cent—fourteen times the rate of inflation. If private insurer management fees had, like benefits, grown only by the rate of inflation then $1.6 billion would have been saved. In the financial year 2010 management fees paid to private insurers accounted for 24 per cent of the value of benefits paid to injured workers compared with 10 per cent in the financial year 1997. What does that tell us? What it tells us is that there is something systemically wrong with the way this system is being worked, not because of shonky claims by people looking for workers compensation but in terms of fees, costs and charges associated with the process.

The WorkCover annual reports show that since 1996 private insurers have been paid more than $3.9 billion to manage workers compensation claims. Those fees have grown faster than inflation and the actual benefits paid to the injured. If one looks at management fees for major injuries some very important facts are revealed. The performance of bureaucrats and private insurers is more troubling when the reduction in injuries is factored in. Since 1997 serious workplace injuries have fallen by 53 per cent, from 60,109 in the 1997 financial year to 28,056 in the 2010 financial year. That is an amazing success story. On those figures, management fees per serious injury have grown 16 times faster than inflation, from $2,358 in 1997 to $17,001 in 2010. Those numbers are in the report.

In the 1996-97 financial year management fee per major injury was $2,000. In 1997-98 it was $2,300. They are reasonable figures to manage this process. In 1999-2000 the fee was $2,500. In 2000-01 it was $3,306. So it goes on until 2009-10, the last year we have figures for, when the management fee per major injury was $17,001. That says something to us about the blowout in costs: it shows a staggering rate of growth in the fees paid to private insurers to manage workers compensation claims. Over the same period injury rates have fallen and benefits paid to injured workers have barely kept up with inflation. They are the facts taken from WorkCover reports, yet no-one has taken on the private insurance industry. [Extension of time agreed to.]

On page 243 of the committee's report it states that the management of agents, including their remuneration, should be examined. I understand the committee will be looking to pursue those issues—and 13064 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

indeed it should. While the WorkCover scheme involves a publicly owned statutory fund, it pays private insurers to manage every claim. Payments are made to private insurers to manage claims and encourage those injured to return to work. This is a very important point, because the $3.9 billion paid to private insurers since 1996 has not led to any significant increase in injured workers returning to work. There has been almost no change in the rate at which injured workers have returned to work since 2003. That is taken from page 41 of the 2010-11 annual report of WorkCover and page 24 of the 2007-08 annual report, 2003 being the first year comparable figures were available as reported in the financial year 2008 report. There has not been an increase in injured workers returning to work and there has been $3.9 billion paid to private insurers.

There have been massive increases in fees. Management fees paid to private insurers have grown from 10 per cent of the benefits paid in the financial year 1997 to more than 24 per cent of benefits paid to injured workers in the financial year 2010. I encourage the staff who are here and the Minister's staff to address this matter. We have heard that the cost paid for workers compensation is commensurate with industry standards. These are the questions we would like to have answered, and they are questions that would have been answered at a crossbench briefing if the Government had allowed for a briefing. It is unfortunate that I have to take up the time of this House to ask those questions. WorkCover really does need to be addressed and to date no government has had the courage to tackle the problem in the workers compensation scheme, which in my view is the growth in bureaucracy and what looks like the padding of fees.

The member for Macquarie Fields referred to it in the Australian Medical Association's submission— constant requests for reports and details that have already been given and padding by insurance companies to generate fees to sustain themselves, not workers, which has led to an increase in cost of benefits paid in terms of the private insurers component from 10 per cent to 24 per cent. A quarter of the amount paid in benefits to injured workers being siphoned off to private insurers to manage claims is unreasonable. Almost 25 per cent going to manage claims is a staggering amount of money considering that in the 1997 financial year the figure was 10 per cent. I ask the Treasurer to address those questions. I would have hoped that before taking on injured workers the Government would address these matters. I understand that the member for Toongabbie raised some actuarial matters and the committee did not have the opportunity to examine some of those actuarial matters or the actuarial tables in detail, but one thing should concern all members, and that is retrospectivity.

One thing that frustrates me about the bills is the retrospectivity factor. From the moment that the bills pass people's rights will be taken away. I am concerned about the retrospectivity element and I ask the Treasurer to address it. I know that it was not recommended by the joint select committee. The big challenge—and I know it is late and I will not take much more of the House's time—is the skyrocketing fees paid to private insurers to manage claims. This Government needs to tackle that issue. The committee said it was an issue that needs to be addressed. The Government has been in power for 16 months or so. One would have thought this would be something it could take on. I know the bills will pass and the Government will say it will address the issue. I encourage the Treasurer to get stuck into these private insurers that are taking 25 per cent—have a go at that.

Mr Lee Evans: Why don't you?

Mr JAMIE PARKER: If you put me in that chair I would have a go at them. It is very important—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Balmain should not be tempted to respond.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I think it is very important because in the short time I have had to review the details it is something that became apparent to me. I conclude by saying that this is a major reduction in the rights of workers. It is clear that steps need to be taken in any matter where there is seen to be financial risk in the future, but the question we need to ask is: Is this the easy solution? Are the factors that the committee was not able to consider really the meat and potatoes of the issue? The issues that I have raised in relation to these payments need to be addressed by the Government. When we look back, for example, to 1996 or 1997 and four or five years after that when management fees per major injury were $2,000 or $3,000 and now they are $17,000 they seem to be quite excessive. I urge the Treasurer to act on this matter. As I said, I will not be supporting this legislation. I do not think this is the right place for this issue either from the perspective of the process or from the perspective of the content of the bills.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [9.59 p.m.]: I oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the cognate Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. I will deliberately leave the facts that have been put on the table so eloquently by other Opposition members and raise a few issues that I believe should also be placed on the table. First, I reiterate my past comments and ask the question: Why 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13065

do those on the other side of the House hate working families? Why is it that everything they do is an attack on those people who are struggling the most? Why is it that on a daily basis I come into this place and see the grins and smiling faces of members on the other side of the House while they are doing ordinary working families in?

As a former union official who represented contract cleaners, security guards, health workers and home care workers I am well aware of the difficulties faced by people who work unfriendly hours and in dangerous situations, such as security guards at the ports, late at night and in the early hours of the morning. Contract cleaners—many are mature-age women and from non-English-speaking backgrounds—often go out to work at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, particularly school cleaners. They have to get to work under their own steam and often, through no fault of their own, they are injured. The Government would have them and their families worse off, and Government members sit here grinning whilst they reduce their entitlements. That is not unlike other actions of the Government in the lousy few months it has been in government.

I would not mind so much if the Government had not completely misled the voting community on what they needed to fear from it. The Government said the community did not need to fear anything from the formation of an O'Farrell Coalition Government. We did not hear much from the Treasurer because, as usual, he talked a lot but did not give much away. I heard the contribution of the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Women—the great defender of jobs and working people and the great defender of the battlers. I am sure that those people who are currently in social housing would be very happy to hear the Minister talking about how she is all about creating jobs, protecting jobs and saving jobs whilst eating into any compensation people may receive in relation to the proposed carbon tax. For all of your rhetoric, all of your talk and all of your hot air about how terrible everything is, you just make everything worse. You should be ashamed.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to direct her comments through the Chair.

Ms NOREEN HAY: They should be ashamed of their attacks on individuals' compensation. They should be ashamed to stand here and talk about protecting jobs. They should be ashamed to talk about health costs not benefiting the Government but which certainly could be a benefit to companies making safer workplaces. If you want to reduce premiums you do it by reducing the incidence of accidents; you do not do it by making injured people and their families suffer because they have less money and perhaps lose their homes in order to look after your mates in the insurance business.

I heard an Independent member speak on these bills and talk about the old traditions of the perpetrators on one side and the defender of the victims on the other side in a tongue-in-cheek sort of statement. People would not think that if they had listened to the rhetoric prior to the election, but one only has to look at the Government's actions in misleading the community on privatisation, such as the port—and I am not quite sure why those changes happened. Port workers, certainly in Port Kembla, had better protections whilst the port was in public ownership. These workers compensation changes may add to their difficulties in their employment. There is no point in listing further examples of how negatively these kinds of decisions impact on those doing it the toughest. There is no point in continuing to give examples of Mary, Jane or Joe Bloggs, because the Government does not care. Government members smirk, they make snide remarks and they just do not care.

I heard the Premier's contribution tonight. Of course, we on this side of the House know that the Premier would not mislead anyone—unless you happen to work at the port, unless you happen to have been waiting for easy access lifts at Unanderra, unless you happen to be a public servant, unless you happen to be a nurse, unless you happen to be a union member, unless you happen to be a union official. I repeat: The answer to reducing premiums in workers compensation is to get your mates—the bosses, the big-end of town—to start improving safety in the workplace. Fewer workplace accidents would reduce premiums. Why not increase penalties on employers for unsafe demands on workers? People might think that deaths and injuries in the workplace are rare. In fact, they are quite common in the construction industry. If members want details about the numbers of deaths and injuries they should talk to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

Even though some members may not particularly like unions, unions have up-to-date records of the numbers of their members who are killed in the construction industry, and members whose families have to suffer because the worker is maimed or seriously injured and cannot bring a reasonable income into their household or families where two incomes were required. We know that many families today need two incomes to maintain a standard of living, to put their children through school and to pay their mortgage. Ask the Transport Workers Union about truck drivers' injuries. Ask them what just-in-time delivery demands do to drivers who are suffering driver fatigue. Ask them about the hours of pressure on drivers to get from one side of 13066 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

this country to the other. Ask truck drivers how they will cope when they have gone into debt for a fortune to purchase a truck in order to undertake deliveries and they are injured and can no longer maintain their incomes. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Ask United Voice how unsafe hours of work and unsafe work practices affect their membership. That union represents workers who do contract cleaning or who drive to a job where they are given reduced hours to do a massive amount of work under pressure that they might lose the contract if they do not do x amount of work in x amount of time. Ask them how the unsafe machinery that they are required to use affects their ability to work and causes injuries in the workplace. Ask them how, when they finish contract cleaning—many of them do not speak good English—and they have to get themselves home in the early hours of the morning and they have an accident their families will cope when they no longer have any kind of protection, or how those workers who are injured at work will cope when their incomes are reduced. At the same time those opposite profess to be looking after the interests of the ordinary people of New South Wales.

Almost daily Government members attempt to defend the indefensible. They continually attempt to reduce protections and compensation, thereby increasing stress and difficulties for the people of this State. I am the mother of four adult children, all of whom have partners. I have six grandchildren and a seventh one on the way. I am very concerned that in the future members of my family may require some protection in the workforce. I would be particularly concerned if they were employed in the public sector. I am also concerned about the way New South Wales is heading under this O'Farrell Government. I have been in this place long enough to remember the Greiner Government; it was not a pleasant experience. Who closed the Maldon-Dombarden line? Those opposite want to talk about building houses.

Mr Andrew Constance: I am building six in Wollongong.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I want to talk about everything that you have closed down. You closed Kiama Hospital—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will direct her comments through the Chair and not respond to interjections from Government members. Government members will cease inciting the member for Wollongong.

Ms NOREEN HAY: They closed Kiama Hospital. They left a big gaping hospital at Wollongong hospital and then took credit for a cancer research unit that the community had worked for. Members who have been around for some time well know what the people of New South Wales will experience under this Government. These attacks on the workers compensation scheme are merely the Government's attacks today. The people of this State should be worried about what is to come next. I am worried. Those on this side of the House are continually disappointed by many of the Government's decisions and its justification for them. Once again the Government is looking after the insurance companies and the big end of town; it is not doing what it promised voters in the lead-up to the election. The O'Farrell Government is not delivering on its promises. In the dissenting report of the Joint Standing Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme the member for Maroubra said in part:

The timeframe imposed upon the Committee was inadequate to do justice to the many submissions received and witnesses heard.

That explains everything. The Government did not consult with anyone about its decision to privatise the port of Port Kembla. As my colleague said earlier, the Government talked for days on end to the Library Amendment Bill 2011 but it gave us no opportunity to consider this legislation in detail. I further quote from the dissenting report of the member for Maroubra:

Despite the first reform principle in the Minister's Issue Paper being to "enhance New South Wales workplace safety by preventing and reducing incidents and fatalities", not one of the proposals put forward by the Government, or the Committee, touches on how workplaces can be made safer and the rate of incidents or injuries can be reduced.

As I said earlier, the Government has no interest in employers making workplaces safer; it wants to make the injured pay. You will make the lives of struggling families of New South Wales harder. You will not answer the question—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will direct her comments through the Chair. The member for Wollongong will not incite Government members.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Why does the Government hate the working families of New South Wales? Why have we seen unions outside Parliament House protesting about workers compensation? The people of Unanderra are crying out for easy access lifts. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13067

Mr Gareth Ward: You funded it in—

Ms NOREEN HAY: You took it for your own—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kiama will cease inciting the member for Wollongong. I advise the member for Wollongong to ignore the interjections from the member for Kiama.

Ms NOREEN HAY: The member for Kiama hates workers, but that is not what he says.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [10.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have contributed to debate on these bills. Members have expressed passion and concern in this debate. At the same time there has been a meeting of minds on many issues. All of us are interested in looking after injured workers. We all want to make New South Wales competitive and we all share an understanding that action is required. Many of the claims made by members during this debate must be corrected for the record. I apologise in advance for the time my response to those claims will take but we must get this very important legislation right. The Leader of the Opposition outlined a concern that has been consistently made in this debate. He asked why this legislation was urgent and had to be dealt with in this House tonight. It is urgent because the deficit has been unaddressed for a considerable time. Unless the Government acts now the premiums set on 1 July will need to be increased to the tune of 28 per cent.

Mr Michael Daley: That is an absolute lie.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I will get to the contribution of the member for Maroubra shortly.

The SPEAKER: Order! The debate was civilised until the member for Maroubra entered the Chamber. The member for Maroubra will cease interjecting.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The Leader of the Opposition talked about retrospectivity. He said that the five-year cap on weekly benefits will start to operate for existing claimants when the provisions commence. The cap is not retrospective. For example, if a claim has been going for three years the clock will start again when these provisions are enacted. That part of his contribution was misleading. I listened intently to his contribution because he said he had a solution how to fix the scheme, but he did not provide the solution. I also will reply to the contributions of those opposite who acknowledged that the scheme needs to be addressed. The member for Wollongong spoke about the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU]. Today a person by the name of Glen commented on the CFMEU website as follows:

We have known for years that WorkCover were in financial trouble. Why it has been left to now for action … is beyond most.

Many people are asking why the scheme was left until it reached the current position. Today the Government is responding by introducing measures that should have been introduced many years ago. The Leader of the Opposition finished his contribution by talking about the mafia, which I did not quite understand. He did not seem to support the additional benefits that will be provided to those who are seriously injured. The Government is more than happy to direct benefits to those who are seriously injured and need the most benefits. The shadow Treasurer and member for Maroubra claimed that a premium increase of 28 per cent was a lie, but that is exactly what the report said.

Mr Michael Daley: No, it does not.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The PricewaterhouseCoopers report said that premiums would have to rise by 28 per cent to bring the scheme back to a sustainable basis—

Mr Michael Daley: In five years.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: —within five years. Did the report not say that? That is exactly what it said.

Mr Michael Daley: What about 10 years?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will not take part in a discussion or an argument across the table. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member for Maroubra then talked about the fact that premiums have been decreasing. In fact—and this is not disputed by any member on the other side—premiums in New South Wales are 20 per cent to 60 per cent higher than they are in Victoria and Queensland. That is not a sustainable position. 13068 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Mr Michael Daley: Why?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Obviously you have never run a business.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra and the member for Bega will come to order. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: He also raised concerns about managing the scheme, as did some of the other speakers. The Government has addressed that. The cognate bill talks about the complete reworking of the management and oversight of this entity, which is extremely important. If members opposite looked at the facts they would see that the administration costs are less than in Victoria and Western Australia. Reducing administration costs is not the magic pudding, but we acknowledge that it needs to be done. In my second reading speech I said that we need to bring the insurance companies to account and hold them to account, and we will. We must and we will reduce those management and claims costs.

Mr Michael Daley: No, you won't.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Yes, we will. That is part of the mandate and that is what we said we would do. We also said that we needed to reduce the administrative costs of WorkCover and that is what we will do. In relation to the actuarial assessment, there has been some testing of the numbers that were provided as part of the parliamentary inquiry. The member for Maroubra spoke about impairment but seemed to confuse whole person impairment with work capacity. I point out that there are instances where a person can have a high degree of whole person impairment and still have work capacity. For instance, fractured ribs will be assessed as 21 per cent whole person impairment but once that person has recovered from that injury he or she will have work capacity. A neck and shoulder strain can be assessed at up to 28 per cent whole person impairment, but once a person has recovered from the injury he or she may be able to work. It is important to stress that under the amending bill those with between 20 to 30 per cent whole person impairment will not be subject to a five-year time cap; however, they will be subject to work capacity testing. If they are unable to get back to work they will be looked after for life.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the member for Maroubra to leave the Chamber if he continues to argue. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I wholeheartedly agree with part of the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She argued that this issue is about people and said that we must not lose sight of the people. We have not lost sight of the people. Everyone in this place came into Parliament to look after their community and the people in their electorates. In order to look after injured people we must have a scheme that can support them. That is the way to look after them. If the scheme is not sustainable, where is the safety net for all those people that the member spoke about? Every one of them would have nothing if the scheme were not sustainable. We must provide a scheme that supports them, not a scheme that is losing $9 million a day—as it has for the past six months, as noted by the member for Cessnock. It is getting worse, and if it continues we all know where it will end up. The benefits that will be achieved by this legislation have not been randomly selected. They have been aligned with the benefits provided in other States.

The benefits also have been aligned with the views of experts in the field to give the scheme a sustainable basis and direct the benefits to those who most need them, that is, the most severely injured. I note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the wages cap was an uncaring measure. I dispute that wholeheartedly. There seems to be a culture that one can pay out money that one does not have. Members on this side of the House operate under the simple premise that we can only pay with money we have. We can only pay what we can afford. The wages cap is currently greater than the consumer price index and we will not set ourselves on a track where we have to borrow to pay wages. That is the simple fiscal strategy the Government is pursuing and it is the strategy that has to be followed in this scheme. The scheme needs to be sustainable to be able to look after the workers.

The need to be a friend to the worker was a constant theme during the contribution of the member for Shellharbour. Again I refer to the point that the only way to be a friend to the worker is to have the capacity to pay and look after them. If we do not have that capacity we cannot look after them. We need to be genuine in our efforts to do so. The member for Marrickville spoke about the claims management issue. As I have already indicated, we understand this is an issue and we are looking at claims management. We are putting pressure on insurers to play their part in relation to this scheme. It is a collective package and a collective responsibility. The 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13069

members opposite cannot dispute that point, although they would like to. The member for Wallsend gave a passionate speech in which she said she joined the Australian Labor Party to support workers. Members opposite try to separate themselves ideologically, but we all came to Parliament with that motivation. But again I ask the question: How will the scheme support workers if it goes bust?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not argue with the Treasurer. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No-one on the other side came up with an answer to that question.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease arguing with the Treasurer. They have had their opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member for Murray-Darling spoke of his experience as a small business operator who paid premiums for 30 years. He was a well-respected employer who cared deeply about his employees. He would do anything to look after his employees and his staff looked up to him. For 30 years he battled to stay afloat and he spoke about the impact of this scheme on his business. His comments cannot be discounted. We need to look after injured workers, but we also need to understand the impact on businesses in dealing with the administrative part of this scheme. The member for Murray-Darling made clear the impact on employers. The contribution of the member for Liverpool was interesting.

Mr Michael Daley: That would be a first.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Maybe. The member for Liverpool made the point that the Government was only interested in employers. The bill is not directed just at injured workers. For the first time employers who do not provide suitable employment can be penalised or issued with improvement notices by the WorkCover Authority's return-to-work inspectors. That is an example of what we are doing. There are two parts to this legislation. We are trying to support employers and we are trying to support injured workers. Those are the two parts to this equation and we stand by them. The member also spoke about paragraph (n) in the overview of the bill. Concerns have been raised about frivolous claims. The Government wants to stop frivolous claims. That part of the system needs to be looked at. Frivolous claims need to be stopped and we are happy to address that issue.

Mrs Barbara Perry: But you are saying that every claim is frivolous, and that's wrong.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Auburn will cease arguing.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member for Auburn is not right. The member for Bankstown also made a contribution.

Mr Nathan Rees: That would have been riveting.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: It was. It was quite a fascinating contribution from the member for Bankstown. The member questioned the financials of the scheme, as did some other members in relation to the actuarial statements. I refer them to the words of Mark Lennon who confirmed the financials of the scheme.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The sooner members come to order the earlier we will get home.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member for Lake Macquarie said that the scheme needed to be brought into order and acknowledged the challenge in that regard. We understand the time pressures on Independents and we provide as much time as we can. Ultimately I understand the challenges faced by the member. The member for Keira spoke about the library bill and what people were wearing. I acknowledge that one of his family members has been injured and I understand the difficulties involved in those circumstances. He also spoke about the impact of this legislation on coalminers. For his benefit and for the benefit of the member for Cessnock, I point out that coalminers are in a separate scheme and are not impacted by this legislation. He also said that the scheme needed to be fixed, but he did not offer a solution to fix it.

The member for Mount Druitt spoke about a few issues. The response I give to the member is that the reform we are undertaking is not easy. We are not sitting here on the basis that this is easy, that this reform 13070 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

should be simple and done easily because it is not. It is done on the basis that we have been presented with a mess, a financially unsustainable scheme, and we must take action to deal with it. And that is what we have done. The member also spoke about regulatory power and giving WorkCover increased powers. WorkCover will have increased powers, and one example is that we will be controlling the medical and health service providers. To address the member's concern, the outcome of this legislation is that WorkCover will become one of the strongest regulators in the country.

The member for Fairfield talked about payment limits and caps. I reiterate that the payment limits and caps provided in the legislation are aligned with those in other States. That is the basis of the scheme. The member for Northern Tablelands broke ranks. He talked about the timing of the bills, and I understand the timing. The member for Lakemba welcomed reform, and the Government appreciates that. I reject the comments of the member for Macquarie Fields—I think all members of this House have a lot of time for him— that politicians sitting on green lounges do not understand the pain of those who have suffered work injuries. All members of this House have been impacted by a workplace injury or know of people who have been injured in a workplace environment. So I absolutely reject that claim by the member for Macquarie Fields.

As for the member for Auburn, I have already covered the WorkCover inspectors. As for the member for Cessnock, I have spoken about the separate scheme for miners. The member asked who will be undertaking the assessments to raise the integrity of the whole person impairment assessment process. Whole person impairment assessments are carried out by expert doctors; a panel of experts is put together to deal with that. I understand the passion in the contribution of the member for Toongabbie, and I empathise with all the examples he raised in the debate. He also made a couple of claims. Again, if the seriously injured are unable to work they will be looked after for life under this scheme. That is a fact. The member for Toongabbie gave the example of a person assessed with a 28 per cent impairment. If that person is unable to work there will be more benefits under this scheme than are available under the existing scheme. The member also referred to members of Parliament. I understand that this scheme will apply to us all. If there are conventions, I am sure we can look at that.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toongabbie will cease interjecting.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: In relation to apprentices, the legislation inserts a new schedule 3 into the Workers Compensation Act, which has special arrangements for apprentices and young workers. The legislation will ensure that an apprentice or young worker who was on a low wage at the time of the injury receives increases to benefits in line with the increases that person would have received if he or she were working as an apprentice or if he or she became eligible for adult wages. The protection for apprentices to which the member referred is part of the legislation. The member for Balmain gave a considered contribution about the detail of the legislation. As for the agents' remuneration to which he referred, my advice is that it is 17 per cent, not 25 per cent. I reiterate the claim that we will be pursuing the insurance companies with vigour in relation to this reform and keeping them to account. The Government agrees with the member's concerns about managing claims. We understand that that is part of it. The contribution by the member for Wollongong was my favourite. Ultimately, it comes down to what the member does when the heat is on: She simply gets personal. Forget about the ideology, I take offence at the words "we don't care" because—

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

Mr MIKE BAIRD: —all Government members care deeply about the implications of this scheme.

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

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Why is the Government acting now? It is acting because, as we have heard time and again, previous finance Ministers and the former Labor Government had no interest in the problems.

The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Toongabbie continues to interject, he will be out of the Chamber.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: They had no interest in the problems.

The SPEAKER: Order! I direct the member for Toongabbie to remove himself from the Chamber until the conclusion of the Treasurer's speech in reply. 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13071

[Pursuant to sessional order the member for Toongabbie left the Chamber at 10.35 p.m.]

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Faced with a $4 billion deficit, the Government has responded. We do not think businesses across the State should have to put up with premium increases of 28 per cent. We do not think that is sustainable. At the same time we need to have a scheme that looks after injured workers. Community consultation has been the key. The scheme was referred to a parliamentary committee, which was not controlled by the Government despite the claims of members opposite. The committee received more than 350 submissions, held three days of hearings, received actuarial advice and published a 280-page report. The committee considered these issues in detail and the Government has endorsed the committee's recommendations. The recommendations the Government does not endorse relate to provisions that are more generous than those recommended by the committee. The provisions are more generous for those who are severely injured and for those who have been in the system for more than 26 weeks. The revised scheme is more supportive of those who can return to work and those who cannot return to work.

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

Mr MIKE BAIRD: As the member for Cronulla said so eloquently—I thank both him and the member for Pittwater for their contribution to the committee process—these changes are not novel. They are not in any way draconian or drastic; rather, they are tried and tested. Victoria has applied the same definition of "pre-injury earnings" and provides the same right to medicals assessments. Queensland has a five-year cap on benefits and a cap on the dollar amount of benefits. That is similar to the approach in Western Australia, which also has a cap on the dollar amount claimed. We are not proposing to cap the amount actually claimed. I must clarify that there is no change to the arrangements for death benefits, as other speakers have claimed. If the Government does not act tonight, workers will be left with no scheme and no support. We will not stand by and let that happen. The O'Farrell Government is proud to bring forward reforms that will ensure that the scheme is sustainable. We cannot allow the existing scheme to run as it has been running. We have made a commitment to regular reviews. We will monitor the balance to protect injured workers and employers. I commend the bills to the House.

Question—That these bills be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Mr Anderson Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Mr Annesley Mr Gee Mr Provest Mr Aplin Mr George Mr Roberts Mr Ayres Ms Gibbons Mr Rohan Mr Baird Ms Goward Mr Rowell Mr Barilaro Mr Grant Mrs Sage Mr Bassett Mr Gulaptis Mr Sidoti Mr Baumann Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Hazzard Mr Souris Mr Bromhead Mr Holstein Mr Speakman Mr Brookes Mr Humphries Mr Spence Mr Casuscelli Mr Issa Mr Stokes Mr Conolly Mr Kean Mr Stoner Mr Constance Dr Lee Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Mr Notley-Smith Ms Upton Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Mr Ward Mrs Davies Mr O'Farrell Mr Webber Mr Doyle Mr Owen Mr R. C. Williams Mr Edwards Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Ms Parker Tellers, Mr Evans Mr Patterson Mr Maguire Mr Flowers Mr Perrottet Mr J. D. Williams 13072 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

Noes, 24

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [10.44 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question put.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

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

Noes, 24

Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Dr McDonald Mr Torbay Ms Burton Ms Mihailuk Ms Watson Mr Daley Ms Moore Mr Zangari Mr Furolo Mr Parker Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Hornery Mr Piper Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Rees Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Robertson Mr Park 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13073

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bills.

SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Bill received from the Legislative Council, introduced, read a first time and printed.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a future day.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2012

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 2012

STATE REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2012

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.

Pursuant to resolution the House proceeded with the Matter of Public Importance.

DRUG ACTION WEEK

Matter of Public Importance

Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [10.47 p.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise in this House the details of Drug Action Week. Drug Action Week 2012 runs from Sunday 17 June to Saturday 23 June. I am sure I speak for all members of the House in saying we are truly committed to educating people, particularly young people, about the harms associated with drug and alcohol misuse, to prevention and early intervention, and to helping people with addictions to return to meaningful lives in our communities right across New South Wales. But government action and services alone cannot meet the challenges posed by illicit drug use. That is why events such as Drug Action Week and groups such as community drug action teams are so important. It is only by working together across our communities that we can make real change and stop people from sliding into drug and alcohol abuse and misuse.

The theme for Drug Action Week 2012 is "Looking after YOUR Mind". Drug addiction and the abuse of alcohol not only tears apart individual lives and families but also places a huge burden on the health and hospital system, and may increase the risk of people developing serious mental illness. Drug Action Week is a chance for communities to learn more about drug and alcohol issues and to help drive a change to improve health outcomes for those among us who are living with mental health and drug and alcohol problems. Many people are unaware of the links between mental illness and drug and alcohol misuse, so this week provides a great opportunity for people to learn more about the range of risks posed by substance abuse. It is also an opportune time for people to learn more about a wide range of benefits that come from looking after their mental health. I encourage everybody to take the time this week to educate themselves, their communities and their families about the simple steps they can take to ensure good mental health.

New South Wales community drug action teams have planned more than 250 separate events across the State during Drug Action Week. Community drug action teams play an integral part in transforming our communities by raising awareness and tackling drug and alcohol-related issues. More than 80 teams are active in New South Wales, working tirelessly to address harm associated with drug and alcohol misuse in their communities. The Government is absolutely committed to prevention and early intervention. We have delivered on our election commitment to provide an additional $500,000 to Life Education to continue to teach schoolchildren an important preventative drug and alcohol message. Most members of the House would be aware of the excellent work done by Life Education. Few people would not be aware of happy Healthy Harold and the messages he sends to children about healthy and active lifestyles. This program has been supported by an enormous charitable effort and I commend all groups across our State for ensuring that Life Education continues to flourish. 13074 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

I remember attending Bomaderry Public School as a student, wandering up to the happy Healthy Harry van and hearing the message about drug and alcohol abuse and the importance of living a healthy lifestyle. I commend the work of groups like Rotary in my electorate that have made sure that kids have access to this program. In fact, in my electorate the Rotary club is working to raise funds, as is as Shoalhaven City Council, which donated a vehicle suitable to tow that van around the area to ensure that all schools have access and that students who may not ordinarily have access to the program can hear the important health message delivered by this wonderful organisation. Our commitment to prevention and early intervention includes a network of 80 community drug action teams and grants for local activities. Representatives are from local government agencies, non-government organisation service providers, business people and community members who identify and respond to local drug and alcohol issues.

More than $300,000 in community grants is provided annually to the teams to undertake prevention and education activities for local communities to reduce drug use. Alcohol and drug telephone information services provide information, education, crisis counselling and referral. There are three telephone services—the Alcohol and Drug Information Service [ADIS], the specialist advisory service and family drug support. We also partner with the Alcohol and Drug Information Service to provide the "Your-room" drug education and community engagement" website. This delivers up-to-date information and education on drugs and alcohol and is an online portal for community access to both the Alcohol and Drug Information Service and the community drug action team program. It is important that we use this opportunity to remind our communities and people we know about the effect of harmful drug use. I commend the Government for the action it has taken on cigarettes. Clamping down on one of the most commonly seen drugs around the place is a great achievement and I hope we continue to do that.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [10.52 p.m.]: Drug Action Week, which started on 17 June and will end on 23 June, is about raising awareness of the issues associated with drug and alcohol abuse. It also draws attention to the great work of many of our front-line workers in reducing the harm caused by drugs. The use of illicit drugs, as well as alcohol, continues to severely affect the health and lives of many of our young people. There is a strong association with mental health disorders, both as a self-treatment for mental distress but also the drugs themselves can cause significant damage to one's mental health. In recent years there has been an increase in amphetamine use, which has a continuing and serious effect on the function of our emergency departments. The rise in binge drinking in high-risk youth is a special cause for concern, and modern cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia sixfold. That is why appropriate messaging to our young people is vital and the best messages—those that change risk-taking behaviour—are those given by peers.

Prevention is difficult, as many young people who abuse drugs have pre-existing enduring psychosocial difficulties as the underlying cause for their drug use. These addictions are very hard to treat and prevention is paramount. Even if the addiction is treated successfully, the damage, for example hepatitis B and C from intravenous drug use, cirrhosis from alcohol use or ongoing psychosis due to cannabis, may mean that many years of healthy life are lost permanently. That is why Drug Action Week, launched on 13 June by the Federal member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, MP, is such a great initiative. Drug Action Week was begun 15 years ago by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia [ADCA]. It is responsible for increasing the awareness of drug-related issues to the wider public and at all levels of government. Ms Brodtmann stated:

This is absolutely necessary if we are to make progress to reduce the harms caused by alcohol and other drugs.

While the Government has committed significant resources to addressing issues of binge drinking among young people and the cost of the harm associated with the misuse of alcohol and other drugs, these are matters that affect entire communities.

The awareness activities registered this year will help to encourage debate, and continue the process of long-term change in alcohol and other drugs issues.

This awareness is created through a variety of events, such as interschool debates, trivia nights and parent education nights. There will be 850 registered events on the theme "Looking After YOUR Mind". Up to 300,000 will be involved. These programs are important because figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that 28 per cent of Australians over the age of 14 have engaged in the harmful consumption of alcohol, and for those between the ages of 16 and 24 alcohol-related harm is one of the leading causes of disease and injury burden, as anyone who has ever visited an emergency department on a Saturday night would know. Some 10 per cent of Australians over 14 years have used ecstasy, 3 per cent in the past 12 months and 35.4 per cent of Australians over the age of 14 have tried cannabis. All these figures come from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

In financial terms, in 1998 it was estimated that the cost of alcohol misuse was $7.5 billion and clearly the cost has risen significantly since that time. Last Saturday the Director General of Education and 19 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13075

Communities announced the closure of the drug education unit and the six positions included in that unit. I raise this in the House during Drug Action Week because this vital expertise, built up over many years, is irreplaceable. This is poor financial planning because the cost of treatment is always much greater than the cost of prevention. We know that early intervention is vital to prevent the cycle of drug abuse. A South Australian report called "Breaking the Drugs and Crime Cycle" found that the costs of preventive measures are much lower than the costs associated with treatment. Drug Action Week is a worthy initiative. I only wish that the Government was listening to the message. It is not too late. The Department of Education and Communities can, under ministerial direction, reinstate the drug education unit, which has done a great job over many years. It would continue to do a great job if allowed to do so by this short-sighted Government.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [10.59 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in debate on the matter of public importance this evening and to put on the parliamentary record that the Government is truly committed to educating people about the harms associated with drug and alcohol abuse, to prevention and early intervention and to helping people with addictions once again lead meaningful lives in our communities. But government action and services alone cannot meet the challenges posed by illicit drug use. That is why events such as Drug Action Week and groups such as community drug action teams are so important. It is only by working together across our communities that we can make real changes and stop people sliding into drug and alcohol abuse.

Drug addiction and the abuse of alcohol not only destroy individual lives and families but also place a huge burden on our health and hospital system and may increase the risk of people developing mental illness. Drug Action Week is a chance for communities to learn more about drug and alcohol issues and help drive the change to improve outcomes for those amongst us living with mental health and drug and alcohol problems. In contrast to what the member for Macquarie Fields said in concluding his contribution, the New South Wales Government is committed and dedicated to addressing this very real and growing concern—particularly binge drinking by young people. We have committed an extra $10 million over four years for drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and programs to help thousands more people end their addiction.

We are determined to help drug rehabilitation services provide more programs to people who want help to rid themselves of their addiction. This funding will provide help faster to thousands of people seeking treatment who have to be turned away because of a shortage of rehabilitation resources. It will ease the burden on hospital emergency departments and acute care beds, which have to cater for nearly 40,000 cases each year because there is nowhere else for people to get treatment. We have also committed funds to improve services for people with opioid dependence and for involuntary treatment to help dependent people withdraw from their drug or alcohol addiction.

I place on the record that Life Education Australia is located at Colyton in my electorate. I am proud and thrilled that it is in the electorate of Mulgoa, and I have met many times with Jai Basik, its chief executive officer, and the staff. I have toured the facility and I have watched the organisation deliver its life education training program to young people. My daughter, who has not even started school, has already participated in its education and life training programs. She knows who Healthy Harold is—and she is not yet five. Life Education does fantastic work, and I commend it and all others in our community who are fighting this problem.

Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [11.02 p.m.], in reply: Before I commence my reply, I also acknowledge the guests from Canada who are in the public gallery tonight. I thank the member for Macquarie Fields and the member for Mulgoa for their contributions to the debate. I listened intently to the contribution from the member for Macquarie Fields, who has quite a distinguished medical background and continues to practice. I thank him for his considered and valuable contribution on the effects of drug-related illnesses, particularly drinking, on people's mental conditions. I also thank the member for Mulgoa who, under pressure from her voice, gave an excellent address on this topic and also about Life Education Australia.

It does not matter where one comes from, the effect of drug and alcohol abuse seems to be ever present in all areas of community life—and it does not discriminate. It does not matter whether one comes from an incredibly wealthy background or from the other end of the economic spectrum; these problems manifest themselves across the community. It is important that we use opportunities like this week to highlight the work that people, particularly volunteers, are doing in this space. People are going out every day making sure we sell the message—particularly to younger people, the less advantaged, the homeless and to Aboriginal communities—that they can lead a much more valuable, dignified and better life.

I addressed the House previously about tobacco smoking. Tobacco is one of those drugs of choice that seems almost to be sanctioned by governments because of its effect on revenue. This Government is sending a 13076 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 19 June 2012

strong and powerful message about tobacco, which is excellent. The Government is seeking to ban tobacco smoking in outdoor areas—in sportsgrounds, in playgrounds and in all other places where it is inappropriate. The Greiner Government began the campaign many years ago when it banned smoking in public offices. That was a great start, and I am delighted that the health Minister is continuing the campaign. I hope we continue to send a strong message about the effects of tobacco, its related illnesses and the number of smoking-related deaths—there are around 5,200 deaths and 44,000 hospitalisations every year. That number is far too high and we must drive it down. This is a great week, and I commend all those who are involved with its activities. I commend the government officials, the volunteers and the community. We must promote Drug Action Week and ensure the community is fully apprised of it.

Discussion concluded.

The House adjourned, pursuant to resolution, at 11.05 p.m. until Wednesday 20 June 2012 at 10.00 a.m.

______