Legislative Assembly

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT ...... 1018 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 1028, 1052, 1062 CBD AND SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL PROJECT ...... 1056 COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ...... 1062 COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION ...... 1062 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ...... 1057, 1062 COST OF LIVING ...... 1053 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ...... 1058 ELECTRICITY NETWORK ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2015 1018, 1028, 1064 ELECTRICITY PRICES ...... 1060 ELECTRICITY RETAINED INTEREST CORPORATIONS BILL 2015 ...... 1018, 1028, 1064 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ...... 1054 LOBBYIST CHRIS HARTCHER ...... 1052 NEWCASTLE RAIL SERVICES ...... 1059 NSW OMBUDSMAN ...... 1055 OMBUDSMAN ...... 1054 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ...... 1009 PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER ...... 1062 PAYROLL TAX REBATE SCHEME (JOBS ACTION PLAN) AMENDMENT (EXTENSION) BILL 2015 ...... 1018 PETITIONS ...... 1063 QUESTION TIME ...... 1052 REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS ...... 1052 VISITORS ...... 1052

1009

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday 28 May 2015 ______

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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Establishment and Membership

Motion by Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS, by leave, agreed to:

That the following motions for the establishment of Parliamentary committees and the appointment of members be agreed to:

(1) Public Accounts Committee

That:

(1) In accordance with section 54 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the following members be appointed to serve on the Public Accounts Committee: Mr Stephen Bromhead, Mr Michael Daley, Mr Lee Evans, Mr Bruce Notley-Smith, Mr Greg Piper and Mr Mark Taylor.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(2) Committee on Children and Young People

That:

(1) In accordance with section 38 of the Advocate for Children and Young People Act 2014, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on Children and Young People: Ms Melanie Gibbons, Ms Jodie Harrison, Mr Michael Johnsen, and Mr Damien Tudehope.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(3) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve on the committee.

(3) Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission

That:

(1) In accordance with section 67 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission: Mr Adam Crouch, Mrs Melinda Pavey, Ms Eleni Petinos, and Ms Kate Washington.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(3) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve on the committee.

(4) Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption

That:

(1) In accordance with section 65 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption: Mr Ron Hoenig, Mr Kevin Humphries, Mr Adam Marshall, Ms Tania Mihailuk, Mr Chris Patterson, Ms Kathy Smith, Mr Mark Taylor, and Mr Damien Tudehope.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(3) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve on the committee.

1010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

(5) Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission

That:

(1) In accordance with section 31C of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission: Mr Lee Evans, Mr Paul Lynch, Dr Hugh McDermott, and Ms Eleni Petinos.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and territories of Australia.

(3) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve on the committee.

(6) Legislation Review Committee

That:

(1) In accordance with section 5 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Legislation Review Committee: Mr Lee Evans, Ms Melanie Gibbons, Mr Alister Henskens, Mr Michael Johnsen, and Mr David Mehan.

(2) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(3) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve on the committee.

(7) Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

That:

(1) A joint standing committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, be appointed.

(2) The committee inquire into and report upon such matters as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister that relate to:

(a) the following electoral laws:

(i) Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (other than Part 2);

(ii) Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981; and

(iii) those provisions of the Constitution Act 1902 that relate to the procedures for, and conduct of, elections for members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council (other than sections 27, 28 and 28A).

(b) the administration of and practices associated with the electoral laws described at (a).

(3) All matters that relate to (2) (a) and (b) above in respect of the 28 March 2015 State Election, shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. The committee shall report on the outcome of any such inquiry within 18 months of the date of this resolution being agreed to by both Houses.

(4) The committee consist of ten members, as follows:

(a) five members of the Legislative Assembly; and

(b) five members of the Legislative Council.

(5) Mr Adam Crouch, Mrs Melinda Pavey, Mr Jai Rowell, Mr Mark Taylor, and Ms Anna Watson be appointed to serve on such committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee shall constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

(7) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(8) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint five of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly upon the committee, and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.

28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1011

(8) Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety

That:

A joint standing committee (to be known as the Staysafe Committee) be appointed to inquire into and report on road safety in New South Wales with the following terms of reference:

(1) As an ongoing task, the committee is to—

(a) monitor, investigate and report on the road safety situation in New South Wales; and

(b) review and report on countermeasures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries, and the social and economic costs to the community arising from road accidents.

(2) The committee consist of five members of the Legislative Assembly and three members of the Legislative Council and that, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any four members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee shall meet as a joint committee at all times.

(3) Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Adam Crouch, Mr Nick Lalich, Mr Adam Marshall, and Ms Eleni Petinos be appointed to serve on such committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.

(4) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(5) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly upon the committee, and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.

(9) Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer-General

That:

(1) A joint standing committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer-General be appointed.

(2) The committee's functions be:

(a) to monitor and review the exercise of the Valuer-General's functions with respect to land valuations under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and the Land Tax Management Act 1956, and in particular:

(i) to monitor the methodologies employed for the purpose of conducting such valuations;

(ii) to monitor the arrangements under which valuation service contracts are negotiated and entered into; and

(iii) to monitor the standard of valuation services provided under such contracts.

(b) to report to both Houses of Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matter connected with the exercise of the Valuer-General's functions referred to in paragraph (a) to which, in the opinion of the committee, the attention of Parliament should be directed;

(c) to report to both Houses of Parliament any change that the committee considers desirable to the Valuer-General’s functions referred to in paragraph (a);

(d) to inquire into any question in connection with the committee's functions which is referred to it by both Houses of Parliament, and to report to both Houses on that question.

(3) The functions of the committee not extend to the investigation of any matter relating to or arising from a particular valuation of a specific parcel of land.

(4) The committee consist of five members as follows:

(a) three members of the Legislative Assembly of whom two must be Government members and one must be a non-Government member; and

(b) two members of the Legislative Council of whom one must be a Government member and one must be a non-Government member.

(5) Ms Melanie Gibbons, Mr Stephen Kamper, and Mr Geoff Provest be appointed to serve on the committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

1012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

(7) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(8) A message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council appoint two of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly on the committee, and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.

(10) Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A standing committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics (referred to as "the committee") be appointed to consider and report upon any matters relating to privilege which may be referred to it under standing order 92 or by resolution of the House.

(2) The committee is the designated committee for the purpose of exercising the functions in Part 7A Division 2 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, relating to Parliamentary ethical standards including the review of the code of conduct.

(3) The committee consist of six members being: Mr Kevin Anderson, Mr Glenn Brookes, Mr Kevin Conolly, Mr Mark Coure, Mr Ron Hoenig, and Mr Jai Rowell.

(4) Any three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

(5) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(6) The committee have power to confer with any similar committee appointed by the Legislative Council.

(11) Legislative Assembly Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A portfolio standing committee to be known as the Legislative Assembly Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development be appointed. The following portfolio responsibilities stand referred to the Committee—Premier; Western Sydney; Treasury; Industrial Relations; Finance, Services and Property; Trade; Tourism and Major Events; Sport; Innovation and Better Regulation; Industry; Resources and Energy; Regional Development; Primary Industries; Lands and Water; Skills; Small Business; Western NSW; and the Arts.

(2) The name and portfolio groupings of the committee may change to correspond with any changes made by the Government to the relevant portfolios.

Terms of reference

(3) The committee may examine, inquire into and report on the following matters concerning its portfolio areas:

(a) any matter referred to it by the House;

(b) any relevant policy, bill or subordinate legislation;

(d) any relevant portfolio issue.

(4) Legislative scrutiny—The committee, in this context, have a legislative scrutiny function that shall include evaluating the policy impact and consequences for each portfolio of any relevant bill introduced in Parliament, any existing legislation and any item of subordinate legislation.

(5) Financial matters—The examination of financial matters by the committee include the review of Government financial management, by considering the financial documents, expenditure, performance and effectiveness of any relevant Government department, agency, statutory body or state-owned corporation.

(6) Examination of annual and other reports—The committee may examine any matter in the annual report or other reports of any public body, including:

(a) the adequacy and accuracy of all financial and operational information;

(b) any matter arising from the annual report or other report concerning the efficient and effective achievement of the agency's objectives.

(7) Public works—The committee may consider any matter concerning public works relating to the portfolio area.

28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1013

Initiation of inquiries

(8) The committee may be referred an inquiry by resolution of the House or in writing from a Minister.

(9) Except in the case of bills, the committee also may initiate an inquiry on its own motion and report on any proposal, matter or thing relevant to its functions, including an annual report, other report or petition. The committee can only consider a bill on referral from the House, in accordance with standing order 323 (Legislation Committees).

(10) The committee take care not to duplicate an inquiry into any matters under examination by another portfolio or standing committee of the House, and any question arising in this connection may be referred to the House for determination.

Membership

(11) The committee consist of seven members, comprising:

(a) four Government members (one of whom shall be the Chair);

(b) two Opposition members; and

(12) That the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the committee: Mr Kevin Anderson, Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Clayton Barr, Ms Noreen Hay, Mr Alister Henskens, Mr Jai Rowell, and Ms Tamara Smith.

Sub-committees

(13) The committee have the power to appoint sub-committees, consisting of three members, and to refer to a sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. In this regard, the sub-committee may be responsible for conducting hearings, briefings, visits of inspections and other activities but cannot make decisions concerning the conduct of an inquiry, such as the selection of witnesses, and the committee's reports.

(14) A sub-committee have at least one member supporting the Government and one member not supporting the Government, and a quorum for a sub-committee shall be at least two members.

Visits of inspection

(15) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(12) Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A portfolio standing committee to be known as the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services be appointed. The following portfolio responsibilities stand referred to the Committee—Aboriginal Affairs; Ageing; Disability Services; Early Childhood Education; Education; Family and Community Services; Health; Medical Research; Mental Health; Multiculturalism; Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Social Housing; and Women.

(2) The name and portfolio groupings of the committee may change to correspond with any changes made by the Government to the relevant portfolios.

Terms of reference

(3) The committee may examine, inquire into and report on the following matters concerning its portfolio areas:

(a) any matter referred to it by the House;

(b) any relevant policy, bill or subordinate legislation;

(d) any relevant portfolio issue.

1014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

(6) Examination of annual and other reports—The committee may examine any matter in the annual report or other reports of any public body, including:

(a) the adequacy and accuracy of all financial and operational information;

(b) any matter arising from the annual report or other report concerning the efficient and effective achievement of the agency’s objectives.

(7) Public works—The committee may consider any matter concerning public works relating to the portfolio area.

Initiation of inquiries

(8) The committee may be referred an inquiry by resolution of the House or in writing from a Minister.

Membership

(11) The committee consist of seven members, comprising:

(a) four Government members (one of whom shall be the chair);

(b) two Opposition members; and

(12) That the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the committee: Mr Glenn Brookes, Ms Linda Burney, Mr Kevin Conolly, Mr Alex Greenwich, Mr David Harris, Mr Adam Marshall, and Mr Bruce Notley-Smith.

Sub-committees

(13) The committee have the power to appoint sub-committees, consisting of three members, and to refer to a subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. In this regard, the sub-committee may be responsible for conducting hearings, briefings, visits of inspections and other activities but cannot make decisions concerning the conduct of an inquiry, such as the selection of witnesses, and the committee's reports.

(14) A sub-committee have at least one member supporting the Government and one member not supporting the Government, and a quorum for a sub-committee shall be at least two members.

Visits of inspection

(15) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(13) Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A portfolio standing committee to be known as the Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning be appointed. The following portfolio responsibilities stand referred to the committee—Environment; Heritage; Local Government; Planning; the Hunter; Central Coast; North Coast; Illawarra and South Coast; Southern NSW.

(2) The name and portfolio groupings of the committee may change to correspond with any changes made by the Government to the relevant portfolios.

Terms of reference

(3) The committee may examine, inquire into and report on the following matters concerning its portfolio areas:

(a) any matter referred to it by the House;

(b) any relevant policy, bill or subordinate legislation;

(d) any relevant portfolio issue.

28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1015

(6) Examination of annual and other reports—The committee may examine any matter in the annual report or other reports of any public body, including:

(a) the adequacy and accuracy of all financial and operational information;

(b) any matter arising from the annual report or other report concerning the efficient and effective achievement of the agency's objectives.

(7) Public works—The committee may consider any matter concerning public works relating to the portfolio area.

Initiation of inquiries

(8) The committee may be referred an inquiry by resolution of the House or in writing from a Minister.

Membership

(11) The committee consist of five members, comprising:

(a) three Government members (one of whom shall be the Chair);

(b) one Opposition member; and

(12) That the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the committee: Mr Glenn Brookes, Mr Anoulack Chanthivong, Mr Mark Coure, Mr Jamie Parker, and Mr Geoff Provest.

Sub-committees

(14) A sub-committee have at least one member supporting the Government and one member not supporting the Government, and a quorum for a sub-committee shall be at least two members.

Visits of inspection

(15) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(14) Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A portfolio standing committee to be known as the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety be appointed. The following portfolio responsibilities stand referred to the committee—Attorney General; Corrections; Emergency Services; Justice; Police; Racing; and Veterans Affairs.

(2) The name and portfolio groupings of the committee may change to correspond with any changes made by the Government to the relevant portfolios.

1016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

Terms of reference

(3) The committee may examine, inquire into and report on the following matters concerning its portfolio areas:

(a) any matter referred to it by the House;

(b) any relevant policy, bill or subordinate legislation;

(d) any relevant portfolio issue.

(6) Examination of annual and other reports—The committee may examine any matter in the annual report or other reports of any public body, including:

(a) the adequacy and accuracy of all financial and operational information;

(b) any matter arising from the annual report or other report concerning the efficient and effective achievement of the agency's objectives.

(7) Public works—The committee may consider any matter concerning public works relating to the portfolio area.

Initiation of inquiries

(8) The committee may be referred an inquiry by resolution of the House or in writing from a Minister.

Membership

(11) The committee consist of five members, comprising:

(a) three Government members (one of whom shall be the Chair);

(b) one Opposition member; and

(12) That the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the committee: Mr Edmond Atalla, Ms Jenny Leong, Mr Geoffrey Provest, Mr Jai Rowell, and Mr Damien Tudehope.

Sub-committees

(14) A sub-committee have at least one member supporting the Government and one member not supporting the Government, and a quorum for a sub-committee shall be at least two members.

Visits of inspection

(15) The Committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1017

(15) Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure

That:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders:

(1) A portfolio standing committee to be known as the Legislative Assembly Committee on Transport and Infrastructure be appointed. The following portfolio responsibilities stand referred to the committee— Infrastructure; Transport; Roads; Maritime and Freight.

(2) The name and portfolio groupings of the committee may change to correspond with any changes made by the Government to the relevant portfolios.

Terms of reference

(3) The committee may examine, inquire into and report on the following matters concerning its portfolio areas:

(a) any matter referred to it by the House;

(b) any relevant policy, bill or subordinate legislation;

(d) any relevant portfolio issue.

(5) Financial matters—The examination of financial matters by the Committee include the review of Government financial management, by considering the financial documents, expenditure, performance and effectiveness of any relevant Government department, agency, statutory body or state-owned corporation.

(6) Examination of annual and other reports—The committee may examine any matter in the annual report or other reports of any public body, including:

(a) the adequacy and accuracy of all financial and operational information;

(b) any matter arising from the annual report or other report concerning the efficient and effective achievement of the agency's objectives.

(7) Public works—The committee may consider any matter concerning public works relating to the portfolio area.

Initiation of inquiries

(8) The committee may be referred an inquiry by resolution of the House or in writing from a Minister.

(9) Except in the case of bills, the committee also may initiate an inquiry on its own motion and report on any proposal, matter or thing relevant to its functions, including an annual report, other report or petition. The Committee can only consider a bill on referral from the House, in accordance with standing order 323 (Legislation Committees).

Membership

(11) The committee consist of five members, comprising:

(a) three Government members (one of whom shall be the Chair); and

(b) two Opposition members.

(12) That the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the committee: Mr Alister Henskens, Ms Jodi McKay, Mr Bruce Notley-Smith, Mr Ryan Park, and Mrs Melinda Pavey.

Sub-committees

(13) The committee have the power to appoint sub-committees, consisting of three members, and to refer to a sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider. In this regard, the sub-committee may be responsible for conducting hearings, briefings, visits of inspections and other activities but cannot make decisions concerning the conduct of an inquiry, such as the selection of witnesses, and the committee's reports.

(14) A sub-committee have at least one member supporting the Government and one member not supporting the Government, and a quorum for a sub-committee shall be at least two members.

1018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

Visits of inspection

(15) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

(16) Standing Orders and Procedure Committee

That:

(1) A Standing Orders and Procedure Committee be appointed to inquire into, and report on any matter relating to the standing orders or the procedures of the House and its committees.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, such committee consist of: The Speaker, Mr Mark Coure, Mr Michael Daley, Mr Andrew Fraser, Mr Thomas George, Ms Noreen Hay, Mr Chris Patterson, Mr Greg Piper, and Mr Anthony Roberts.

(3) The committee have leave to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.

PAYROLL TAX REBATE SCHEME (JOBS ACTION PLAN) AMENDMENT (EXTENSION) BILL 2015

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to Section 63 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the Auditor-General's Financial Audit Report, Volume 2, 2015, received on 28 may 2015.

Pursuant to resolution government business proceeded with.

ELECTRICITY NETWORK ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2015

ELECTRICITY RETAINED INTEREST CORPORATIONS BILL 2015

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May 2015.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [10.04 a.m.]: Today I make a brief contribution to debate on the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the cognate Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015. On a weekly basis I am contacted by constituents of Camden who want to know when they can expect to get the infrastructure that our State deserves. They want to know this Government's solution to getting on the front foot and delivering much-needed infrastructure. The people of New South Wales have worked out that after 16 years of the previous mob—with failed infrastructure projects, empty promises, taxpayer money poured down the drain and too many chances to get it right—they will not take any more shades of Labor's smoke and mirrors. They want a plan, and they want action. Our communities are sick of playing catch-up and being on the back foot when it comes to the delivery of infrastructure that they needed yesterday.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Blacktown will come to order. Every member will have an opportunity to speak on these bills, and any member who interjects will be called to order immediately.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I see it for myself and I hear my constituents' concerns about the state of our infrastructure. Words such as "ailing" and "outdated" come to mind after the long neglect by those opposite.

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

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: The Liberal-Nationals Government has the plan and it is taking action. The cognate bill will lease 49 per cent of the State's electricity network while ensuring that the other 51 per cent is retained by the Government. Those on the other side of the House will scaremonger and say that this Government is hiding something. So tell us what we are hiding. I do not know and the community does not know—because nothing is being hidden.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members who continue to interject will not be permitted to speak in debate on these bills. If they seek the call, the Chair will not recognise them. This is a debate with heightened emotions. Interjections will not be tolerated throughout the entirety of this debate. 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1019

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: The member for Campbelltown and the member for Macquarie Fields are in the Chamber, and I welcome them as new members. Today is a day when they can stand up for the people of Campbelltown and the people of Macquarie Fields by supporting these bills. I single out those two members because, as a direct result of these bills passing, $300 million will go into their hospital, our hospital and Macarthur's hospital. But as we said the week before the election, that will occur only if the Coalition is elected to office and is able to lease the poles and wires—and that is what we are doing. So I call on the members for Macquarie Fields and for Campbelltown to support these bills. If they do, they can return to their electorates proud that they have stood up for their areas. The former member for Campbelltown, Brian Doyle, will clearly support the new member for Campbelltown for doing so. The former member for Macquarie Fields, Dr Andrew McDonald, was an outstanding fellow and a good friend.

Mr Mark Coure: Bring back Andrew.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: Well, I would not say bring him back; I think Anoulack will do a good job—and today he has the chance to prove that. The poor former member for Macquarie Fields, who worked at the hospital, was embarrassed every day he came into this place. Why was he embarrassed? It is because he knew that his own party did not, and would not, support the hospital. I say to the new members who have been here a couple of weeks: Stand up and do the right thing and support these bills, because I look forward to working with you and seeing stage two of that hospital upgrade. The tabling of the bills should be enough proof for the members for Campbelltown and for Macquarie Fields that this Government is wasting no time at all in securing funds and taking the steps needed to provide better health care for the people of Macarthur. Members opposite are all talk and no action. They made promises before the election that they had no intention of honouring. They had no plans and offered no explanation about how they would fund those promises. These bills are the Government's funding plan to deliver on all its election promises.

The residents of Macarthur have supported the Baird Coalition Government. Prior to the 2011 election, the Coalition promised to provide $40 million for the upgrade of the Campbelltown Hospital. After the election it was determined that that would not be enough and then Premier Barry O'Farrell increased the allocation to $140 million. Only the week before the recent election we toured the newly upgraded facility. Stage one of the project delivered 90 inpatient beds, with capacity for another 30; a reconfigured and expanded emergency department; 11 new emergency places; and a refurbished and reconfigured maternity department, including two birthing rooms. The list goes on and on. It also delivered a couple of hundred parking spaces. This Government delivered stage one of the project, after the Labor Government spent 16 years not spending a brass razoo on the hospital. That was despite the efforts of the then member for Macquarie Fields, Dr Andrew McDonald. He was a good local member but he simply could not get traction with his colleagues on this issue.

As I said, these bills are about delivering projects in every one of the 93 electorates in this State, and that includes projects like the upgrade of Campbelltown Hospital. Every member here has the opportunity to support their electorate by supporting these bills. The Baird Coalition Government did not focus only on electorates such as Camden during the election campaign; it also focused on electorates such as Blacktown and electorates in the Hunter that are not held by Coalition members. It focused on electorates that need money. Members should not leave it to Coalition members to support these bills; we should all do the right thing by the people of New South Wales. The successful passage of these bills will unlock $20 billion, which will deliver roads that every member—

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. I remind members of my earlier ruling: I will not acknowledge members when they seek the call if they continue to interject.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: In years to come, every member opposite will spruik about great roads and rail networks. They will say that they were in Parliament when they were delivered. However, let history reflect that they stood in the way of those achievements and that it was only because of the determination of Government members that the lease of 49 per cent of the poles and wires went ahead. Of course, the 28 March election delivered a mandate to this Government to implement this proposal. Premier Mike Baird took this proposal to the people, and if they did not want it to be implemented members opposite would have won government. That did not happen. Given that, members opposite should get behind this legislation. This is their opportunity to do something great for this State. I encourage and implore members opposite to get on board. Let us make this a bipartisan issue. If members opposite did so, they would be able to say proudly that they have supported New South Wales.

Some new members might be thinking this is a bit of a giggle fest. I remind them that prior to 2011, when the Labor Party was in office, the New South Wales economy was ranked eighth in Australia. I do not 1020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

blame the new members; that was a reflection of their colleagues' performance. After four years of Coalition administration, this State's economy is the best in the country. This legislation will ensure that New South Wales remains the number one State in Australia. Members will come and go, but we have a responsibility to leave a legacy. As the Premier said, what happens today will make history. I invite members opposite to get on board; they should not stand in the way. We should all work together to ensure that New South Wales remains the great State that we all love. On that note, I commend the bills to the House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [10.13 a.m.]: I am sure that the speech of the member for Camden will go down in history as one to forget. I am disgusted by what is happening. In the middle of the election campaign the Government agreed to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's call for an inquiry—albeit a very short inquiry with narrow terms of reference. No consideration was given to extending the terms of reference to deal with the loss of dividends, the TCorp guarantee payments, the impact on service delivery or the impact on the State budget. The Government cut a deal with the Christian Democratic Party and invited submissions for one week, from 7 May to 14 May. The committee is due to finalise its report next week. What a joke! We are debating this legislation today—

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Oatley that this is not an argument.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: This legislation is being rammed through Parliament without due process and consideration. This is potentially the biggest transaction that this State will ever see and it clearly warrants due process. The inquiry has been a joke. When Mike Baird appeared before the committee he was bored within minutes. He has the attention span of a five-year-old. In fact, I think my five-year-old son has a greater attention span.

Mr Mark Coure: That's a bit harsh.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: It is not; it is the reality. He said himself that he was bored. He could not imagine any reason that he would be required to reappear to answer further questions. That is pure arrogance. Are you proud of that?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bankstown will address her comments through the Chair. She will return to the leave of the bills.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Mike Baird demonstrated how bored he was with the inquiry. He is already bored with the details of this transaction. The details of this legislation warrant examination and proper scrutiny. This is a major decision and the Government is treating the people of New South Wales with contempt.

The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no interjections from either side of the Chamber. Members who interject will not be acknowledged or permitted to speak in this debate.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: The inquiry is relevant. Sadly, this legislation will probably be passed before the committee finalises its report next week. That is a disgrace. The Government owes the people of New South Wales a proper process and scrutiny of what this legislation will deliver.

The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no arguments. The member for Oatley will be removed from the Chamber if he continues to interject.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: This legislation is spin. The Australian Energy Regulator determined that the price of electricity should drop based on the fact that providers are raising plenty of revenue. It determined that small businesses deserved an electricity price drop. What has the Government done? It now wants to appeal that decision. That is a disgrace. It is ironic that the Premier has allowed the Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy to answer questions. We are grateful to the Minister because he told the truth—that is, that the Government will lodge an appeal. Why? The Government talked about the Rural Fire Service, staff cuts and the potential for disasters.

The reality is that the appeal is all about fattening up the electricity assets for sale. We know that it is about getting the best price. It is not about lowering the price of electricity for the people of New South Wales. Time and again throughout the election campaign and in this place the Premier told the people of New South Wales that he is about lowering electricity prices. This is the Government's opportunity to back the Australian Energy Regulator's determination. What is this Government doing? It is doing the opposite. The member for Oatley might be proud of that, but I am sure that your constituents expect— 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1021

The SPEAKER: Order! I again direct the member for Bankstown to address her comments through the Chair and not to start an argument with the member for Oatley. I will deal with the arguments and interjections.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: The people of New South Wales expect this Government to agree to that determination and do not support any attempts by the networks, particularly Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy, to appeal that decision. We have always argued in this place that electricity prices should be lower, and I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we support the determination to lower prices. We want to see families who are already doing it tough because of the high cost of living spending less of their much-needed money on electricity bills. We also support small business. I remind members that the Government continues to claim that it supports small business in New South Wales. So why will it not take this opportunity to support the determination?

I expected the Premier and the Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy to welcome and accept the Australian Energy Regulator's determination, just as the Leader of the Opposition has done. It is ironic that—in the context of the time frame the Government has put in place for this sale—they will instead spend time appealing the process. We know that it is too late for TransGrid; it will be the first cab off the rank. But the appeal will affect the Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy networks. Meanwhile, sadly, the people of New South Wales are missing an opportunity to pay less for their electricity. The differences are significant: Small businesses could save more than $500 per annum and families could save up to $300 on their electricity bills. I am delighted to see one or two members of The Nationals creeping into the Chamber. I am sure that during the election campaign—and we have plenty of quotes from Piccoli, Fraser and others—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bankstown will refer to Ministers and members by their correct titles.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: The member for Coffs Harbour and other members of The Nationals made it clear to their constituents throughout the election campaign that they did not support any sale of electricity. Yet in this place they will show their usual contempt for regional and rural New South Wales, and support the bills. Clauses 18 and 19 of the principal bill make it clear that there is no protection for regional assets. That means regional jobs will be lost. What do The Nationals have to say about that? They are very quiet. I suspect that soon the member for Tamworth will back in this bill to the detriment of his constituents.

For many years The Nationals members have paraded their opposition to any form of electricity sale. They know, and I know, that this is a sale—100 per cent of TransGrid will be leased. The committee inquiry was denied the opportunity to ascertain how the assets will be returned to the State when that 99-year lease expires. The Premier did not want to discuss it; he had no interest. As he said, he was bored with the process and bored with the detail. But the people of New South Wales and Labor members are not bored with the detail. We want details and we want information. It is sad that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has indicated he will roll over on this issue—so God knows what deals were made to assure his support.

Mr Stuart Ayres: God does know.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: That is right; God does know. It will be interesting to know what deals were done to secure his support. It reminds everybody in this place and the people of New South Wales of the contempt this Government has displayed for the process by not finalising the inquiry or widening its terms of reference to consider the very real impact that the loss of $1.7 billion annually will have on our State budget and service delivery. We know that it will have an impact—and I think probably everybody in this place knows that. In reality, only a few Liberals are very keen to have this sale. [Time expired.]

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [10.23 a.m.]: I support the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order. I remind members of my earlier warning regarding interjections.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: The bills authorise the Government to undertake a long-term lease of 49 per cent of the State's electricity networks, including private investment and management in TransGrid, Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy. Essential Energy will remain 100 per cent in government hands, despite the scaremongering from the Electrical Trades Union [ETU] in the Tamworth electorate in the lead-up to the campaign. The Tamworth electorate stands to benefit by garnishing a share of the $6 billion that will be set 1022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

aside for regional New South Wales—for our road and rail networks, schools, hospital and police stations. I am particularly interested in the protection measures that will be put in place in relation to the existing workforce.

TransGrid in Tamworth has a substantial distribution substation, where some 65 workers are employed. Throughout the election campaign my message was clear: I will do everything I can to ensure that those workers are looked after regardless of how the landscape looks as the lease of TransGrid progresses. We need to know how this will affect local workers and what the terms and conditions will be. I was pleased to see some of the protection measures that will be put in place. Employees transferring to the new operator will do so on current terms and conditions, as outlined in their enterprise bargaining agreements.

We are in a good position for establishing the framework—because at present no-one knows how it will look. This is a great opportunity to work with the Government, to set the framework, to examine the terms and conditions, and to consider how we can look after those workers, particularly in the Tamworth electorate, who are concerned about their jobs. ETU officials travelled to Tamworth during the election campaign and staged a rally early one morning outside TransGrid's substation, where they were joined by the former Independent member for Tamworth, whom they publicly announced they would back in the election campaign. They then passed a hat around and asked TransGrid workers to contribute to funding the election campaign of the former member for Tamworth.

Mr Ray Williams: Now the truth comes out.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: Correct.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have warned members about interjecting during this debate. There will be no interjections. Members who interject will be placed on calls to order and removed from the Chamber. The member for Tamworth has the call.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: The ETU ran the mother of all scare campaigns about what was going to occur. We said all along that it was a lease and that I would do my very best to look after and protect the TransGrid workers and ensure that they got the very best deal. But ETU members stood on street corners, holding up banners and corflutes—they did their best. They even infiltrated Essential Energy, which is not part of this program. I feel for those Essential Energy workers who were sucked into the scare campaign run by the ETU. The ETU instructed their members, those who work so hard, to contribute to the former member's campaign as an Independent in the upcoming election. I have a number of friends working for TransGrid and I talked with them frequently in the lead-up to the meeting. I told them I would look after their welfare regardless of what happened at the meeting. I told them I would work hard to set the framework and terms and conditions to get the best deal possible. The ETU banned them from talking to me.

Mr Ray Williams: That's not democracy.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: That is not democracy; those were bullying tactics of the worst kind.

Mr John Sidoti: Did it work?

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: It did not work; people are much smarter than that.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I call Government members to order. There will be no interjections during this debate.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: Post the election TransGrid has reopened communication lines, and I welcome that. I will not hold it against those who rallied with the ETU to blindside and bully those who are genuinely concerned. They have my support and I will continue to work for them. Looking after maintenance and safety standards is a concern but the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will be empowered to ensure compliance with all licence conditions, including safety and reliability standards. Measures will be put in place and I look forward to sitting down with the Premier to make sure we do all we can in setting up the framework and terms and conditions.

I will look after workers in the Tamworth electorate. They are important to me and to our community. We want to make sure we get the best deal possible, and getting $6 billion from the lease for our roads, rail, 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1023

schools, hospitals and police stations is a good deal. Regional New South Wales needs infrastructure—we need road upgrades, new hospitals, new police stations and new schools. I will push to ensure that investment continues to come to the Tamworth electorate. Essential Energy will remain 100 per cent in government hands. We have the opportunity to work with the Government to set the framework. The TransGrid workers have my support and they know I will continue to work for them. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [10.32 a.m.]: I listened to the contribution of the member for Tamworth to the debate on the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and his presentation underlines why this legislation is a dud. He said the Government does not know what the model will be, what the proceeds will be used for or what the promises were. The member said he would fight for TransGrid workers and would sit down with the Premier to set up the framework and terms and conditions. I am sure the Premier will not be chasing the member for Tamworth for his advice as he said he did not know the detail.

It seems that the rules set down for this debate reflect its sensitivity. In my time in this Parliament I have not encountered a ruling by the Speaker that there cannot be any interjections from either side of the Chamber during debate on legislation. That is new to me and I am intrigued by it. It is very clear that the notion of calling this a lease is a ruse. The Parliamentary Budget Office made it clear during the election campaign that a 99-year lease equals one thing: A 99-year lease, according to people independent of the Parliament, equals a sale. That is what we will get from this legislation. Contributions to this debate from this side of the Chamber have referred to the arrogance with which this is being handled. There is a statement in the media today from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—

Mr Mark Coure: I bet you didn't say that when selling Lotto.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order!

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The statement is about the Government's introduction of this legislation without waiting for the report of the committee inquiry Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile demanded. It seems deals have been done that will no doubt come out over the course of this Parliament. The Premier throughout the election campaign and in this House has spoken about the lease of poles and wires raising $20 billion and that the money raised will fix congestion on Sydney's roads. What a lot of rot. The notion that magic will happen from the sale of—

Mr Mark Coure: Don't be too harsh.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I direct the member for Oatley to leave the Chamber for a period 10 minutes.

[Pursuant to sessional order the member for Oatley left the Chamber for a period of 10 minutes.]

Mr John Robertson: Hear, hear!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Blacktown will cease interjecting.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The member for Blacktown has a lot to say on this legislation. If those opposite have bought the idea that this sale will fix congestion in Sydney and are using that as a reason to support this legislation then they are naïve and probably do not have their hearts in this debate. There is evidence that members of The Nationals do not have their hearts in this debate, as revealed in some statements they made on the privatisation. These statements show there are great ructions within The Nationals and great ructions between The Nationals and the Liberal Party about this sale. The Nationals and the Liberals are coalition partners, but on 6 June 2014 the member for Murray-Darling, a member of The Nationals, said:

I know in my electorate people have made it very clear they don't want their local electricity poles and wires to be sold, and I agree with them.

On 9 June 2014, the member for Monaro, also a member of The Nationals, said he had concerns about:

… potential price rises following privatisation and also its effect on service reliability in regional communities. What we are now seeing in Victoria are issues around price, issues around jobs and service delivery.

1024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

That says to me that the member's heart is not in this sale. On 10 June 2014 the member for Clarence said::

There's no good in selling the poles and wires as far as I'm concerned. We will lose jobs through the privatisation process. Of that I am sure.

On 6 June 2014 the member for Coffs Harbour, another member of The Nationals, said:

The National party conference last year voted unanimously not to sell. My attitude is do not sell. I don't care what they put on the table, or what they promise—

—that is, his Coalition partner, the Liberals—

—I don't believe the numbers stack up. I don't believe the returns that are being promised can be made, and therefore why sell something at this stage.

on 6 June 2014 the Deputy Premier, member for Dubbo and Leader of The Nationals, said:

We are currently opposed is The Nationals position and as I've said when asked this question … I'm not going to vote for anything that is a bad deal, I'm not going to vote for anything that is a bad deal for my electorate.

Their tune has changed. Just six months ago The Nationals said they rejected this sale and that they disagreed with it. Who is the junior partner in the Coalition? It is absolutely clear that The Nationals have had no say in this and held no sway with the Premier and the Liberals, their Coalition partners, on this issue. That bodes badly for that relationship in the course of time. I have talked about the nonsense that somehow this sale will fix congestion on the roads in Sydney. The member for Tamworth and members for other rural electorates should ask themselves this: If the hook for this sale is fixing congestion in Sydney, what about the so-called fair share for rural electorates and regional New South Wales?

If members representing regional New South Wales have not got the intelligence to understand that argument, they should explain that to their electorates. If this sale goes through and the revenue starts flowing we will be keeping a very close eye on how much is being delivered to regional New South Wales. All the members in this Chamber who represent regional electorates should keep an eye on it because I do not see how building a school in Tamworth is going to meet the rhetoric of this Government that this sale is going to be so good for people in New South Wales because it is going to fix the congestion.

Mr Kevin Anderson: What have you got against education? What have you got against schools?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Tamworth will come to order.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: You should put him out, Mr Deputy-Speaker. What a rude individual. Members from regional areas should keep an eye on how good the sale is going to be for their electorates. Much has been said in this House in the last couple of days about Labor's scare campaign. Labor's scare campaign will play itself out in relation to regional job losses and whether the Government gets the $20 billion it says it will achieve from this sale. The Premier cannot prove that; there is no guarantee the Government will achieve that price. The Government believes it has some sort of mandate following the election, even though Labor picked up something like 15 seats off the back of this proposed sale. Labor tore back dramatically all of the margins of Coalition members. Many Coalition members are very, very lucky to be here considering the margins in places like Goulburn, Dubbo and Lismore, Mr Deputy-Speaker.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): It was not the Labor Party.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I think The Greens have the same position on electricity. For those reasons, Labor's position will not change on this piece of legislation. We know what the path of this legislation will be through this House. The Opposition will stand firm and strong despite the fact that the legislation will go through this House, but nobody should think that that is the end of the story with this legislation. It will play itself out over the next four, eight and 12 years in New South Wales and we will see how that goes.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Before I call the next speaker, I remind the member for Canterbury of the Speaker's ruling on interjections during this very important debate. Members have the right to be heard in silence. I thought the member for Canterbury would have appreciated that and not regarded it as a tightening up of the conditions for debate in this House. 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1025

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Ku-ring-gai) [10.42 a.m.]: As we have already heard, 200 years ago, back in 1815, one of the great Premiers of our State and the father of our nation and Federation, Sir Henry Parkes, was born. Sir Henry Parkes was Premier of our State on five separate occasions. He believed in free trade and free enterprise and had the vision to recognise that as one nation with the other colonies the interests of this State and our people could be best advanced into the future. It is a fitting birthday present for such a forward-thinking man like Sir Henry Parkes that the Government asks this House to pass the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015 this week.

These pieces of cognate legislation confirm this Government as a forward-looking, innovative, progressive government, which is providing solutions for the future challenges of this State. Today is a sweet day in the history of the Liberal Party. Through leadership and honesty with the electorate, only a Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government could introduce legislation of this kind. The Premier and the Deputy Premier will rightly be placed in the pantheon of their great parties for having conceived of and acted upon this great initiative. The legislation is, in its transformative effect, not unlike the goods and services tax [GST] legislation introduced in 2000 by the Federal Coalition. There are other similarities between the two pieces of legislation. Paul Keating supported a GST when he was Federal Treasurer in 1987, but he ran a cynical, intentionally dishonest scare campaign against the GST in order to win the Federal election in 1993. He described it as "the sweetest victory of all" when it was to his eternal shame that he went against what he knew was the best thing for our country.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I call the member for Blacktown to order for the first time.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: The poles and wires legislation has left more Labor political carcasses than there are dead bodies in a series of The Sopranos. When Bob Carr said to his Treasurer, Michael Egan, he was going to Macquarie Bank, his Treasurer thought he was going to get advice on how to privatise the State's electricity assets. Bob Carr thought that that issue was way too difficult to get past the union control of the Australian Labor Party, so he decided to go and work for Macquarie Bank instead, when he should have been fighting for the people of New South Wales as Premier and doing what was right for the State. Morris Iemma, his successor, and then Nathan Rees also failed when trying to do the right thing on this legislation. Kristina Keneally suffered the greatest defeat in the electoral history of this State because on these and other issues she was not prepared to lead. Instead, she was content to be, as Nathan Rees said, a "puppet".

As with the GST, the ALP reverted to a dishonest scare campaign against this legislation. The Australian Labor Party [ALP] does not want the better roads, public transport, hospitals, schools, sporting and cultural assets and vital water infrastructure that this legislation will provide for the future of our State. Instead, the ALP wants to hang onto the dogma of a bygone era in order to featherbed its union mates. But I can tell this House that the people of Ku-ring-gai cannot wait for a second harbour rail crossing and the increased North Shore rail services to the city that this legislation will bring.

But more disturbingly, and again confirming their backward-looking ways, the Opposition reminded us of the history of the ALP as the party that supported and advocated the White Australia policy. It was the party whose national leader, Arthur Calwell, stood up in the Australian Parliament and repeatedly made racist statements on the public record at the behest of the union movement. It was the Liberal-Nationals Coalition that abolished the White Australia policy. But the xenophobic dog whistle against the Chinese people was again brought out this year by the Leader of the Opposition in the election campaign. He started a scare campaign against only one people and nation who he said might lease the electricity assets in the future. Not only is the ALP against the best interests of the future of this State, but it is apparently against the people who constitute one-third of the population of the world.

Today I am proud to be a member of this House supporting these bills. Only the Coalition is capable of recycling lazy public assets and turning them into productive public assets to meet the future needs of this State. Only the Baird-Grant Government is capable of providing leadership on these issues because only the Liberal-Nationals Coalition is progressive and forward-looking. We are not captive to sectional interests like Labor and The Greens. We are not caught up in old ideological battles of two centuries ago. I ask those opposite, especially new members of this place like me, to remember that they are here to do the best for their 1026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

constituents and not to be puppets of the union movement. Members should support this legislation and the new roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, sporting and cultural facilities and vital water infrastructure that it will provide for their electorates.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [10.48 a.m.]: I appreciate the contribution by the member for Ku-ring-gai; it reinforces that there is going to be quite a wideranging debate on the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015. I will begin my contribution today where I finished yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately, the members of The Nationals, who will come into this Chamber and vote for this piece of legislation, do not understand the budget. They clearly do not understand the budget. They do not understand the implications of the budget, nor do they understand the implications of the promises and commitments that are being made with this transaction. It is as simple as that.

The Nationals do not understand that while they are being promised $6 billion, the remaining $14 billion will be used to commit to, sign contracts for and start various operations and pieces of infrastructure that will cost far more than $14 billion. This means that in future budgets once the $6 billion has been spent in regional New South Wales, the remaining funds to finish the projects here in the Sydney central business district will need to be found from the annual budget, and there will be nothing left to sell.

There is a sale of assets across New South Wales at the moment, whether it is some of our sandstone buildings, old education sites and schools, Crown land and the like, or TAFE grounds and old hospital grounds. There is a fire sale of assets in New South Wales at the moment. Indeed, over the past 12 months I think $400 million worth in assets have been sold. When we talk about selling off the State, we are not just talking about the ports and electricity, which we might compare to, say, the car and the caravan; we are also talking about this State at the moment selling off the kettle, the curtains, the kitchen sink, the ironing board, everything—it is all gone. So the implications for future budgets of this State are diabolical. Whoever wins the 2019 election will be left with the legacy of the decisions being made here today, and the future of this State is in serious question. That is something that we all need to be familiar with.

The Nationals do not seem to understand that in an annual budget there is X amount for recurrent funding and X amount for capital works and decisions are made about how much is wanted in either of those two buckets. The reality is that while the Government is cutting the recurrent spending in places like Tamworth, Cessnock or Dubbo because we are no longer funding education, including TAFE, to the same level or we are no longer funding health to the same level, it is because the Government is putting more money into capital works.

I refer to the two main pieces of capital works. One is the North West Rail Link, for which $8.8 billion is already committed. I see all the members of the Liberal Party nodding their heads; they should be committed to those works because that is their heart and soul. Members opposite will always vote for them no matter what, so why would they not deliver these significant pieces of infrastructure to their people, even though it is destroying the rest of the State?

Why should the people on the North Shore be concerned about spending $8.8 billion on a train line that is going to take 20 seconds longer to get them into the central business district when the people of Cessnock can no longer access mental health services or the children in schools with special needs can no longer get the special needs services that they require? Why would members opposite care about people outside that area? But what I am surprised about is the snow job they have done on the rest of their party and their Coalition because they are too dumb to understand. What is the next major project members opposite will be committed to as a result of these network assets? It is a tunnel to the North Shore. So there is to be a major train line on the North Shore and a tunnel to the North Shore and all the other members of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition do not understand.

Let us talk about WestConnex because all we have at the moment is a crayon line. There is a commitment for some of the funds from this sale transaction to go towards starting WestConnex. Where is the other $23 billion that is required? Let us talk about the state of the budget with regard to the Federal budget that has been handed down, because the Federal budget has cut $25 billion out of health and education funding for this State. We can sell the poles and wires but we will still have a $5 billion hole created by our friend Tony Abbott in the Federal Parliament. Members opposite are selling out the household of New South Wales and it is not even enough to cover the costs that have been inflicted on this State as a result of the Federal budget. That is where we are right now.

I understand what is happening here because members opposite do not want to investigate the substance of the budget or this bill. They are like little trained seals: they go in to the caucus room, they flap 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1027

their little flippers together—feed me a fish, feed me a fish—and this is how it works for them. I get that, but if they want to make a contribution to New South Wales, they should familiarise themselves with the budget and with this piece of legislation and understand the implications.

To the member for Tamworth I say this: He is one member of the National Party who has come in here to speak about this transaction. Unfortunately, the words that he uses in Macquarie Street are different from the words that he used out there on the campaign trail. He assured the people out there on the campaign trail that they would not be any worse off. He stood in this Parliament and told us that the workers up there at TransGrid will be protected. I refer my friend the member for Tamworth to part of the legislation to reassure him that they absolutely will not be protected. Clause 18 of part 4 provides for the transfer of an employee of an electricity network to the employment of another public sector agency without the consent of the employee.

I ask my friend from Tamworth whether he understands what choice workers in his electorate will have under this legislation when they are told that they have been moved out of the electricity networks and they have now got a job working for the Department of Water but they have to move to Albury or Broken Hill or up to Ballina? I know the member for Tamworth told this House that he will have party pies with the Premier but the Premier will not listen to the member and protect the member's workers. When those people are dismissed, they will not be entitled to redundancy payouts or leave. They will be told that they are going to Albury or to Ballina and they have no choice. If they do not like it—resign.

That is the protection that is in place in this legislation for the workers that the member for Tamworth crowed about in here and condemned for campaigning against him. They should have campaigned against him and they should continue to campaign against him. At one stage in the recent election Tamworth was classified as the most at-risk seat for The Nationals. The Nationals had to go up there and bankroll it to save him. I can tell him this: in four years time it will be goodbye, sayonara. He should enjoy the next couple of years because his career will end. I refer now to the recent storms in the Hunter and compare Telstra's response to that of Hunter Water and Ausgrid.

Mr Mark Coure: Point of order: It is relevance. I ask that the member for Cessnock and shadow finance Minister return to the leave of the bill.

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

Mr CLAYTON BARR: Due to the interruption I seek an extension of time.

Question—That the speaking time of the member for Cessnock be extended—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! When debate on these bills resumed this morning the Speaker made a clear ruling—and all occupants of the chair will uphold that ruling—that interjections will not be tolerated during this debate. I remind all members that the member with the call has the right to be heard in silence and without interjection. All members should understand that. Further, I warn members that in future when the call for the doors to be locked is made, they will be locked and thereafter members will not be permitted to enter the Chamber.

Ayes, 34

Ms Aitchison Mr Greenwich Mr Park Mr Atalla Mr Harris Mr Piper Mr Barr Ms Harrison Mr Robertson Ms Burney Ms Haylen Ms K. Smith Ms Car Ms Hornery Mr Warren Ms Catley Mr Kamper Ms Washington Mr Chanthivong Mr Lynch Ms Watson Mr Crakanthorp Dr McDermott Mr Zangari Mr Daley Ms McKay Mr Dib Mr Mehan Tellers, Ms Doyle Ms Mihailuk Ms Hay Ms Finn Mr Minns Mr Lalich 1028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

Noes, 45

Mr Anderson Ms Goward Mr Roberts Mr Aplin Mr Grant Mr Rowell Mr Ayres Mr Gulaptis Mr Sidoti Mr Baird Mr Henskens Mr Speakman Mr Barilaro Mr Humphries Mr Stokes Ms Berejiklian Mr Johnsen Mr Taylor Mr Conolly Mr Kean Mr Toole Mr Constance Dr Lee Mr Tudehope Mr Coure Mr Maguire Ms Upton Mr Crouch Mr Marshall Mr Williams Mrs Davies Mr Notley-Smith Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mrs Pavey Mr Evans Mr Perrottet Mr Fraser Ms Petinos Tellers, Mr Gee Mr Piccoli Mr Bromhead Ms Gibbons Mr Provest Mr Patterson

Pair

Mr Foley Mr Hazzard

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

[Business interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Extension of Time

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [11.05 a.m.], by leave: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the member for Cessnock to continue his speech for a further period of five minutes.

At the outset of the last parliamentary term a meeting of the standing orders committee resolved to truncate the length of members' speeches on bills from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. That was done with the agreement of both sides of the House on the understanding that the longstanding tradition of members to grant each other latitude in granting extensions of five minutes on bills would be adhered to and that only in exceptional circumstances would a member be deprived of what I might call that longstanding tradition. I understand that new members may not understand that tradition, and that is probably what led to the division today. That is why, with the agreement of the Leader of the House, I have moved the motion to extend the speaking time of the member for Cessnock by the usual five minutes.

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

Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY NETWORK ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2015

ELECTRICITY RETAINED INTEREST CORPORATIONS BILL 2015

Second Reading

[Business resumed.]

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [11.07 a.m.]: I appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me to finish my contribution. Recently the Hunter Valley had a terrible storm event and unfortunately some 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1029

people lost their lives. I express my thanks and appreciation to members of Hunter Water and the Ausgrid team who did everything possible to restore services as quickly as possible. I contrast that with the efforts of Telstra, which has been privatised. It is now on the Stock Exchange and is answerable to a corporate profit line instead of the community. Now, 5½ weeks after the event, hundreds of people are still without telephone and internet access, and I fear that might be the future for people during storm events as a result of a privatisation of electricity network assets.

I cannot imagine for one second that would be the case if it were up to the Ausgrid workers and if they were given the privilege and opportunity to do overtime service. These men and women genuinely wanted to reconnect power—and in the case of Hunter Water, water—to the homes of tens of thousands of people across the Hunter that were affected. It is an interesting contrast—a corporate model versus a State-owned corporation. The State-owned corporation earned five stars for its outstanding effort and everyone in the Hunter offers their thanks. However, I would struggle to give the corporate model one star. I appreciate that it is working hard, but its efforts have been lost in translation and profit lines.

I acknowledge that in the lead-up to the election, indeed in the lead-up to the presentation of this legislation, the Premier openly and honestly went to the community and said this is what he was going to do. But I do not appreciate nor applaud the behaviour of Liberal Party members, who were essentially hidden away during the campaign. It got to the point where their policies were very smelly, but Premier Mike Baird was very much appreciated by the community. The Premier had grave fears—probably well-placed fear—that Liberal Party members might muck it up; so the instruction went out to all in the Liberal Party to "stay indoors: don't go out, don't communicate with people; don't participate in debate, because you will say something dumb, you will stink it up for us and we won't get elected." Ultimately the Liberal Party campaigned on the image and face of Premier Baird. I applaud the Premier for being open and honest, but I also want those opposite to acknowledge their instruction, and to acknowledge that they would not attend or participate in community forums and so on.

I have grave concerns about these bills. I have read through them and they essentially say, "Trust us. You don't need to know the details; you don't need to know what will happen; you don't need to understand who we are talking to and what the contract arrangements are, or what is ruled in and what is ruled out. You don't need to know those sorts of things; just trust us." That request is not worthy of support because the secrecy that surrounded the port sales, particularly the sale of the Newcastle port, came at a great cost to my community. In the lead-up to the sale of the Newcastle port I said in this Chamber that the new owner and operator of the port would immediately lift the price per tonne of coal exported through that port.

I told this Chamber that if I had $700 million I would buy it, because that was how the profit was to be made. Sure enough, 12 months down the track, the coal industry is on its knees, the price of coal has been and is going south, and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Notwithstanding that, the owners of the port of Newcastle have tripled, in some instances, the cost of exporting coal, bringing a slowing coal economy to a shuddering halt. That is what you get with a privatised asset. That would not have happened if the port had remained in government hands.

The last thing I want to raise in this debate is social infrastructure. Where is the social infrastructure benefit from this proposal? This is a so-called once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get $20 billion. We talk about an ice crisis, a health crisis, a mental health crisis, a domestic violence crisis, a social housing crisis, and a social justice crisis. Where does the legislation provide the money to be spent on social infrastructure? It is nowhere. The Government says it is going to build some tunnels and bridges, and provide more trains, but it will not invest in social infrastructure. All those supposed crises of the State get nothing out of the infrastructure money. I proudly represent the people of Cessnock in opposing these bills.

Mr DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Epping) [11.12 p.m.]: I speak to the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the cognate Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015, and in doing so I will deal with a number of issues that seem to plague those opposite. It appears to me self-evident that the Government has a mandate to proceed with the leasing of 49 per cent of the poles and wires in this State— not the sale, as the member for Canterbury continually described this proposal. If ever there were an issue that occupied the mind of the electorate during the election campaign it was this. You would have to be living on another planet not to understand that the Government clearly enunciated a policy that had at its core the proposal, "We intend to lease the poles and wires and in return we will deliver to the State the infrastructure which it so badly needs." We could not have been clearer. And guess what? Despite a campaign of lies and hypocrisy, the people of New South Wales said, "We trust you to do this and make a better tomorrow for us and for our children." For those who cannot count, there are more members sitting on this side than on the other. 1030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

This is the essence of a mandate: We asked permission of the people of New South Wales to deliver our program, to deliver the dream; and the people said yes. And yet we are faced with the sophistry of our opponents, which seeks to still agitate its opposition in light of a clear decision of the people. The member for Wyong justifies this by saying that he owes it to the people of his electorate who voted for him, and he claims they did so in circumstances in which they wanted him to oppose the Government's program. That, to put it bluntly, is utter BS. His campaign and the campaign that Labor ran was a lie, then and now; and to claim that the constituents of his electorate want him to continue to argue for that lie is appalling. Additionally, it fundamentally misrepresents the notion of a mandate. The Government sought a mandate for its vision from the people, of which the constituents of Wyong are a small part. The mandate is founded on the decision of the whole of the people of New South Wales. And guess what? There was overwhelming support.

The member for Keira made a more startling observation. First, he professed an underlying affection for the Premier. However, he then accused him of being sneaky—sneaky. Can anyone believe it? This is a policy that has been 20 years in the making. The debate has churned through the political cauldron of both sides of politics for all that time and the arguments have been exhausted. There is nothing sneaky about a Premier who articulates his policy over a 12-month period, then faces the people at an election and personally fronts a joint party committee to spell out the detail of his plans. If ever there were a transparent process, this is it. And guess what? The Daily Telegraph reported this morning that the committee supports the sale. So I urge the member for Keira to return to his now declared affection for the Premier and throw off his doubts, which are now unfounded.

Perhaps, however, the most disturbing part of the opposition to this legislation is the attack mounted on the basis that the Government is "fattening the cow" to get the best price possible for the leasing of this asset. Inherent in this allegation is the underlying determination to betray the people of New South Wales. One would have thought that we, as representatives of the people, would do our best to get the best possible deal for the leasing of this asset. But no: Labor, the doomsayers, would prefer to talk the price down. That is a betrayal of us all.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The member for Wyong will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. He will cease interjecting or leave the Chamber.

Mr DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: It is absolutely clear that the more we are able to achieve as the upfront payment for this asset then the more we can deliver in terms of infrastructure for the people. To talk the price down demonstrates a determination to deliver less. That is an appalling betrayal of those who put us here. The time for the delivery of these projects is now. The case has been prosecuted. The Government has taken on the concerns of the electorate and has not sought to overreach in the delivery of its vision. We have delivered on the promise to include a pricing regulator. Consumers wanted guarantees against price gouging by private operators. The Government understands that; and the most respected consumer watchdog in the country, Professor Alan Fells, has accepted the position.

The people did not want an outright sale, so the Government agreed to proceed by way of a 99-year lease. The asset returns to us. The people did not want to lose an interest in the asset and so we now get the Electricity Retained Interest Corporation [ERIC], who will hold a 50 per cent interest on behalf of us all. And yet for the doomsayers and the protectors of the featherbedding union officials this is not enough. They would rather protect their mates than provide for the future of our children. This brings me to a consideration of what is to be achieved by this legislation and the lease that will be entered into as a result. The Premier has rightly articulated his vision for the delivery of projects that will benefit every electorate in this State.

The member for Wyong said that his election was determined because his constituents did not want to see privatisation of electricity assets. What nonsense. There is no doubt that the greatest concern that we all have is the quality of our family life. To that end, the daily congestion and parking problems that beset so many of us are front and centre, and we are duty bound to do something about them. The delivery of public transport, roads, hospitals, schools, sporting and cultural facility projects should excite us all. This is the gift that we are delivering to our children.

Of particular importance is the completion of the North West Rail Link by delivering the second harbour crossing. This must be delivered. It is intolerable to countenance building the North West Rail Link and having it terminate at Chatswood. Such a decision would leave the project half finished. I am an avowed supporter of that project; it ticks every box on the scale of what good government is about. It is delivering jobs 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1031

on a scale unseen in this State since the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It is delivering a world-class rapid transit train system, which will see trains leaving every four minutes. This is what Sydney demands and it should have been delivered many years ago.

The project would be seriously compromised in terms of delivering on its potential if we did not take it through to the city and beyond. We want people to use public transport to reduce congestion. That is a no-brainer. To achieve this we need a transport system that people want to use and that is reliable, clean and cheap. That is the benefit of this project. We should all want it to be delivered and rejoice in the prospect. It is now real and this legislation brings it so much closer. Public transport is on the verge of a revolution and we should all want to get on board. I could not be happier in commending these bills to the House.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown) [11.20 a.m.]: It will come as no surprise that I oppose the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2014 and the cognate Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015. Before I deal with the bills I will recommend some reading to the new member for Epping. Nigel Fletcher, who worked for the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, wrote a book about being in opposition. I sat as quietly as I could while members opposite made their contributions. I recommend to the member for Epping that he borrow a copy of How to Be in Opposition from the library. It goes into great detail about the role of an opposition in the Westminster system.

Mr Assistant-Speaker, you would appreciate the significance of the Westminster system. I suggest that the member for Epping take the opportunity over the weekend to read the book so that when he comes back on Tuesday he understands why members on this side of the Chamber do what we do. The former Deputy Premier and Leader of The Nationals once took pride in ridiculing me when he saw me sitting in an airport lounge during a by-election campaign and reading the book. I am proud that I have read it and I suggest that the member for Epping do likewise. If the Parliamentary Library does not have a copy, I am happy to lend him mine.

I also suggest that members opposite read A Short History of Stupid, written by Bernard Keane and Helen Razer. The contributions of members opposite are captured so well by the authors. I particularly recommend the last chapter to members opposite who have drunk the Kool-Aid and who are buying all the rhetoric floating around in this debate, including asset recycling, homelessness, hospitals and schools. The member for Tamworth interjected to ask Opposition members why they do not support the construction of schools and new roads. The last chapter of that book highlights the stupidity of the contributions made by Government members and their rhetoric. That chapter articulates it far better than I could; I could never do justice to the stupidity of members opposite.

It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the Treasurer, but on this occasion I do. She commenced her second reading speech by stating that this transaction will have a profound impact on the future of this State. Nothing could be truer. The impact of these bills and this transaction will be profound. The transaction will have a profound impact on so many things, not least of which is the budget. The shadow Minister for Finance articulated that impact very effectively. It will also have a profound impact on service delivery in this State and on the price that people pay for electricity for the next 99 years and beyond. Members opposite talk about the wonderful things that will be delivered with the sale proceeds—whatever they may be, and no-one knows. However, the impact of the sale will be felt by our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren. The impact will not be the building of a road, a school or a hospital. It will be that we will have nothing left to sell when we want to build more roads, schools and hospitals.

What members opposite are advocating is the most stupid proposal that could ever be put forward; that is, the sale of assets that generate income for the State and that have delivered, on average, $1.7 billion each year to the budget. That money is spent putting teachers in classrooms, police on our streets, and nurses and allied health professionals in our hospitals. The Government will sell these assets and build roads, schools and hospitals, and no-one can argue that they are not all worthy projects. However, they all come at a cost to the budget. We need recurrent funding to put teachers in the new schools, and nurses and allied health professionals in the new hospitals. Maintaining roads also costs money. What the Government and the Premier failed to explain during the 12 months prior to the election, during the election campaign and since is how they will fill the budget black hole that will be created once these assets are sold.

Members opposite continue to refer to history and the historic nature of this transaction. The history of what has happened in Victoria and South Australia is there for all to see. We had bust-'em-up Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, who sold that State's electricity assets. The Government says that was a great idea and that things 1032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 28 May 2015

are wonderful in Victoria. However, the budget black hole that subsequently appeared was filled by sacking teachers and nurses, and closing schools and hospitals. That is how Jeff Kennett filled the budget black hole that he created when he sold the Victorian electricity network. The Australian Energy Regulator says that South Australian households now have the highest energy prices in the nation, and some have suggested the third-highest energy prices in the world. Despite what we hear from members opposite about price guarantees, Victorian hospitals and schools were closed, particularly in regional areas. That leads me to The Nationals. The Government's response to higher electricity prices in South Australia is to say that the legislation includes a price guarantee. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The price guarantee expires in 2019. It will last for, at best, 3½ years, depending on how quickly the sale is achieved. It could last for one year, 18 months or two years. The legislation includes a price guarantee until 2019. The lease—which members opposite call it; it might as well be called a sale—is for 99 years, but there is no price guarantee for 99 years. It lasts until 2019. Those opposite talk about a price guarantee and then interject on Labor members, asking, "Have you read the bill?" It begs the question: How many Government members have read the bill and actually understand the price guarantee? The price guarantee evaporates in 2019. It will be gone—and gone for good.

As for The Nationals, I was tempted to look on the Electoral Commission website before I came to the Chamber this morning to see whether they have made an application to change their name to "The Nationals Nimby Party". The Nationals' approach to this transaction is very interesting. The Nationals are part of a Coalition Government that wants to sell off the electricity networks. But The Nationals do not want to sell them off in their backyard—the "not in my backyard" National Party.

Mr Kevin Humphries: That's right.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I acknowledge the member for Barwon, who nods and says, "That's right". The member for Tweed is also smiling; he agrees. I do not know whether it is appropriate, Mr Assistant-Speaker, but I also acknowledge your smile. What is telling about that is they know the impact of selling off the electricity networks, and that is why they have said, "Not in my backyard". The tragedy is that Liberal Party members did not have the spine to stare down a Premier who turned up to his party room and had to cobble together a deal. The deal that is in this legislation, which sees 100 per cent of TransGrid sold off and Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy sold off partially, was done because the Premier could not get his deal through his own party room. It was such a dud deal that his own party room sent him packing. So they had to cobble together this deal so the Premier could save face. That is what this is: a face-saving exercise that will cost future generations.

There are school students in the public gallery. Possibly they will feel the effects of this transaction when they are my age or older. Those effects will be felt long after we are all gone from this mortal coil. There will be no income stream from these assets. All the money that was used pay nurses and teachers will go into the pockets of the private sector in profit instead of returning to the Government's budget to fund nurses, teachers, police and other public services. The transaction will leave this State significantly worse off financially. What is also interesting, as the shadow Minister for Finance, Services and Property said, is that these are the "trust me" bills. In these bills the Government is saying, "Trust us; we can be trusted on this." But let us consider the privatisations that the Premier presided over either as Premier or as Treasurer. We have seen the sell-off of Port Kembla. We have seen the sell-off of Port Botany and of the Port of Newcastle. What is the effect of those sell-offs?

Mr Mark Coure: What about NSW Lotteries?

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The member for Oatley continues to demonstrate his ignorance of that transaction. Yet again he highlights his ignorance of the facts. The transactions undertaken by this Government have seen jobs lost and costs increase, and no-one could do anything about it. It was simply about the sell-off. The member for Ku-ring-gai spoke of dogma. I tell you what: If I have ever seen dogma anywhere it is from those opposite. One thing the Liberal Party loves to do at State and Federal levels is sell, sell, sell. Members opposite should have auctioneer and real estate licences because that is what they are good at; they just want to sell, sell, sell. This is not about the long-term interests of New South Wales; this is about short-term interests and about the ego of the Premier of this State.

This is the man who wants to sell off our electricity networks and say that he was the Premier who did something that no-one else could do in this Parliament. If we require evidence of that, we have only to listen to 28 May 2015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 1033

Government members. They lecture us about Bob Carr and Michael Egan trying it and not succeeding. They lecture us about Morris Iemma being unable to do it. It is all about ego. It is about Mike Baird saying, "I did what no-one else in New South Wales could do"—sell off an essential service, sell off an asset that delivers money to the State budget, and sell off an asset that pays for teachers, nurses and police to do their jobs and make our community a better place to live. I conclude by discussing the term "asset recycling". Oh, what a term. I refer members to the book, A Short History of Stupid. If they read that book, those opposite will be enlightened about the term. I shall quote former Premier Nick Greiner—it is not often I read the words of Nick Greiner into Hansard but I think this is worth repeating. He said, "Mike has invented a marketing tactic."

Mr Mark Coure: Is that Martin Ferguson?

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: That is what this is: asset recycling. The