10396

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 3 April 2012

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

RETAIL TRADING AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

UNITED INDIAN ASSOCIATION ANNUAL SENIORS FORUM

Motion by the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO agreed to:

1. That this House:

(a) notes that the United Indian Association [UIA] held its Annual Seniors Forum on Saturday 24 March 2012 at Granville Town Hall, and

(b) congratulates the United Indian Association on celebrating Senior's Week with this important event.

2. That this House notes that:

(a) the United Indian Association Seniors Forum was addressed by a range of speakers including:

(i) the Hon. Andrew Constance, MP, Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services,

(ii) the Hon. Barbara Perry, MP, shadow Minister for Family and Community Services, shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, shadow Minister for Ageing and shadow Minister for Disability Services,

(iii) Ms Julie Owens, MP, Federal member for Parramatta,

(iv) Mr Tony Issa, MP, member for Granville,

(v) Mr Purshotam Arora, a visiting yoga teacher from India,

(vi) Mr Dave Passi, Secretary of the Indian Seniors Group Hornsby, and

(b) the cultural program was provided by Vinod Rajput and Band Baaja.

3. That this House notes the contribution to the organisation and success of the forum of Mrs Sumati Advani, President of the Sydney Sindhi Association and coordinator of the United Indian Association Seniors Program, Mr Amarinder Bajwa, President of the United Indian Association, Mrs Aruna Chandrala, President of the Global Women's Network, and Mr Renga Rajan, Secretary of the United Indian Association.

HOLI MAHOTSAV FESTIVAL

Motion by the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO agreed to:

1. That this House notes that:

(a) the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan held the tenth anniversary of Holi Mahotsav, the Indian festival of colours, friendship and harmony, at Tumbalong Park in Darling Harbour from 23 to 25 March 2012,

3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10397

(b) Holi has Hindu religious origins, is said to represent the victory of righteous forces and celebrates the Hindu mythology of the love of Krishna and Radha,

(c) since its inception, the festival has grown from a one-day event to become a three-day event, which is the largest Indian festival held in central Sydney each year,

(d) nearly 1,000 artists, both local and international, performed during the festival and presented a mixture of culture, spirituality and entertainment,

(e) the cultural performances included: Indian, Bollywood, classical, Bhangra and belly dance, fusion and folk music, Punjabi songs, Balinese and Chinese performances and two flash mobs,

(f) the music and dance, yoga, prayers, meditation activities and dance and art workshops lasted for all three days and visitors were able to enjoy delicious vegetarian Indian food and craft stalls,

(g) the first day of the festival was dedicated to schools, young people and children who participated with group performances and art workshops, and the special school day has become an annual tradition with the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities facilitating the attendance of public school students,

(h) on Saturday, there was a large street procession from Martin Place through the Sydney central business district and culminating at Tumbalong Park, and the procession included Rath Yatra, a hand pulled chariot, and other community floats,

(i) the Sacred Holi Fire ceremony was carried out on Saturday afternoon to drive away evil from society,

(j) on Sunday the traditional practice of colour throwing took place in the designated area in multiple sessions throughout the afternoon and this joyful activity brought many people of different cultural backgrounds together and was celebrated with happiness and harmony among the participants, and

(k) the festival was addressed on Sunday by the following dignitaries:

(i) Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, Federal Minister for Multicultural Affairs, representing the Hon. Julia Gillard, MP, Prime Minster of Australia,

(ii) Mr Craig Kelly, MP, representing the Leader of the Federal Opposition,

(iii) Mr Geoff Lee, MP, member for Parramatta, representing the Premier,

(iv) the Hon. Amanda Fazio, MLC, representing the Leader of the State Opposition,

(v) Dr Phil Lambert, Regional Director, Department of Education and Communities,

(vi) Mr Shanker Dhar, Chairman, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

2. That this House:

(a) congratulates Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and especially the President, Mr Gambhir Watts, for staging the Holi Mahotsav Festival, and

(b) commends all the volunteers and sponsors who contribute to the success of the festival.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

10398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

I am pleased to introduce the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012.

This bill proposes to update the State's primary public sector employment legislation to improve performance management in the public sector and to ensure that the provisions relating to excess employees are clear and practical to implement.

As I have said before, this Government is determined to make the New South Wales public sector the best in the nation and a leader in the world, with unambiguous goals, clear policy directions, transparent processes and consistent accountability.

To drive this vision for the public sector the Government has established a Public Service Commission in New South Wales—the centrepiece of our plans for the public sector. On 1 November 2011 the Public Service Commission commenced operation with Mr Graeme Head, a public servant with more than 30 years experience, including 18 years in executive positions in New South Wales and the Commonwealth, as the inaugural Public Service Commissioner

We know the community has high expectations of our public services.

Better management of our public sector workforce, at all levels, will help to achieve long overdue improvements in service delivery and productivity.

The New South Wales Commission of Audit, led by Dr Kerry Schott, has recently issued its Interim Report on Public Sector Management. The Commission has found that, in the New South Wales public sector, "low importance has been attached to financial, people and asset management".

The Commission of Audit also notes that many managers do not perceive performance management as an integral part of their job. Managers see it as a human resources [HR] activity, rather than a continuing process of skills development and workforce planning.

The Commission of Audit recommends the Public Service Commissioner should, amongst other things, "develop a program to promote the importance of performance management, set minimum standards and encourage each supervisor to understand that performance management, especially conducting appraisals, is an integral part of their job".

This Government knows performance management systems are absolutely essential if agencies are to identify areas for improvement, set career goals for individuals, highlight where greater investment or training is required, and acknowledge superior performance.

Performance management systems should not focus solely on poor or unsatisfactory performance. The emphasis should also be on recognising achievements, providing training, and, importantly, giving feedback on results.

Therefore, this bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 to require the commissioner to develop and issue guidelines to public sector agencies on the essential elements of performance management systems. The commissioner will be able to issue a direction to public sector agencies about performance management systems.

Public sector agencies will also be required, under the proposed section 101A, to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff.

Let me be clear, I am not asking the commissioner to dictate a one-size-fits-all performance management system. We recognise that public sector agencies need to tailor their systems to reflect their organisational environment and operational priorities if they are to achieve better outcomes and deliver improved services to their customers.

However, properly designed performance management systems in public sector agencies will contribute to the Government's aim to make the New South Wales public sector an employer of choice.

Working in the public service is more than a simply a job. Our employees understand this and they show a strong commitment to making life better for everyone in our community. We have a responsibility to ensure that public servants are provided with clear performance targets and opportunities for improving the way they do their jobs.

This bill also seeks to amend sections 56 and 57 of the Act.

As honourable members would be aware, the Government introduced a new policy for the management of excess employees from 1 August 2011—abolishing Labor's "no forced redundancies" policy.

The "no forced redundancies" policy allowed excess employees to drift in a kind of limbo—in some cases for 10 years—without securing a permanent job. That is simply a waste of taxpayer's money.

Make no mistake. This Government wants to help public servants who lose their jobs as a result of changing priorities or structural reforms. But employees who cannot be redeployed cannot be kept on the books indefinitely.

After fifteen years of ineffective management of excess employees—to their detriment, the detriment of the public service, and most significantly, the taxpayers of New South Wales—I am pleased to say the situation has now been remedied.

Under this Government's new policy, excess employees are asked to choose between a generous voluntary redundancy package and a three-month retention period in which to pursue redeployment.

If an excess employee declines voluntary redundancy and cannot find a new job within three months, they will be made redundant. For public servants, this means termination under section 56 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.

3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10399

Our policy applies to those public sector agencies in the New South Wales government service. Essential front-line employees, working under separate industrial arrangements, are not subject to the new policy. For example, it does not apply to nurses, ambulance officers, school teachers, police officers, fire fighters or rail workers.

Disappointingly, the unions challenged the new arrangements in the Industrial Court of New South Wales and in November last year the court handed down its decision.

Significantly, the new policy is unaffected by the judgment and it continues to apply to employees made excess on or after 1 August 2011.

However, in comments contained in its decision, the Industrial Court proposed an interpretation of section 56 of the Act that significantly broadened its application and has made this section impractical and onerous to apply.

In its comments, the court indicated that an excess employee—that is an employee without a permanent position, without a real job, but still being paid—cannot be made redundant as long as "useful work" of any kind exists anywhere across the entire public sector. Under the court's broad interpretation, "useful work" would include all work undertaken on a temporary, casual and contractual basis, as well as that performed on an ongoing basis.

At any one time there is usually some work that needs to be done in some public sector agency, even if only for a very short period. It is simply not practicable for public service employers to be required to constantly seek such short-term work, at any and every level and of any kind, for an excess employee.

If this interpretation of section 56 were to be applied, I am advised it would be almost impossible to satisfy the requirements in the current provision and proceed to terminate an excess employee who could not be found a new permanent position.

In fact, the court's "useful work" test would result in a de facto return to the "no forced redundancies" policy.

The Government's intention is to return the application of section 56 to the previous practice undertaken by department heads.

The Government wants to retain the requirement that a department head, before terminating an excess employee, must be satisfied there is no vacant permanent position for that person, not only in their own department but in all other departments and all other agencies of the public sector.

This is a very fair obligation which must be discharged before a decision is taken to make a person redundant. Such an obligation certainly does not exist in the private sector.

But it is only fair that the search for a job across the whole of the public sector is for an ongoing public sector position—and not the unrealistic "useful work" obligation, as proposed by the Industrial Court.

In addition to the changes to section 56, it is appropriate for consistency and fairness to amend the requirement in section 57 of the Act concerning public servants on excessive salaries relative to the position they are currently occupying.

This will ensure that the search for a job at the same salary level continues to be across the whole of the public sector but is limited to an ongoing public sector position within either departments or public sector agencies—and not just any type of work.

This legislation is also intended to clarify that the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 is the principal legislation governing the employment of public servants.

The bill proposes to exclude the application of the unfair contracts provisions in division 2 of part 9 of chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act to arrangements for dispensing with excess employees. It will apply to the government service and all other public sector agencies.

Excess employee arrangements include how and when a staff member becomes excess, issues concerning redeployment, the retention period, salary maintenance, redundancy payments and termination. This is made clear in proposed section 103A (2) of the bill.

Such an approach is consistent with arrangements in the general community where access to rights under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act is not widely available.

The amendments are necessary to avoid lengthy and ongoing court proceedings that are not brought under the principal Act relating to the employment of public servants—the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, but under the Unfair Contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

These proceedings under the unfair contracts provisions seek to prevent agencies from implementing reasonable changes to their excess employee policies that are consistent with the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, and are rightly a matter for the Government to determine through policy decisions from time to time.

The amendments will clarify that the court will no longer have the power to unilaterally determine the provisions that apply to excess employees in the public sector.

It is important to note, however, that redundancy arrangements in industrial instruments will not be displaced.

The bill also makes it clear that the amendments do not affect any orders of the Industrial Court that were made prior to the commencement of the legislation.

10400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The amendments that exclude the unfair contract provisions take effect upon the date that notice was given in Parliament for the introduction of this bill and include any relevant proceedings commenced on or after that date.

While the changes will mean that the Industrial Court cannot deal with these matters, individual excess employee disputes and unfair dismissal matters will still be able to be heard and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission.

The Industrial Relations Commission will still have an important role to play by ensuring that excess employees are treated fairly, receive their entitlements at law and under the policy, and have access to relief for unfair dismissal.

The proposed changes will support the Government's fair and reasonable policy for managing excess employees and improve agencies' ability to deliver better public services in line with community expectations.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [11.13 a.m.]: On behalf of the Labor Opposition I address the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. The Labor Opposition opposes this bill as we view it as the latest instalment in the O'Farrell Government's attack on New South Wales public sector workers. There is one thing that the conservative parties know to do when in office, that is, attack nurses, teachers, police officers and other hardworking public servants who contribute so much to the New South Wales community. The Opposition opposes this bill because it amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 in order to make it easier for workers to be declared excess employees. That amendment will give the Government the cover it needs to force redundancies and cut public sector workers across departments and in every city and town in our State.

The O'Farrell Government's managing excess employees policy came into effect on 1 August 2011. The changes included the cessation of redeployment as the principal means of managing excess employees, a reduction in the retention period for the purposes of redeployment from 12 months to just three months, no freezing of the retention period if temporary work is found, forced retrenchment after three months and severance payments for forced retrenchment reduced to the minimum payment under the Employment Protection Regulation 2001. To be clear, the minimum payment is 16 weeks pay for six or more years of service for those under the age of 45 and 20 weeks pay for those over the age of 45. Public sector employees already excess on 22 June 2011 were offered an extra $10,000 to accept voluntary redundancy prior to the Government's new policy coming into effect.

Last year the Public Service Association challenged the reductions in entitlements in the Industrial Court of New South Wales and won on the basis that the changes were unfair under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court interpreted section 56 of the Act in a way that the Government does not like. That is why we find ourselves debating this bill today. The Industrial Court sensibly ruled that an excess employee should not be made redundant as long as useful work is available for that worker. In other words, do not toss a worker out on the street if there is work they can do. When the Premier introduced this bill in the other place he argued that the definition of "useful work" is too broad because it includes all work undertaken on a temporary, casual and contractual basis, as well as that performed on an ongoing basis.

The Premier does not want this interpretation to be applied because the interpretation would force the Government to treat these workers with respect. It would stop this Government from using restructures as a means literally to sack thousands of workers. But this bill goes further. The bill waters down the requirement to find excess employees alternative work and therefore makes it easier to sack all public sector workers. The bill amends section 56 of the Act to water down the requirement to attempt to find alternative work for excess officers. It does this in two ways. First, under the current Act officers can be made excess only if the number of officers employed in the relevant department exceeds the number necessary for the department's functions. The amendment in this bill allows officers to be made excess if the number of officers in any part of a department exceeds the number necessary for that part's functions.

Secondly, under the current Act employees can be made excess only if the departmental head has taken all practicable steps to secure the transfer of the excess officers to the service of another department or another part of the public service. The current Act also states that a person's services can be terminated only if they cannot be found any useful work in another department or in any other public sector service. The amendment in this bill waters this down to require the departmental head only to take all practicable steps to secure the transfer of the excess officers to ongoing public sector positions, thereby excluding transfer to temporary or fixed-term positions or other useful work.

The bill amends section 57 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to make it easier to reduce the salary of an excess officer performing lower paying alternative work. It does this by, firstly, removing the current requirement in the Act that allows this to occur only after the departmental head has taken 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10401

all practicable steps to secure work in the department, in another department or in any other public sector service that is appropriate to the salary of the officer; and, secondly, by changing the requirement to require the departmental head only to take all practicable steps to secure the transfer of the officer to an ongoing public sector position that is appropriate to his or her salary.

This bill introduces a new section 103A which removes the ability of an excess employee to use section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act. This is the section of the Industrial Relations Act that the Industrial Court of New South Wales used to find in favour of the Public Service Association application in relation to the introduction of the new excess employee policy last year. The bill also amends schedule 4 to extend this amendment to any employee who was excess at the time that the bill was introduced, thereby, in effect, giving it retrospective operation. The bill is the latest chapter in the conservative party's attacks on public sector workers in this State.

Since coming to office the Government has stripped public sector workers' rights and it has capped their wage increases at 2.5 per cent. The Government has watered down New South Wales occupational health and safety regulations. The Government has begun a process of sacking at least 5,000 public sector workers. The Government has failed to appoint members to the Dust Diseases Board, which caused a delay to victims receiving payments. The Government is closing five New South Wales Industrial Relations offices in Gosford, Penrith, Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour and Orange. The Government has tried to stop retiring public sector employees from accessing their final wage determination and it has cut the police death and disability scheme, gutting the safety net that injured police and their families rely on.

Nurses, teachers, police and other hardworking public sector employees deserve our support and respect. Now they are forced to fight and struggle because what they have built up is under threat, as it always is under conservative governments. Well over 300,000 public sector employees in this State know where they stand with this Government. They are excess, not useful. They are unwanted, not valued. They are numbers, not people. A Labor Party will always stand up for our hardworking public sector employees in this State and we will not support legislation that seeks to target them directly and make their working lives harder. The public sector workers of New South Wales deserve better. The Opposition opposes this legislation.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.23 a.m.]: I speak briefly on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. Amendments to section 56 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 are required to support the Government's policy for the management of excess employees. This is the policy that abolished the previous Government's longstanding practice of no forced redundancies which allowed employees with no permanent position to drift in the system indefinitely. Section 56 allows department heads to terminate the services of excess employees who no longer have a position.

A recent judgement of the New South Wales Industrial Court significantly broadened the test contained in section 56 whereby a department head must apply to establish that no useful work is available before terminating the service of an excess employee. Previously the test for useful work had been limited to checking the availability of vacant permanent positions for redeployment. The new test proposed by the court requires checking of all work opportunities across the public sector, including temporary and contract employment, before an excess employee's services can be terminated. It is not realistic to expect department heads to search for any type of work, even very short-term work, for excess employees across the public sector. In practice, this will make it virtually impossible for a department head to demonstrate that his or her obligations under section 56 have been met and to terminate the employment of an excess employee.

Amendments to section 56 are necessary to return to the more reasonable requirement to transfer a person either to an officer position—that means a permanent position in a department—or to an ongoing position in another public sector agency. The Government believes that departments must be able to manage their workforces and implement organisational reforms in order to achieve more responsive and cost-effective service delivery for the people of New South Wales. The Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 is amended in section 103A to exclude the application of the unfair contracts provisions in division 2 of part 9 of chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act to arrangements for dispensing with the services of excess employees. The amendments apply to arrangements for managing excess employees in the government service and all other public sector agencies.

Excess employee arrangements include how and when a staff member becomes excess, issues concerning redeployment, the retention period, salary maintenance, redundancy payments and termination of 10402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

service. The bill defines an excess employee as an excess public servant referred to in section 56 of the Act or any member of staff of a public sector agency who has been notified by his or her agency head that his or her position or work in the agency has been abolished or terminated and he or she is an excess or displaced employee. The use of the term "displaced" as well as "excess" in the definition recognises that some public sector agencies have redundancy policies that use different terminology. Displaced employees are no different to excess employees: they are employees who have been notified that they no longer have a position or work in the agency.

Section 57 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 allows a department head to reduce the salary of an excess employee if the work that the employee is performing is of a lesser value than their salary. It places a similar obligation on department heads as does section 56 to first investigate all employment opportunities appropriate to the salary of the employee before any such reduction can be made. In view of the proposed amendments to section 56, section 57 is amended to ensure consistency and fairness, that is, to provide for a more reasonable test for department heads to meet before an employee's salary is reduced under this provision.

This will ensure that the search for a job at the same salary level continues to be across the whole of the public sector but is limited to a vacant position and not just any type of work before a salary deduction can be made. This is a sensible, practical change that will help redeploy excess employees to a wider range of vacant positions. The Government has given a high priority to improving performance in public sector agencies. This is reflected in the establishment of the Public Service Commission to lead the strategic development and management of the public sector workforce in relation to performance management and recognition.

Consistent with this, it is proposed that the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 be amended to require the Public Service Commissioner to develop guidelines and issue a direction concerning the implementation of performance management systems in agencies. The guidelines will stipulate the essential elements of a performance management system but will allow agencies some flexibility to choose the system that best fits their business requirements and organisational culture. Given the great diversity of New South Wales public sector agencies, implementing a single, common performance management system would be neither practical nor effective.

The Government introduced a sensible, long-overdue new policy for the management of excess employees from 1 August 2011. Our policy applies to those public sector agencies in the New South Wales government service. Essential front-line employees employed under separate industrial arrangements are not subject to the new policy. For example, it does not apply to nurses, ambulance officers, schoolteachers, police officers, firefighters or rail workers. The proposed legislative amendments will clarify that the Industrial Court will no longer have the power under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act unilaterally to determine the provisions that apply to excess employees in the public sector. That is rightly a matter of detail for the Government and its agencies to determine through policy decisions from time to time, including the most appropriate arrangements to support front-line workers. However, it is important to note that redundancy arrangements in existing industrial instruments will not be displaced. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.30 a.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I oppose the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012 introduced by the Government, which is just another attack—

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Shame.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I heard the word "shame" and endorse the word used by the Hon. Scot MacDonald as this is a shameful piece of legislation. It is yet another attack on public sector workers in New South Wales and yet another attack on the basic conditions and security of tenure that public sector employees had previously in New South Wales.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: For the fat cats.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I heard the interjection of the Hon. Scot MacDonald, "For the fat cats." This bill applies to ordinary working public servants at all levels in the New South Wales public sector. These are the people who do the hard work to continue the administration of this State.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Not the front line. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10403

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I heard the interjection about front-line staff, as though the only public servants who are of value are those providing an immediate and direct service in the form of assisting a patient or a person at the front desk. The administration of this State cannot continue without the hard day-to-day work of countless bureaucrats who ensure that people in front-line positions have the materials they need to do their work and have efficient work practices in place to do their work. One cannot be an effective paramedic unless someone has ensured that the ambulance is running, that one's insurance is up to speed and that one has the right equipment and the right medicines available to do the work. To denigrate the people who provide those necessary services, as the Hon. Scot MacDonald has done in repeated interjections, goes to show the ugly nature of the Coalition and exposes the ideology driving the Coalition to try to attack these key public service workers. The bill does three primary things. The objects of the bill are to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002:

(a) to revise the provisions of that Act relating to excess officers of Public Service Departments and the circumstances in which the services of those officers may be dispensed with ...

That is the kind of language we get from the Government; it is not dealing with people, it is "dispensing with services". The language that the Government uses denies the human impacts of its policies. Rather than terminating the employment of a public sector worker this Government talks about dispensing with services. This is the kind of ugly managerial language that denies the human impacts of this kind of attack on public servants and people's employment in New South Wales. The second object of the bill is said to be:

(b) to exclude the unfair contracts jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission in connection with any such excess officers and any excess employees of other public sector agencies ...

In other words, the Government wants to avoid the Industrial Relations Commission reviewing its conduct on the basis of unfairness. What government worth its salt would try to prevent an industrial tribunal from looking at the fairness of its conduct in relation to public servants? The answer is this Government, this ugly Coalition Government that wants to be able to act unfairly in relation to public servants in New South Wales. We know that this Government wants to act unfairly because it is explicitly excluding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission from testing the unfairness of dismissing so-called excess employees in New South Wales. The third thing the bill does is:

(c) to require the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff and to require the Public Service Commissioner to issue guidelines for that purpose.

In questioning bureaucrats and ministerial officers on this issue earlier this week it turned out that this is an entirely unnecessary legislative provision. A number of public sector agencies and departments already have in place the kinds of guidelines that the Government wants to roll out. Indeed, the Government highlighted the allegedly wonderful guidelines that the Department of Finance has in relation to this and said that those are the kinds of guidelines the Government wants in all other government agencies and departments. If the Government wanted that it could achieve that through a directive to its Ministers. That is what Ministers are meant to be for—putting in place changes in the administration of their agencies. This is an entirely unnecessary legislative change by the Government and it is being put in this bill to hide the other ideological attacks it contains.

I will deal with what I think are the meat and potatoes of the bill, which are the amendments to section 56 and section 57 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. The Government now has in place a policy that it promulgated in August last year to get rid of what it calls excess employees. The key features of that policy include that there is meant to be an upfront choice of a voluntary redundancy package or a three-month retention period. In other words, when someone is identified as being excess he or she is given a notional three-month period in which to find another permanent position within the New South Wales public service.

If anyone in the Coalition had spoken to a public servant who was looking for a job in the New South Wales public service they would know full well that the time it takes, firstly, to find a relevant position, secondly, to apply for a relevant position, thirdly, to be interviewed for a relevant position and be shortlisted and, fourthly, to be engaged in a permanent position in the public sector, ordinarily is greatly in excess of three months. I asked in a crossbench briefing for the amount of time that is ordinarily taken from the time of advertisement to the time of recruitment in the New South Wales public service and I am still awaiting the answer. The Government still has not answered my question relating to the average time between advertisement and recruitment. I can only assume the reason it has not provided the answer to this question is that it is greater than three months. 10404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

This is not giving public servants a choice at all. The three-month period in which they have an opportunity to accept a so-called voluntary redundancy or get a permanent position means they will not have time to get a permanent position. So effectively they are being told at the beginning, "You can chance your arm at a one in 100 chance of getting an alternative position, which almost certainly will take longer than three months in the course of which we will terminate your employment, or you can take your so-called redundancy now." It is not a voluntary redundancy at all; an involuntary redundancy is being forced on public sector workers because of the meanness of this Government.

If the Government were genuine about it being a voluntary redundancy it would make sure that public servants had a sufficient amount of time in which to find alternative employment. Three months is not a genuine period in which to find further permanent employment in the public service. The Government knows it is not a genuine time in which to find permanent employment and it is nothing but an ugly charade of so-called voluntary redundancy. In fact it is involuntary redundancy and it is a way of downsizing the public service and trying to do it on the cheap. The other ugly aspect of this bill is the way it deals with so-called excess employees and the definition of "useful work". In the middle of last year the Public Service Association and Unions NSW brought an application to the NSW Industrial Court.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Shame.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I hear the word "shame" again from the Hon. Scot MacDonald. The thought that it is shameful for unions in New South Wales to bring an application to an independent industrial court for an open and fair determination in which the Government has a chance to put its case goes to show the really ugly right-wing ideology of that member.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Are you talking about me again?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I do not think even the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps would describe as shameful a union bringing an application to the Industrial Relations Commission for a fair and open determination of government policy. He might not like the outcome but I do not think he would call the process shameful, as did the Hon. Scot MacDonald. That is what is contained in the Liberal Party's ugly ideological backwater. The Public Service Association and Unions NSW wanted the NSW Industrial Court to determine what "useful work" meant. Under the Government's policy an employee can be declared excess only if there is no useful work for that employee to do. The Public Service Association and Unions NSW said that useful work is "work that is of use", which includes work of a contract or casual nature that otherwise is done by the department, which makes sense.

If the Government is paying someone to do contract or casual work one can only assume that the Government is paying for useful work. Surely not even this Government would pay for useless work. By definition, if the Government is handing over money to pay a contractor or casual to perform work, that work must be useful. That was the essence of the case of the public sector union and that is what the Industrial Court found. It said that if contract or casual work is available, by definition "useful work" is work that full-time employees should be able to perform. Therefore, as long as contract, casual work or permanent work is available, employees cannot be declared excess, which makes sense and which is entirely consistent with any principled approach to the public service.

If the public service has people in full-time employment and their job has been abolished or removed, as long as other useful work is available to them to do—whether it is work that would otherwise be performed by a contractor or a casual—it should try to retain them in full-time employment. We should try to protect their positions and we should get them to perform the contract or casual work. It is far more principled for full-time public servants to be providing work for the public service than handing it out to contractors and casuals. In fact, Australia has a shameful record in the quantity of work performed by casuals.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Forty per cent.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Of all the OECD countries Australia has the highest level of casualisation—40 per cent of employees in New South Wales perform casual work. There is a real opportunity in the public service to turn around that insecurity of employment and reduce the amount of work being done by contractors and casuals. The Government can do that by ensuring that when it has full-time employees they are used to perform the useful work that it would otherwise farm out to insecure contractors and casuals in New 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10405

South Wales. This Government has resiled from that, is openly legislating to employ more casuals and contractors, and is preventing full-time public servants from having access to work that is being farmed out to contractors and casuals.

This Government wants to push up that ugly statistic, increase the amount of casual employment and insecurity and remove the number of full-time employees in the public service—a disgraceful approach and an ideological attack by this Government. The more contractors and casuals it has the less likely it is that those people will be engaged with a union. The workforce will not have high union density, thus enabling the Government to break up the public service and further attack the wages of conditions of public servants, which is what is driving this legislation. This Government wants to increase the number of contractors and casuals and reduce the number of full-time employees in New South Wales, which is ideology over good sense.

The best way to retain loyal and highly skilled people in the public service in New South Wales is not to engage a series of temporary contractors and casuals but to have full-time employees who will serve the people of New South Wales not just for the next week, or the next 38 hours, but for years. They will provide loyalty and constancy of service in the public service which will end up delivering good results for the people of New South Wales. Increased contracting and casualisation are deskilling our public service and we are losiing that long-term skill set that should be available in a public service. The more contractors and casuals we have in the public service the less likely we are to have a highly skilled and motivated workforce to provide the services that the people of New South Wales expect.

This Government does not care about abstract outcomes. If it can save 1 per cent or 2 per cent on wages by bargaining down the conditions of casuals and contractors it is willing to do that regardless of the impact on the security of employment of public servants and on the services being delivered in New South Wales. This is another example of how the ideology of this Government is driving it to make bad policy decisions. Why does the Government not want full-time employees to perform work that is otherwise done by contractors and casuals? It is just to save a dollar and it is not about providing good services in New South Wales. The Government does not want department heads to have to look for genuine useful work before making employees redundant because it is too difficult and it does not want to be confronted with such a challenge. The Government wants to continue attacking the public service and the wages and conditions of those people who make New South Wales run. The Greens oppose this bill. The Greens are surprised that this Government's constant and ugly attacks on the public service were not revealed to the people of New South Wales prior to the last election.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [11.48 a.m.]: The Opposition strongly opposes the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012, which is yet another attack by the O'Farrell Government on the workers of New South Wales. The bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 to make it easier for employees to be declared excess, which will give the Government the cover it needs to force redundancies and to cut more public sector workers from every department in every city and town in New South Wales. Prior to the last election this Government made big promises to the people of New South Wales but we did not hear anything about industrial relations; the Government kept this matter secret. After the election it opened up its bottom drawer and out came all the attacks on working people in New South Wales.

The O'Farrell Government received a huge mandate but what has it done? It has launched countless reviews to make it look busy and it has broken 200 of its election promises. It has turned the budget surplus left by Labor into a budget deficit and it has set about removing the rights and entitlements of the working people of New South Wales. This Government's only actions—and they are negative actions—have been against the working people of New South Wales. It has not provided one extra train service or any investment in local community infrastructure but it has waged a war against the working people of New South Wales. The war on working people has been well and truly fought and this Government is well behind the eight ball. If it wants good, productive outcomes and an efficient and healthy workforce it must have good workplace relations and it must communicate and consult. This Government has started attacking 5,000 public sector workers by sacking them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Stop the clock. The barrage of noise coming from the Government benches is somewhat akin to the barrage of noise that comes from the Opposition benches during question time. It is difficult for members during debate and for Ministers during question time to cope with that sort of barrage. All members will be mindful of the fact that interjections are disorderly at all times. Start the clock.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: The Government has capped wage rises for nurses, teachers, emergency service switchboard operators, child protection workers and librarians, and the list goes on. The death and 10406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

disability scheme covering police officers has been gutted and social and community service workers have had their claim for equal pay undermined by this Government. It has still made no announcement about paying its fair share to those lowly paid workers who underpin and support society's most vulnerable people. The Government is now attacking retail workers. No workers in this State have been left alone by this Government. Retail workers are losing their right to have time off on special days on our calendar; that is, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Anzac Day. Those holidays are precious but this Government wants people to be forced to work. Bank workers are also about to lose the industry public holiday that they have been entitled to take in New South Wales for 137 years.

This bill is a further attack on hardworking New South Wales public servants. The O'Farrell Government's managing excess employees policy came into effect on 1 August 2011. The changes include cessation of redeployment as the principal means of managing excess employees, a reduction in the retention period for the purpose of redeployment from 12 months to just three months, no freezing of the retention period if temporary work is found, forced retrenchment after three months, and severance payments for forced retrenchment reduced to the minimum payment under the Employment Protection Regulation 2001—that is, 16 weeks pay for six or more years service for those under 45 and 20 weeks pay for those over 45. In addition, public sector employees already excess on 22 June 2011 were offered an extra $10,000 to accept voluntary redundancy prior to the new policy coming into effect.

Last year the Public Service Association challenged the reductions in entitlements in the NSW Industrial Court and won on the basis that the changes were unfair under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court proposed an interpretation of section 56 of the Act that the Government does not like and that is why we are debating this bill. The court sensibly ruled that an excess employee should not be made redundant as long as useful work is available for that person. In other words, employees should not be tossed out on the street if there is work that they can do. When the Premier introduced this bill he argued that the definition of "useful work" was too broad because it included all work undertaken on a temporary, casual or contractual basis as well as that performed on an ongoing basis. The Premier does not want that interpretation to be applied because he would be forced to treat these workers with respect and that would stop him and his Ministers using restructures as a means to sack thousands of them.

The Premier has gone further. This bill waters down the requirement to find excess employees alternative work and therefore makes it easier to sack all public sector workers. No-one in the New South Wales public sector is safe and the services that the people of this State rely upon are under threat. The bill amends section 56 of the Act to water down the requirement to attempt to find excess officers alternative work. It does this in two ways. First, under the Act officers could be made excess only if the number of officers employed in the department exceeded the number necessary for the department to function. This amendment allows officers to be made excess if the number of officers in any part of the department exceeds the number necessary for that part to function.

Secondly, the Act provides that employees can be made excess only if the department head has taken all practicable steps to secure the transfer of the excess officers to the service of another department or any other public sector service. The Act also states that a person can be terminated only if he or she cannot be found any useful work in another department or in any other public sector service. This amendment waters down the legislation to require the department head to take all practicable steps to ensure the transfer of the excess officers to ongoing public sector positions, thereby excluding transfer to temporary or fixed-term positions or other useful work.

This bill amends section 57 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to make it easier to reduce the salary of an excess officer performing lower paying alternative work. It does that by removing the requirement in the Act that allows this to occur only after the department head has taken all practicable steps to secure work in the department or in another department or in any other public sector service that is appropriate to the salary of the officer, changing the requirement to allow the department head only to take all practicable steps to secure the transfer of the officer to an ongoing public sector position that is appropriate to his or her salary.

The bill introduces proposed new section 103A, which removes the ability of an excess employee to use section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act. This is the section of the Act that Justice Boland used to find in favour of the application of the Public Service Association relating to the introduction last year of the new excess employee policy. The bill also amends schedule 4 to extend this amendment to any employee who was excess at the time the bill was introduced, thereby in effect giving it retrospective operation. The ultimate effect 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10407

of this bill is to say to our hardworking nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, child protection workers and other essential service workers that the O'Farrell Government is happy to throw them and their rights at work under a bus. This bill is another ideological attack on New South Wales workers by the O'Farrell Government. This is a government that has spent its first year in office attacking working people rather than delivering the infrastructure and services that it promised it would deliver before the last election.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [11.55 a.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Don't do it, Scot!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Hon. Walt Second has no idea what is going on.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: Walt is in fantasy land. On 26 March 2011 the people of New South Wales elected the Liberal-Nationals Government to fix this State. There was a widely held belief that the Labor Party could no longer carry out its core functions, including managing the public service. The Labor Party was seen to be the captive of the public sector unions and the bureaucracy seemed to be above the rules that applied to the private sector.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Interjections from the Opposition benches are making it hard to hear the Hon. Scott Macdonald's excellent contribution.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am also having difficulty hearing the member with the call. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: The average person in the street found it incredible that a public servant could drift along on a fully paid excess officer list for months or even years. What an affront to the workers of New South Wales who know that they can never have access to such unrealistic and unaffordable protections. They knew instinctively that they were paying for those absurdities with higher taxes and poorer services. This bill restores common sense and prudent management of excess public sector workers. It does not apply to front-line public sector workers such as nurses, firefighters, ambulance officers, teachers, police officers and rail workers.

The bill responds to what appears to be some adventurism by the Industrial Court. In November 2011 the Industrial Court proposed an interpretation of section 56 of the Act that, in the words of the Premier, "Significantly broadened its application and has made this section impractical and onerous to apply." The extension of the useful work interpretation by the court was not in the spirit of the Government's legislation and arguably returned the excess officers policy to its previous unworkable condition. This bill brings clarity. Section 56 will now require departmental heads to take all practical steps to find an ongoing position in the public sector for an excess officer, rather than any employment in the public sector. Section 56 states in part:

(b) the Department Head may, with the approval of the Commissioner, dispense with the services of any such excess officer who is not transferred to an on-going public sector position.

(2) An officer does not cease to be an excess officer merely because the officer is engaged (on a temporary basis) to carry out other work in a public sector agency.

A government that loses control of its public sector loses its right to govern. We have seen all the consequences of this in Europe, including economic failure and social breakdown. I am proud to be part of a Liberal-Nationals Government that does not shirk from the hard decisions. The bill is a positive step to a sustainable public service—a public sector that the Premier has consistently said he wants to be the best in the nation and, indeed, the world. New section 101A (1) of the bill requires the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems with respect to members of the staff of the agency. This bill ensures that the sector is not burdened with archaic excess officer rules and directs the adoption of modern performance management systems. I look forward to the future New South Wales public sector that will serve the 7.24 million people of this State effectively and efficiently. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.04 p.m.]: I speak to the Public Sector Employment and Management Bill 2012. I echo the comments made by my colleague Mr David Shoebridge and voice The Greens' trenchant opposition to this legislation. This legislation is ideologically driven. It arises from two places, the first of which is a hatred of and an overwhelming desire to shrink the public sector. In some cases, this is ideologically driven and in 10408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

other cases it is class driven. The second place from which it arises is a desire to cut public sector costs by treating the workforce like disposable items, items that can be thrown away at the whim of the department head and the Public Sector Commissioner. I invite members to imagine that they are in the situation of a public sector worker whose position has been declared redundant or, as the legislation puts it, "excess to needs". That worker is then thrown onto the industrial scrap heap, a process which says, "You are no longer needed. You are an excess employee. Your services will be terminated because we do not want you anymore."

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: I think that's called the real world.

Dr JOHN KAYE: They are told, "Your services will be terminated". They are told this despite years of loyal service and years of accepting pay and conditions that are inferior to equivalent jobs in the private sector. Despite years of loyal dedication to the people of New South Wales and quality services, their services are to be terminated. They are to be thrown out. They are seen as excess. They are to be "dispensed with", in the language of the legislation.

The core of this legislation is that when a position is declared to be excess the individual who occupied that position will no longer be offered the work that is currently being done by a temporary contractor. The only way in which an employee whose position is declared to be excess can continue in the public sector is where there is a permanent position available. If there is no permanent position available, the employee disappears. The logical consequence of that is an ongoing run-down of permanency in the public sector and a replacement of the public sector by a casualised workforce. This legislation is an attack on the rights of people who work in the public sector—an attack on their right to have access to secure employment and to know that from year to year that they will have a job, that they will be able to feed themselves and those who depend upon them, that they will be able to pay their bills, and that they will be able to live a decent life and plan for retirement.

This legislation is also an attack on the quality of the public sector. There is nothing wrong with those who work in casual employment. However, it is impossible to accumulate the expertise and to build up the independent, frank and fearless advice that permanency in the public sector provides. That advice can sometimes be critical of government and say, "If you embark on this particular path, you will inevitably reduce the quality of services being provided. You will inflict damage on the State." All this is to be lost in the ideological push to create a workforce that is terrorised, insecure and compliant to the Government.

Earlier the Hon. Scot MacDonald said, "Welcome to the real world." The Hon. Scot MacDonald sits here comfortably on $130,000 a year, with eight years of secure employment. Presumably—if he can keep his factional numbers running—he will have a secure job in this place for the rest of his so-called working life. He sits here and says, "Welcome to the real world." Well, let us talk about the real world for a person who has worked hard all his or her life to deliver quality services to the people of this State, a person whose life has been dedicated to public service, a person whose life is not about making a lot of money for themselves or for shareholders, a person whose life is not about the accumulation of greed—which is a driving force in the world of those in the Government.

Let us talk about the real world for an individual whose world is one in which the primary objective is to deliver for the community, to build a stronger community, to deliver quality services and to ensure that government receives quality advice. That person is suddenly told by his or her department head, "Your position is no longer needed, we have excess employees and you are to be dispensed with." That person's department might be chock-a-block full of contractors. Those contractors are coming in and performing work that that individual could do well and, in many senses, better. What does that individual think? Is that the real world that the Hon. Scot MacDonald wants to create—a world in which years of service are rewarded by a slap in the face and a boot onto the unemployment queues? A world in which real service to the community—not service to oneself—is seen as a negative and as a slight against the individual's character?

That is the real world that the Hon. Scot MacDonald believes we should live in. But that is not the real world that The Greens believe we should live in. The real world that The Greens believe we should live in is one where we have a quality public service, a public service where dedication is rewarded, where security of employment allows for innovation, where security of employment allows for the public sector to stand up and be critical of government and to say to the government that it is on the wrong track. That is the public sector that serves the community and creates stronger communities.

Let us be clear about this legislation: it is about ideology and about casualisation of the public sector workforce. The fundamental change in this legislation says that a public sector employee whose position is 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10409

deemed to be no longer needed cannot maintain their continuity in the public sector by fulfilling work that is now being done by part-time casual workers and contractors. Therefore, this is inevitably, logically, about increasing the casualisation of the public sector. It is about driving out the permanent public sector workforce and replacing it with a casualised, deunionised public sector. The Government hates unions. This Government has a problem with major unions. The Government cannot cope with the absolute insult to its ideology of neoliberalism that the success of unions delivers; the success of collective action—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Too much Politics 101.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Michael Gallacher. I never did Politics 101 at university. I learnt my politics in the workplace, unlike the—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Government members are making far too much noise. During the contribution of the previous speaker Government members complained that they were unable able to hear. It is impossible for anyone to hear Dr John Kaye.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I learnt my politics in the workplace while working collectively with my colleagues, something which I suspect only translates to factionalism within the Coalition parties. I want to address a major myth that arises each time we talk about the public sector and one that is raised time and again by Coalition politicians: the myth of the uselessness of the back office. That myth can only be perpetuated by those who have never been on the front line and those who have never understood the importance of having people supporting them as a front-line worker. That myth can only be believed by someone who has not been a nurse, a teacher, a doctor or a police person, by someone who has not stood up and recognised that every day in the classroom, in the ward or on the beat when delivering public services—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Are you one of those on the front line, John?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection. I invite the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox to stand up in front of 350 first-year electrical engineering students and try to teach them circuit theory. That is the front line, comrade. It is an absolute myth that those who work in the back office are less important because they are not dealing with the students, the patients or the welfare recipients. It is an absolute myth that those people are somehow less significant or less important and, therefore, are dispensable and disposable—

Mr David Shoebridge: Excess.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of Mr David Shoebridge. That myth is driving a distorted view of the public sector and driving legislation to destroy the public sector. No front-line worker can deliver those important community services without the support of the back office. For example, the Government is busy taking away the itinerant consultants on special needs education—those consultants who go from school to school and develop work programs for students in conjunction with front-line teachers. Those consultants are back office; they will disappear. Nothing is less back office, nothing is more important, than the expertise across disability and special needs fields that those consultants deliver. To refer to those consultants as "back office" and less significant or important to educational delivery displays a profound ignorance of how education works.

It is all very well for the Hon. Charlie Lynn to call me a parasite because I have worked in the public sector and for Hon. Scot MacDonald to dismiss the important work of back office individuals. I invite the Hon. Charlie Lynn to remember his Army days. Where would he have been without the supplies that were delivered? Where would he have been without the bureaucrats in the Department of Defence who supplied him with intelligence information and food—

Mr David Shoebridge: When have you worked in the private sector, Charlie?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Most of my life; from the age of 14.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Dr JOHN KAYE: This is the fifth piece of legislation to pass through this Chamber that is nothing more than an attack on working people, public services and public sector employees. It is another example of 10410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

what one expects from a Coalition Government. The O'Farrell Government is driven by ideology; it does not care about the individuals who rely on public services. The O'Farrell Government dislikes with great intensity those who are employed in the private sector. The Greens oppose the bill.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.16 p.m.]: I did not intend to speak to the Public Sector Employment and Management Bill 2012, but I will make a brief contribution. Mr David Shoebridge asked me when I had worked in the private sector. For the record, I started in it when I left school at the age of 15 and I worked in it for five years until I was conscripted into the Army—where I served for 21 years. I ran a business for 15 years after leaving the Army. I then became a member of Parliament.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald has been rubbished in this debate. The Hon. Scot MacDonald has worked in the private sector all his life. He worked on the land. He was a producer of the food that we all eat. He was an income generator. He employed people who paid taxes so that the parasites of our society do not have to sleep around the back of the State Library at night but instead have a role to play in society. I take exception to The Greens, in particular, trying to paint Government members as being anti public sector and anti union.

I believe in unions, but not those on the extreme Left. I will give members a couple of examples. When I was in the Army I was taken to a major warehouse at Holsworthy. The workers—most of them Asian from south-western Sydney—were stacking shelves and driving forklifts. By crikey, they could work. I noticed a huge gorilla of a man with big braces standing around. I asked, "Who is that bloke who looks a bit like a gorilla?" I was told he was from the union. His job was to make sure that the workers worked to rule and did not work too hard. My father had a trucking business that carried stuff from the railway station to the township of Orbost, on the other side of the Snowy River. We used to load 420 butter boxes three days per week at 56 pounds per box.

One day Jimmy Edlington and these other big blokes from the butter factory came over carrying one butter box—we used to carry two. I was a skinny little 14-year-old and I carried two. I had to wait for them to give me the second one so I could give the two boxes to dad to put on the truck. I said to dad, "What is the story? Why are those blokes carrying only one butter box?" He said, "The union is in town, son. They are only allowed to carry one butter box." I said, "God, they must be stupid." Talk about anti work.

I am a great supporter of the public sector. When I joined the Army I understood the rules of the game. When I eventually applied for a commission I was told, "You will never have much money as an Army officer but you will get rewards that money cannot buy." I understood the rules of the game. All I needed was enough money to get from fortnight to fortnight; money was not my thing. It was about vocational service, where the rewards are not only financial. The rewards of vocational service are much greater than money can buy. Without doubt, front-line police—look at the esprit de corps among front-line police—nurses and teachers are the most important people in our society. To suggest that we do not support the police, nurses, carers and teachers in our society is a complete fabrication. They have our full support.

[Interruption]

No, it is Dr John Kaye's left-wing mates who are on these little committees—

Dr John Kaye: Which committees?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: —that put so many restrictions on the ability of teachers to do their jobs, because of the idiotic rules and regulations. I was a member of a committee that looked at why there are no male teachers in our primary school system. One does not need to be a Rhodes scholar to work that out. For example, a little girl runs through a school yard and trips and falls and then bleeds from the elbows and knees. A male teacher cannot step near her; she simply has to cry.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: No, that's not true.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: That is true. Read the committee report. Members opposite support that sort of stuff. How many male teachers are in the primary school system? Not many. Why? Because their life could be destroyed at the whim of a left-winger like Dr John Kaye. So to suggest that is idiotic.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It's your fault. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10411

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: No, no. Labor must take some credit for this. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods and other Labor members—eminently forgettable people—were on those committees.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Meredith.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Meredith Burgmann—Labor had some real high-flyers. However, they have left; they are on their pensions now. They are living off the hog's back. The private sector is about risk and reward. People go into the private sector to make money. They are income producers. They take the risks and get the rewards. However, because of the unions, the retail industry must pay its workers double time, triple time and all that sort of stuff.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: There's no triple time.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: They are not employed as much.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Read your facts.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Small businesses do not employ people on public holidays because they cannot afford to do so. So they have to pay. Labor members are way off when they mock producers and income generators in society. They are the nearest thing to human leeches I can envisage; they attach themselves to the taxpayer-funded artery, they anaesthetise the wound, they suck the artery and then roll off bloated to spend the rest of their lives on a well-heeled government pension, which has been generated by the income producers.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [12.23 p.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. The object of this bill is to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2012, first, by revising the provisions of that Act relating to excess officers of public service departments and the circumstances—

Mr David Shoebridge: Are you going to describe them as leeches and parasites like the Hon. Charlie Lynn did?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call Mr David Shoebridge to order for the first time.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: —in which the services of those officers may be dispensed with; secondly, to exclude the unfair contracts jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission in connection with any such excess officers and any excess employees of other public sector agencies; and, finally, to require the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff and require the Public Service Commissioner to issue guidelines for that purpose. I turn briefly to the decision that has been referred to by a number of members—that is, the Public Service Association and Director of Public Employment 2011 decision. In July 2011 the Public Service Association and Unions NSW lodged an application with the Industrial Court opposing the Government's new managing excess employees policy.

The unions argued that, firstly, the previous managing excess employees policy formed part of the contracts of employment for a small group of named employees. They further argued that the move from the previous policy to the new policy was unfair—a distinct ground—and, finally, that the forced retrenchment could occur only if the useful work test was applied. The court's judgement was handed down on 11 November 2011 and orders were made on 5 December 2011. I want to make it clear that the court did not find that the previous managing excess employees policy formed part of the contracts of employment for those named employees.

However, the court found that for that small group of employees declared excess before 1 August 2011 the move to the new managing excess employees policy was unfair. That is the second ground upon which the unions argued their case. The court has ordered that for these employees the conditions of the earlier managing excess employees policy be reinstated until 31 July 2014. This small group of excess employees will now be managed under the conditions of the previous Government's policy, in accordance with the court's orders. Of particular concern were comments made by the court in relation to the interpretation of section 56 of the Public Employment and Management Act 2002.

The comments in the judgement broadened the test that a department must apply to establish that no useful work is available before terminating the services of an excess employee. Previously, the test for useful 10412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

work was limited to the availability of vacant permanent positions. The Crown has lodged an appeal against the court's decision. Importantly, and contrary to some comments in the media, the integrity of the Government's new managing excess employees policy has been maintained. Employees declared excess on or after 1 August 2011 can continue to be managed according to the new policy, and departments must continue to declare employees as excess employees.

I turn now to a point that arises out of the decision: Why are the changes to exclude unfair contract provisions necessary? The Government introduced a sensible new policy for managing excess employees in the New South Wales government service on 1 August 2011. The new policy provides excess employees with a choice of a generous voluntary redundancy package or a three-month retention period in which to pursue redeployment. The unions challenged the Government's new policy under the unfair contracts provision of section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 2006, as I previously indicated. In November 2011 the court found that the Government's move from the 2008 managing excess employees policy to the new policy was unfair.

The court made orders reinstating the provisions of the previous 2008 managing excess employees policy for 29 employees until 31 July 2014. This means that agencies are prevented from implementing the new government policy for this group of employees for a further three years, despite the fact that these employees do not currently have a permanent position. Some of these employees have been excess for a number of years. I repeat that some of those 29 employees have been excess for a number of years. In fact, some of them were declared excess as far back as 2005 and have still not been successful in finding redeployment despite having been provided with career transition assistance.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Seven years.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: For seven years some of those employees have been excess. These employees will continue to have their full 12-month retention period, job assist payments to the value of $5,000, up to 12 weeks paid job search leave at the agency's discretion and three months notice of intention to force their redundancy. In addition, in the event of their forced redundancy, the court has ordered that this group receive the same severance payments that apply in the case of voluntary redundancy. It is the Government's view that redundancy provisions for public sector employees should not be unilaterally determined by the Industrial Court but, rather, reflect a balance between treating excess employees fairly and delivering efficient services to the community. I repeat that it is a balance between treating excess employees fairly and delivering efficient services to the community. The Government wants to help public servants who lose their jobs as a result of changing priorities or structural reforms but employees who cannot be redeployed cannot be kept on the books indefinitely, as they have in this case for years.

I turn now to deal with the continuing role of the Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Commission has a long history of assisting New South Wales employees in resolving industrial disputes, ensuring that employees are not dismissed unfairly and encouraging and facilitating cooperative workplace reform. The Government is not seeking to change that role for the commission in relation to the management of excess employees. Excess employees and their unions will still be able to lodge claims for individual disputes and unfair dismissals, which will be able to be heard and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Commission will continue the important role it plays by ensuring that excess employees are treated fairly, receive their entitlements at law and under the excess employees policy, and have access to relief for unfair dismissal.

What will change is that the Industrial Court will no longer have the power unilaterally to determine the provisions that apply to excess employees in the public sector. These proceedings under the unfair contracts provisions seek to prevent agencies from implementing reasonable changes to their excess employee policies that are consistent with the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and are rightly a matter for the Government to determine through policy decisions from time to time. Redundancy arrangements in existing industrial instruments, however, will not be displaced.

I seek to address a final matter, that is, proposed changes to the excess employees policy of NSW Health. As many will know, the Ministry of Health is seeking to introduce a new policy for managing excess employees in the NSW Health service, which covers health professionals, nurses, ambulance officers and administrative staff. The current policy provides for most displaced or excess employees, often administrators or managers, to receive their salary indefinitely even when they do not have a position or are performing work of a lesser grade. It is, in effect, a policy of no forced redundancies. This policy restricts the ability of Health to adapt to changing priorities or to implement organisational reforms that deliver improved health services in line with community expectations. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10413

The Ministry of Health, with the assistance of the Industrial Relations Commission, is currently in discussions with relevant unions about a new policy. The matter is to be heard by Justice Boland and the parties are engaged in constructive discussions. The report backdate was listed before President Boland on 16 March 2012. The proposed legislative amendments to exclude the application of the unfair contracts provisions in the Industrial Relations Act to arrangements for excess employees will not affect the commission's powers in dealing with this matter. While the Industrial Court will no longer have the power unilaterally to determine excess employee provisions in the public sector, the Industrial Relations Commission will continue to hear and determine excess employee disputes and unfair dismissal matters. I trust this assists members of this Chamber in coming to a rational and informed decision about the legislation.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.35 p.m.]: It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. At the outset I acknowledge the very learned contribution of the Hon. Trevor Khan and thank him for putting the debate in its proper perspective. I reiterate that the object of the bill is to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 to revise the provisions of that Act relating to excess officers of public service departments and the circumstances in which the services of those officers may be dispensed with, to exclude the unfair contracts jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission in connection with any such excess officers and any excess employees of other public sector agencies, and to require the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff and to require the Public Service Commissioner to issue guidelines for that purpose.

These are very important changes and during the debate members have regaled the rationale for these changes. I wish to dwell particularly on the performance management systems aspect and draw upon my experience as a senior public servant in another life and as someone who worked for large corporates and ran my own businesses. That background is useful when reflecting on the ideological viewpoints promulgated particularly by The Greens. In relation to public service management systems, it was common practice when I was a member of the Commonwealth public service for there to be in place a rigorous performance management system. That involved the team leader, normally the branch head, bringing the team together on a regular basis to talk about objectives and outcomes, and on an individual basis meeting with each team member to set an agreement for performance over the coming year.

The next part of the process was to review performance against the agreed outcomes and benchmarks set in the initial meeting. This occurred every three months, culminating in a final meeting prior to the expiry of the 12-month period, when the supervisor would meet with the staff member, run through the arrangements in detail and give appropriate feedback according to a properly documented process. The employee would also provide feedback to the supervisor about the agreement reached in the first instance. Following that quite exhaustive process, involving significant investment in both time and process, the performance agreement would be tied to outcomes through performance pay. That rating was delivered in relation to the performance of the employee and performance pay then followed according to that rating. There was a direct incentive to improve performance and that incentive was aligned with the outcomes of the organisation.

This is also commonplace in the private sector. Members would be aware of bonus systems, even employee share schemes and the like, designed to align the conduct of the worker with the desired outcomes of the organisation. This is not revolutionary, as perhaps Dr John Kaye may suggest; this is common practice in the private sector and in the public sector at a Commonwealth level. It is common practice in other public sectors around the world. It is not a revolutionary concept, it is good management practice designed to align the incentives to ensure that individuals strive to produce the best outcomes for the organisation for which they work. If one had listened to Dr John Kaye with any seriousness one might have been led to believe that the world in which he was brought up was one where the status quo was protected at all costs regardless of realities that might exist outside that world—some sort of socialist commune where one's goal was to ensure that nothing changed and no light was ever shone in, regardless of whether it might improve the outcomes for the collective.

This bill is not about terrorising a workforce; suggestions to that end are plainly ridiculous. It is not about creating a work-to-rule environment that Dr John Kaye seems to wish to propagate. It is about shining some light into how the public service operates in this State and to ensure through performance management that we have the best possible structures in place. I highly commend the Premier and the Minister in this place for bringing in such an important bill which puts performance agreements back on the agenda in the New South Wales public sector. We have to shine a light on performance management in this area.

We want New South Wales to have the best public service—a public service that strives for outcomes in the interests of the people of New South Wales, not a public service that seeks to protect itself from any 10414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

accountability and to propagate a work-to-rule mentality that is not in the interests of the people of New South Wales. That seems to be the objective of those opposite and The Greens in particular, and it strikes at the heart of improving the efficiency of this State. We on this side of the Chamber want to see a public sector that can strive to deliver the outcomes that this Government wishes to pursue and which the people of New South Wales have been denied for too long. It is a very simple paradigm. We wish to move this public sector into a high performance arena with appropriate accountability, performance management and the ability to ensure that we deliver outcomes.

It is very clear that the processes that have been put in place by the Government to manage excess employees have been frustrated in the manner articulated by a number of members. That seems to be the ongoing wish of those opposite. It certainly is not the wish of the Government. It is important that employees are dealt with appropriately, and that fairness is the template and touchstone in that regard, and that at the same time there is a proper process to protect those rights. The Government has a policy in relation to managing excess employees and the history of it was articulated in some detail by the Hon. Trevor Khan. I will not go through that again. Perhaps members opposite can look in Hansard and read it for themselves.

The reality is that managing excess employees with dignity is very important. The circumstance in which 29 employees have been excess for years, some for up to seven years, is really horrific. We are talking about people who have been turning up to work for up to seven years while having no job to do. This is the sort of process that those opposite wish to set in cement. They want to ensure that these people never have an opportunity to retrain and move on to more productive activities. That is a terrible shame. The reality is that this should never occur in the public sector. The bill intends to put some accountability in place.

Schedule 1 stipulates clearly how a department head is to determine whether an employee is excess. It is worth reflecting on that. The bill requires the department head to take all practical steps to find an ongoing position in the public sector for an excess officer, rather than any employment in the public sector. It enables a department head to dispense with the services of an excess officer if such a position is not found, rather than if useful work in the public service cannot be found. The bill also allows a department head to deal with excess officers arising in connection with functions and activities of part of a department as well as the whole of a department. There is a clear process to be followed. The bill ensures a department head has an appropriate process to make sure that workers—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Mr David Shoebridge is repeatedly interjecting on this speaker, not to seek elucidation of what the member is saying but to try to disturb him and draw him away from the speech he is making. It is disorderly, it is not witty and I ask you to ask him to cease interjecting.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: I find it surprising that the Government Whip would take this point of order. The last two Coalition speakers have been heard practically in silence, in direct contrast to what occurred during the speeches of Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis when the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps interjected all the way through their speeches.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: I refer to the hypocrisy of the point of order when Government members repeatedly interjected during my contribution—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will resume his seat. All three members who spoke to the point of order took the opportunity to make a debating point. That is not appropriate. I have already called Mr David Shoebridge to order for interjecting on members' speeches. I caution him against continuing to do so.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: As I was saying, the bill is a very important one that sets standards for the public sector into the future. I congratulate the Minister for requiring the Public Service Commission to issue guidelines for the purpose of introducing performance management systems which is long overdue. It is very important to ensure that those performance management systems are in place. It is important to give value to taxpayers and to ensure a proper allocation of resources. In that process we must ensure that employee rights are protected and that we align the incentives properly so that employees can produce the best for the organisations in the public sector in which they operate. I commend the Minister for introducing the bill and commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.48 p.m.]: This bill is much like a number of the measures brought forward by this Government—brief and nasty. To cut to the chase, the one objective of this bill is simply to make it easier to dispose of government employees that the Government no 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10415

longer wants. It removes from government the inconvenience of making any real effort to find ongoing work in the public sector for displaced employees and it further seeks to avoid the inconvenience caused for Government by the decision of the NSW Industrial Court and its President, Justice Boland, in the case brought by the Public Service Association against the Director of Public Employment.

Mr David Shoebridge: Irrespective of that decision they obviously so believe in the merits of the appeal that they are legislating—

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge the interjection of Mr David Shoebridge. That decision was handed down on 11 November 2011. I believe that the government agency that appeared in that litigation is taking steps to overturn that decision through the processes of the court. But such is the Government's powerful faith in the fairness and effectiveness of its own argument that rather than allow the independent court to deal with the matter, it is seeking to change the rules of engagement by legislation. There is nothing new in this. It is similar to legislation removing the jurisdiction of that court from hearing occupational health and safety matters. It is the same as effectively removing the power of the commission and its jurisdiction to make award wages commensurate with the conditions of employment.

The Government seeks to avoid the inconvenience of having to bring evidence to show it is being fair and to defend a case on the basis of evidence. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox said that fairness is the touchstone of government activity in dealing with excess employees but that is simply not the case. To take a point raised by the Hon. Trevor Khan, the Industrial Court does not unilaterally make decisions. It does so on the basis of evidence brought by parties. That evidence is tested and the court makes a rational and reasoned decision. The Government is in a better position than most litigants in that when it does not like the result it comes to the Parliament and tries to change the rules. There is nothing new in that but it reveals the real point of this exercise.

This exercise is not about improving the public sector or enhancing services or the career paths of its workers; it is about chipping away at their rights, undermining their conditions and generally making things worse for those who work in the public sector. There is no mandate for this legislation. The Government did not identify the issue at the heart of this bill as an issue that it would address in government. It did not raise it before or during the election, and it gave no indication to the very many public sector workers who voted for it that it would be taking this drastic step. This bill marks an ongoing approach by this Government of regarding public sector workers as commodities rather than people. That is most unfortunate.

Dr John Kaye talked about the myth of the division between front-line public sector workers and back-office staff. Often support staff are necessary if so-called front-line service providers are to do their job effectively. Even if we were to pay attention to the rhetoric of the Government that this legislation will not affect front-line services or front-line workers and deals only with so-called back office staff, we would look in vain in the bill to try to find any such protection. New section 56 (1) (b) states that "the Department Head may, with the approval of the Commissioner, dispense with the services of any such excess officer …" That means any excess officer as determined. There is no restriction on who can be determined as excess. The protections that currently exist are being significantly reduced.

The current requirement that employees can be exited from the public sector only if they cannot be found employment or useful work in the public sector will be dispensed with and instead the requirement will be that excess employees can be dispensed with if they cannot be found an ongoing position. That is a very significant change. It means that if a department head cannot find a position existing in the structure of an organisation, even if there is very useful work that these workers can perform, and in many cases are performing, the department head will be relieved of any obligation to keep them doing that useful work—

Mr David Shoebridge: An Orwellian redefinition of the word "useful".

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. It is an Orwellian use of the term "useful" but in one sense the Government is belatedly coming clean. It says it does not matter if there is useful work that displaced employees can perform or if there is sufficient useful work to keep them engaged in an ongoing fashion. It says if that useful work of an ongoing nature is not formally packaged up in a position located somewhere on an organisational chart the department head can be relieved of the obligation to keep people working and, in fact, exit them out of the world of work. It is an encouragement for department heads to downscale the size of their organisations.

In particular, a provision in the bill states that department heads not only have to worry whether staff in the department exceed the number necessary overall, but that even if parts of an agency are deemed by the 10416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

department heads to be overstaffed, the department heads can exit people, having had their obligations very significantly lightened. Although I do not suggest that anyone would deliberately engage in this practice, now that those burdens have been significantly lightened, it would not stop department heads from restructuring their agencies, or parts of their agencies, to make them oversized and then exiting people.

In relation to fairness, if the Government really believed that its management of excess employees was fair it would have nothing to fear from the unfair contract jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. People can only succeed in that jurisdiction if they can demonstrate that a contract is unfair or became unfair, in the ordinary English language meaning of the term. For now, there is still an unfair dismissal jurisdiction. The Hon. Trevor Khan talked about the ability of workers to bring individual industrial disputes. Unions can notify disputes on behalf of their members and employers can notify disputes. However, unless I have missed something in this bill, there is no capacity for an individual to bring an industrial dispute and to have his or her individual grievance aired in that way. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of some members opposite.

Quite simply, this legislation is just another exercise in reducing the rights of workers in the public sector, the standards of their employment and the protections that they have, and making it easy to dispose of them. That is part of the ongoing commodification of individual working people—treating them as a cost rather than treating them with dignity as human beings and as a valuable resource, which is most unfortunate. As I said earlier, it is even more unfortunate that the Government did not come clean with the electorate before 26 March 2011 and made it clear that this legislation was on its list of things to do.

In fact, I recall the Premier saying that public sector workers had nothing to fear from the election of a Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government. We have seen a 2.5 per cent wages cap, the dilution of standards of occupational health and safety and the possible restructuring of TAFE NSW and handing it over to Federal industrial regulation. Not content with that, the Government wants to extend its wages policy to those whose employment is federally regulated but who work for State-owned utilities. This legislation is opposed strongly by the Labor Party. It is not fair or reasonable and it was not brought forward in a consultative fashion. The Government did not come clean with the electorate before last year's election. The Government did not indicate that this was part of its agenda and it has no mandate for it.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.59 p.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. This reasonable and outstanding bill is yet another good bill from a good government—the Government of Barry O'Farrell, the Government of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition. We are determined to put New South Wales back on track after 16 years of misery for the people of New South Wales, after 16 years of pork barrelling and featherbedding, and after a sellout of the people of New South Wales with deadbeat schemes like the Solar Bonus Scheme. If that scheme had continued to operate in the form in which it was in it would have sent the State broke. Do The Greens care about sending this State broke? What are the concerns of The Greens for the public service? The Greens want to bloat the public service. They never miss a trick. If the Stalinist wing of The Greens had its way everybody would work for the public service, just as they did in the Soviet Union and just as they do in North Korea and Cuba.

[The President left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

SPEED CAMERAS

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I direct my question to the Hon. Duncan Gay, Minister for Roads and Ports. Does the Minister stand by his comments of 15 March that all 38 sites from which speed cameras were removed last year have had alternative road safety improvements completed?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My statement was that all speed camera zones had had road safety work done on them. I also indicated that the speed camera areas would be subject to a review. The Government made a clear commitment that it would remove speed cameras if they were not fulfilling a road safety quotient. It was 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10417

indicated when that was completed following the suggestions made by the Auditor-General that certain works needed to be done in a road safety area. Not all those works have been completed, but we indicated that work had been done and that the analysis would be completed by later this year, which will happen.

RURAL AND REGIONAL NEW SOUTH WALES

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's commitment to rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was hoping the Opposition would ask that question. It takes Government members to ask a sensible question. Each day in this job I am absolutely staggered at how the people and businesses of country New South Wales were shunned and neglected by Country Labor. Which country truck driver will ever forget being fined thousands of dollars because his load of wool was slightly bulging over the combing rail of his trailer? Who fixed this bureaucratic rubbish? We did. The Labor Government sat on this pile of rotting rubbish for 16 years and did nothing. This Government put in place a width concession that allowed for the safe transport of wool bales, hay, straw and ex-gin rectangular bales. The Labor Party may have been born out of the wool strikes of the 1890s, but except for the Hon. Mick Veitch its politicians would not know the difference between combs and cutters or a bog eye and a bale of wool if they fell over one.

I will go through the list of Labor duty members and the country electorates that they have been allocated. It is an interesting and entertaining mix. The image of the Hon. Walt Secord attempting to boot-scoot his way into the hearts and minds of the good citizens of Tamworth is too funny to contemplate. The thought of the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane developing water use policies for the Murrumbidgee region is frankly disturbing. The likelihood of the Hon. Amanda Fazio understanding the issues affecting the residents of Dubbo or Orange is remote. The thought of the Hon. "Second Chance" Steve Whan being an effective member of Parliament for the people of Monaro, Barwon or Murray-Darling—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Mr President, I draw your attention to the terminology used by the Minister about the Hon. Steve Whan. You have ruled on numerous occasions that members—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What terminology?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: The terminology—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the member to clarify the terminology; I did not hear it.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: The Minister said, "Second Chance Steve Whan". Mr President, you have ruled on this matter on numerous occasions, last year and this year. The Minister is nothing but a serial offender when it comes to breaching your rulings.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. The Minister is sailing close to the wind. He should be careful not to make unparliamentary remarks about other members.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Mr President, I am seeking your direction that the Minister withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is now canvassing my ruling. I advise him to sit down.

The Hon. Steve Whan: I am most offended—the Minister listed three other members before he got to me.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Of course the Hon. Steve Whan would be at the end of the list. Where did he think he would be? [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer about rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. Trevor Khan: This is a second chance question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This will be a lesson to those who sit on the losers' lounge. 10418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: I take great offence at being referred to as someone sitting on the losers' lounge.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has made his point. He will resume his seat. I refer the member to my earlier ruling on this matter.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Who delivered a record roads budget of $4.2 billion for rural and regional New South Wales? We did. That is $700 million more than the Hon. Eric Roozendaal allocated in his last budget for rural and regional roads. Who delivered an extra $468 million to accelerate the upgrade of one of the most important transport and freight links in regional New South Wales, the Pacific Highway? We did. That mob opposite on the losers' lounge did not even have the decency or the ticker to ask their Federal colleagues to honour the longstanding 80:20 Commonwealth-State roads funding split. Who restored the 110 kilometre an hour speed limit on the Newell Highway? We did. Who delivered exemptions for the movement of new John Deere pickers during last season's crop harvest? We did. Who delivered the construction contract for the first stage of the Gerringong to Bomaderry Princes Highway upgrade, a project that the Labor Government promised? We did. [Time expired.]

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister now stand by his 2007 comments in relation to the Pacific Highway, "Yes, I will match that money and save the lives of people in New South Wales that have to use this highway"? Will he now match the Federal Government funding for the Pacific Highway upgrade?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Opposition members do not get it. They have been given a lesson by the people of New South Wales, who can see that they do not care about regional people in this State. There is a clear message on the Pacific Highway: When they left office their colleagues in Canberra funded the Pacific Highway greater than 80:20—it was 86:14. Those opposite—without any ticker—have not supported New South Wales. An extra $2.31 billion has been pulled out of the budget because those opposite do not have the gumption or the guts to back New South Wales. Those opposite do not care about New South Wales. The ratio was 80:20 in round terms, and now the Federal Government wants to change it to 50:50.

[Interruption]

The shadow Minister for Transport, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, says that is rubbish. She wants $2.31 billion of the New South Wales budget to be spent on transport. The member says, "Rubbish", but how the hell are we going to pay for it? How the hell are we going to pay for their daily promises, their daily weeping, their daily litany of concerns that they express on issues that they did nothing about when they were in government? They did nothing. The ratio was 80:20 when they were in government; it is currently 80:20. Just before Christmas the Hon. Anthony Albanese sent us a letter—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I draw your attention to the lack of decorum and order in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Helen Westwood to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Members will not interject while I am making a ruling. I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was expressing the outrage of the people of New South Wales and, in particular, the people of the North Coast over the lack of ticker from the State Labor Party and their Federal counterparts. The Federal member for Lyne, Mr Rob Oakeshott, that great friend of the Labor Party—it is the Oakeshott-Greens coalition—is supporting the removal of that $2.31 billion. It is interesting that the other two Federal Labor members who represent electorates along the Pacific Highway are supporting it as well. I do not think it would come as a shock to anyone who watches the polls and sees the Labor Party putting its key seat strategy in place that it has put the cross through those Australian Labor Party seats on the Pacific Highway. If I were the people in those seats, I would not expect anything. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the first time. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10419

ILLEGAL DRUGS

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Has the New South Wales Government conducted a cost benefit analysis of its law enforcement measures with regard to illegal drugs? If not, will the Government consider doing so in light of the views of the former Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Palmer, that the police effort in the war on drugs had made only marginal, if any, difference?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for her question. This morning I was intrigued to see that Bob Carr, the former Premier, had a bit to say on this subject. Today he is out there stating that he wants to decriminalise drugs. Perhaps he is proposing a free trade agreement with Colombia or with the drug cartels of Colombia. He is probably looking at trade opportunities with those drug cartels. He is talking about decriminalisation. He had his opportunity when he was Premier. A Drug Summit was held in this Parliament.

A former Premier of New South Wales is playing the game Kevin Rudd used to play: look at me. Bob Carr is not talking about what is happening around the world; he is talking about the decriminalisation of drugs. Bob is playing look at me. He is playing look at me because it is a distraction. While he is playing look at me no-one is looking at the Prime Minister. What is the Prime Minister doing today? Absolutely nothing. What has she said today? Absolutely nothing. Who has the running commentary? The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr. Who previously had the running commentary? The former Minister for Foreign Affairs—

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: The question clearly asked whether the New South Wales Government had conducted a cost benefit analysis of its law enforcement measures. The Minister is not answering the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: To the point of order: The question was not about whether the Government had done the cost benefit analysis; it was whether the NSW Police Force had done the cost benefit analysis. There is a difference.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: No, I asked about the New South Wales Government. You are debating the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Ministers of the need for them to be generally relevant in their answers. Thus far the Minister has been generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am intrigued that the former Premier, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, is talking about decriminalisation. We have yet to see the details of his plan. He has just floated it out there and said "decriminalisation". It is a thought bubble. It distracts from the Federal Government's lack of performance with respect to policy, direction or anything else that might be happening at that level. Maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs is looking at life after politics. He might be looking at a free trade agreement with Colombian drug cartels, or with God knows who over there, who will offer particular opportunities.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: I ask you to direct the Minister not to make reflections on a Minister of the Crown in another Parliament in the way that he has been doing by making those sorts of reflections.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order with respect to a reflection on a member of another Parliament. However, the Minister was starting to stray from being generally relevant. I ask him to be generally relevant in the remainder of his answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I was saying earlier, before I started to respond to interjections from Opposition members, I am not aware of any cost benefit analysis done by the NSW Police Force. I will make an inquiry and come back to the member.

CHILD ABDUCTION ALERT SYSTEM

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House on the child abduction alert system in New South Wales? 10420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: This Government is committed to the safety of children and to the taking of prompt action to locate abducted children. We know that time is of critical essence in the location of abducted children. Whilst child abductions are rare, it is essential that we have an effective way to respond when they happen. The 2006 report by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research into victims of abduction found that there were 33 attempted abductions of children aged under 15 years and 16 abductions of children under 15 years in a six-month period. The New South Wales child abduction alert system alerts the public when there has been a suspected abduction of a child.

Urgent broadcasts are made via radio, television, taxi systems and electronic signs on motorways to saturate the vicinity of the incident with details of the abduction so that the community can help locate the child. Alerts are issued on Eyewatch—the Police Facebook page—to reach a broader audience. Police issue alerts to participating organisations every 15 minutes, updated as appropriate, until the final alert is sent after four hours or when the child is located. Alerts are intended to be used only on limited occasions.

Research indicates that the first few hours after abduction are critical. The New South Wales alert system, which has been in operation for a number of years, is based on the Queensland model. Alerts are issued in accordance with an interagency child abduction alert protocol. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Bus and Coach Association of New South Wales, Commercial Radio Australia Limited, Free TV Australia, the New South Wales Taxi Council, the NSW Police Force, and Roads and Maritime Services are signatories to this protocol. Initially the alerts were for use only when a stranger had abducted a child. In 2009 the protocols were revised to develop a second level of alert for when a child is abducted by a family member. These are called "concern for child" alerts.

In February 2012 a concern for child alert was activated at 5.55 p.m. to help locate a four-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl believed to have been taken by their mother from the Central Coast. A motorist in the Australian Capital Territory heard the appeal for help on a radio news bulletin and alerted local police that he was following the vehicle being sought. An Australian Capital Territory police vehicle intercepted the wanted vehicle—it was stopped approximately an hour after the initial alert. By 7.00 p.m. that same evening police issued the final alert announcing that the children had been located safely. In another instance a 15-month-old boy was located after information on his abduction had been broadcast on television, radio and the variable messaging system of the Roads and Maritime Services. The boy was found as a direct result of the alert. The New South Wales child abduction alert system is not activated very often, but I am pleased to note how effective it is when it is activated. This is an important tool to ensure the safety of our children.

WHOOPING COUGH

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. Given that the numbers of cases of whooping cough are increasing and that a new strain of vaccine-resistant bacteria has been responsible for 84 per cent of all reported cases of whooping cough since 2008, will the Minister inform the House what strategies are currently in place to combat this growing epidemic concern?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question. I am sure all members are concerned about the spread of whooping cough, as they are about the spread of chickenpox.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Hear, hear!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Those pins are going into the voodoo doll. I think the member picked one up by accident. I have told the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to get rid of that one; it is not working. I will get an answer to this question from the Minister for Health and report back to the Hon. Paul Green as soon as possible.

SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Yesterday in question time, in reply to a question about the Staysafe committee report into school zones, the Minister said:

The committee recommends that Roads and Maritime Services conducts an evaluation of alternative school zone hours of operation based on data available from other Australian jurisdictions, with a view to assessing the effectiveness of altering the operation of school zone hours in NSW.

3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10421

Given that the report specifically mentions that one of the other jurisdictions—South Australia—has 24-hour school zones, does the Minister acknowledge that the Staysafe committee intended the Government to consider implementing 24-hour school zones in New South Wales, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph on 25 March and 1 April 2012?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Did I deduce yesterday that the Staysafe committee wanted to recommend that this State have 24-hour school zones, seven days per week? No, I did not. I do not think any fair-minded person in New South Wales would think that. It was a clear recommendation to look at the practices in other States. Had the Staysafe committee wanted the Government to put in place school speed zones 24 hours, seven days per week—the member went further than saying "look at it"—I would have thought the committee would have made it one of its recommendations. It most certainly was not. That came from spurious information that was given to a major Sunday newspaper. It was an inaccurate story. That newspaper should look at its sources. Many people have suggested that one does not need CSI to look at the big bloke's blouse to work out where that information came from. I was asked whether that was a recommendation. No, it clearly was not a recommendation.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Give them a new photo, Duncan. A terrible photo was used.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just accept—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will not be diverted by interjections.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Because the Government acts appropriately, I had to wait until Tuesday when the report was tabled in the House to find out its recommendations—unlike someone who breached parliamentary privilege and all the rules that surely were learnt out of Cecil Hills High School—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The Chamber is currently in a shambles. I ask the President to draw members opposite to order. The Minister should be heard in silence.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While there have been a lot of interjections, the Minister's answer was clear. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have concluded my answer.

PERLE PTY LTD

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House about Perle Pty Ltd in liquidation?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question and note the absence of questions from the Opposition, as usual. Perle Pty Ltd was a construction company engaged by the former Labor Government to build nine housing projects in New South Wales, including projects in Federal Labor's botched stimulus packages. In October 2010 the previous Labor Government was warned that Perle projects were in trouble. Numerous subcontractors informed the project manager that Perle had not paid them. Despite these warnings the former Labor Government did not act. On 12 January 2011 Perle entered voluntary administration and on 17 February 2011 a liquidator was appointed. As a result, a significant number of subcontractors have been left out of pocket.

This Government was again left to clean up the mess left behind by those opposite. I will be tabling the Internal Audit Bureau report into Housing NSW's management of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Program and Perle Pty Ltd under the former Labor Government. The report highlights serious deficiencies in the former Government's handling of the program, particularly the less than diligent nature of financial assessments undertaken prior to engaging builders. The report states:

… there were a number of elements of risk which should have been identified as part of the assessment of tender processes undertaken in respect of financial viability, including the previous history and experience of Perle in these types of construction projects.

The report highlights three specific issues that were apparent and should have highlighted an increased level of risk in the engagement of Perle on multiple projects by the former Labor Government. First, the financial assessments were conducted on an individual project basis that did not consider the total impact that this may 10422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

have on the level of ongoing working capital of Perle. Second, the financial assessments were conducted in such quick succession at the commencement of the projects that each assessment was based on the 2008-09 financial year figures and did not consider the cumulative impact of current works that had to be delivered.

Third, the relaxation of rules in respect to working capital by Housing NSW under Labor may have added to the inability of Perle to maintain sufficient capital in the context of the delivery of multiple projects. The lack of attention paid by Labor to the financials that underpinned Perle and its contracts to complete these projects has led to subcontractors being left out of pocket and in the dark about their future. This Government acted to clean up Labor's mess as quickly as possible. Expressions of interest for the tender to complete the Perle projects opened on 17 November and closed on 29 November. The tenders were called and St Hilliers was awarded the contract on 9 March 2012.

This side of the House has done everything possible to ensure that the subcontractors who may be neglected are looked after. That is why, during the tender process, St Hilliers was provided with a list of registered subcontractors who were formerly engaged by the original builders for consideration when determining resourcing for the sites. I advise that St Hilliers is seeking to re-engage a number of subcontractors formerly engaged on the incomplete sites. A year after coming to office we have cleaned up another Labor mess by completing these projects.

EDUCATION SAVINGS PLAN

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education. With respect to the performance agreement between the Director General for Education and the Premier, will the Minister inform the House of the size of savings contained in the agency savings plan over the next four years and how those savings will be achieved? Will the Minister release the relevant clauses of the director general's agency savings plan agreement, noting that the matter is not a budget matter but an agreement between the Premier and the director general?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question, which seeks great detail. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Education for a detailed response.

CATEGORY C NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The Minister would be aware of the impact of recent flooding on residents in Coolamon shire, particularly residents and businesses in Ganmain, which has flooded three times this year. Residents and the Opposition are well aware that information must be collected for a decision to give category C grants and that some areas in the Riverina are already receiving these grants. Does the Minister understand the frustration of Ganmain residents particularly at the time it is taking to submit an application? Can the Minister tell residents if and when they can expect an answer about whether they will be able to get category C grants?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Government and I will take every opportunity to allay the concerns of people who have been affected by the most recent flood event. I am not aware of the issues, and I am not sure whether the assertion in the question about delays, and the reasons for any delays, is correct. The matter may rest between various arms of government or between local government and the State Government. I will take steps to endeavour to find out and report back to the House.

SMOKE ALARMS

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the messages in the Change Your Clock, Change Your Smoke Alarm Battery campaign?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Earlier I indicated that I would be talking about this matter. On Sunday in lounge rooms, bedrooms and offices across the State clocks were turned back as daylight saving came to an end. It is also the day when homeowners should have taken the safety precaution of changing the batteries in their smoke alarms. This year's Change Your Clock, Change Your Smoke Alarm Battery campaign is aimed at promoting a twice-a-year check of smoke alarms. Over the decades we have witnessed a number of devastating fires. The images of the Victorian bushfires are still fresh in our memories, as are the fires that blazed in the Western Australian bush just last year. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10423

To many it might seem that the highest risk is present in summer, but firefighters throughout the country dread the approach of the winter months. As people leave stoves unattended and turn on their heaters to keep out the chill, the risk of house fires dramatically increases. Indeed, Fire and Rescue NSW advises that there are many more house fires in winter than there are in the summer months. For example, of the 2,826 house fires that occurred in 2011, 1,512 occurred in the winter season. Sadly, seven people also lost their lives in those residential fires. While it is encouraging to report that these figures were a dramatic improvement on the previous year, one fatality in a house fire is simply one too many.

Taking simple, preventative steps such as turning off heaters before leaving home, checking power points to make sure they are not overloaded and remembering to turn off the stove can save one's life or the life of a loved one. A smoke alarm is a crucial early warning tool. A loud alarm tone can alert residents when a fire breaks out so that they have time to evacuate safely. In fact, Fire and Rescue Commissioner Greg Mullins advises that a working smoke alarm can reduce the chance of death in a house fire by up to 60 per cent. But another message should be loud and clear: only a working smoke alarm can save your life.

That is why Fire and Rescue NSW has been hard at work, prior to yesterday, promoting the Change Your Clock, Change Your Smoke Alarm Battery campaign to the community. As well as hosting community talks and media interviews, with the help of its corporate partners Fire and Rescue successfully used television and print advertising to spread the message. Considering the difference that a functioning smoke alarm can make, spending $10 on a new battery is a modest price to pay for a huge increase in safety. I urge all members and the people of New South Wales to take this small but crucial step, if they have not already done so, to change the batteries in their smoke alarms.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of moves by environmental groups to launch legal action to have up to 4,000 gigalitres of water dumped into the Murray-Darling system, rather than the 2,750 gigalitres proposed in the draft national plan, on the basis that the plan does not comply with the Water Act? What action does the New South Wales Government propose to take to ensure that environmental groups in South Australia do not cause financial ruin for the rural and regional economies in this State that depend on that basin?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a good question. Frankly, I was unaware of that matter. I am sure the member's assertions are correct, and if they are correct, I am sure they will be of concern to all sensible members of this House. However, a few nonsensical members of this House would not share that concern.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: They're sitting behind you.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We can put them in a tinny with the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No, you won't. You won't put me anywhere.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries. As such, I will refer the question to her for her careful consideration.

NEWELL HIGHWAY SPEED LIMITS

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. I refer to the Minister's response to question on notice No. 1208 in relation to Newell Highway safety projects, in which he stated that the recent flooding "may affect completion of these projects". Does that mean that these projects may not be completed? If so, what action will the Minister take to ensure that there are no adverse safety impacts, given that the speed limit on some sections of the Newell Highway has been raised?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Good question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is not so good.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Because you don't have an answer. 10424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do have an answer. We delivered good news for a major part of New South Wales when we made the counterintuitive decision to increase the 100 kilometres-an-hour speed limit imposed by the Labor Government with the support of friends of the Labor Party. Interestingly, the accident rate on our roads increased when Labor reduced the speed limit. We have taken a common sense approach and, as the member indicated, we have put safety requirements in place. We have also lifted the speed limit, back to 110 kilometres an hour, which I am sure the member and the community would agree is a terrific thing.

[Interruption]

What was that? Does the Hon. Amanda Fazio have a comment? As I said earlier, Labor members whisper quietly, but they have no ticker when we ask them to put their comments on the record. They are sitting in the losers' lounge. The Hon. Mick Veitch would agree that the community believes that this is a good thing; it removes the angst and conflict. My comment at the time was that the recent rainfall is making it tougher to get those projects completed, but it does not mean that we are not going to complete them. It means exactly what I said, and the same applies to many projects across the State at the moment. In case members of the Labor Party have not noticed from their comfortable spots in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, we have had record rainfall and we have unbudgeted road repairs of more than $500 million.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Welcome to government.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, everyone in New South Wales is saying welcome to the new Government. Even the Hon. Amanda Fazio acknowledges that we are terrific. It is great to have her support.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister has been straying following interjections, and that is disorderly. I suggest you bring him back to the question, which is about safety improvements on roads—a very serious issue.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: Opposition members have been interjecting relentlessly in a very disorderly way and the member now stands up and complains. I ask you to call him to order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are working our way through it to fix the problem, as we are doing with every problem in this State—the safety upgrades included. They are just as important, if not more so, than some of the other problems we are addressing. In many areas it is a matter of getting communities re-linked, allowing families to get to town, to get their children to school and hospitals. Local government and Roads and Maritime Services have done a fantastic job. [Time expired.]

PRINCES HIGHWAY UPGRADE

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the Princes Highway South Nowra upgrade?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank my Parliamentary Secretary, who, Mr President, you would be pleased to hear, is the best Parliamentary Secretary I have ever had.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the Minister's answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Two weeks ago I was joined by the fantastic members Shelley Hancock and Gareth Ward to announce the recommencement of work on the Princes Highway upgrade at South Nowra. In November 2011 work on this important project was suspended after the discovery of the presence of the green and golden bell frog on the site.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Who put it there?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Amanda Fazio wants to know who put it there. She would be suggesting that some nefarious people actually planted them there. I know that there are many of them in that area.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to order for the first time. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10425

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The green and golden bell frog is listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 in New South Wales. I have to say that I saw hundreds upon hundreds when I was in that area. For that reason, since that discovery in 2011, Roads and Maritime Services has been working to ensure that the frogs are protected while the project is carried out. Given the number I saw, it is obvious that it is doing a terrific job in that regard. I thank all levels of government that have been working together to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Federal and State environmental agencies have now agreed that work can restart provided a number of conditions are met. This includes some biodiversity offset measures such as research and population studies.

A green and golden bell frog management plan has also been put in place that provides frog ponds and culverts to help them cross the highway and the planting of plant species in the median strip. Now that work is underway again, Roads and Maritime Services will carry out surveys of the project before clearing the land and building a footpath. When completed, the upgrade will provide four lanes on the Princes Highway between Kinghorne Street and Forest Road, improving traffic flow for local motorists and for those travelling through the area, particularly during peak holiday periods.

This highway upgrade will connect to the previously upgraded highway from Forest Road to Jervis Bay Road that opened to traffic in 2008. Work on the 6.3 kilometre upgrade will take about two years to complete, weather permitting. The Princes Highway upgrade is one of significance; it brings to the region an increase in employment and flow-on economic benefits. That is why in addition to the South Nowra upgrade, the New South Wales Government has committed $500 million in funding towards the Gerringong to Bomaderry Princes Highway upgrade in this term of government. It is estimated that Roads and Maritime Services will be able to start major work on this upgrade in mid-2012. The project is expected to be completed in the first half of 2015, again weather permitting. It is a pity that a project of such importance is not considered worthy of being added to the National Land Transport Network by the Federal Government.

PORT STEPHENS-GREAT LAKES MARINE PARK

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of a call by a group called Eco Network Port Stephens for an expansion of sanctuary zones in the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park? Does Eco Network Port Stephens have any official standing with the Government and will the Minister rule out any expansion of the existing failed sanctuary zone system at the conclusion of the current moratorium?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am disappointed to tell the House that I have never heard of Eco Network Port Stephens, but may be my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries has. I will refer this important question to the Minister for a learned response as soon as possible.

M5 MOTORWAY TOLLS

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that the Government has extended the period that tolls will be paid on the M5 West, will the Minister provide some certainty to families and commit not to introduce a toll on the sections of the M5 that are currently untolled?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This is a question from a representative of a party organisation that is devoid of ideas, devoid of answers and devoid of any ability to look after the people of western Sydney. The extension of the time for the tolls on the M5 was very much part of the agreement to widen that motorway— something the former Government tried to do in government but failed. It was a clear election promise by the Coalition in opposition to deliver an agreement to widen the M5 West within the first 12 months of winning government. We delivered on that promise and we delivered in spades. We have delivered in one year what five former Labor roads Minister could not deliver in six years. That extra period is about providing better roads for western Sydney and the people of that region, about whom, frankly, the Labor Party could not give a damn.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government is doing to ensure that regional New South Wales benefits from the Government's procurement reforms? 10426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have previously advised the House, this Government is committed to reforming the way we do business. We are determined to make doing business with the Government simpler, easier and more attractive. I can inform the honourable member that small and medium sized businesses in regional and rural New South Wales are a key focus of reforms to the New South Wales Government's procurement landscape. Under New South Wales Labor, procurement was characterised by mountains of red tape and endless bureaucracy leaving many, including small and medium sized enterprises, feeling excluded from government procurement processes.

The time has come to transform the 16 years of imprudent spending under the former New South Wales Labor Government. Our Government is determined to ensure that the benefits of procurement reform are widely felt. Following the release of the discussion paper in January the New South Wales Government is seeking input from small and medium sized businesses in regional New South Wales to improve their opportunities for government work. The discussion paper released in January marks the commencement of an ongoing dialogue with the community on how we can improve the way government purchases goods and services. That includes how to make it easier for small and medium sized businesses, which have often felt disadvantaged by the complexity of government tendering processes to gain government work.

The New South Wales Government values small and medium businesses, particularly in rural and regional areas, and is determined to find better ways to manage the $12.7 billion spent by the Government each year. I am grateful to Minister Hodgkinson, who has been a champion for small businesses throughout this process especially those small and medium sized businesses in rural and regional New South Wales that have found it difficult to engage with government in the past. Unlike the previous Labor Government, the Liberals and Nationals believe that businesses across the State are integral to government procurement and a dialogue with them is essential so that we can find the best ways to meet their needs.

We need businesses across rural and regional New South Wales in particular to tell us how they believe we can do this, whether through more flexible tendering processes, simplifying contracts or other ways that improve opportunities to do business. We are determined to shift government purchasing such that its focus is on outcomes rather than specifications. By doing this we believe we can drive much-needed innovation and achieve better results for New South Wales taxpayers. A website has been set up to allow people to download a fact sheet on the discussion paper and to make comments online at www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/procurement.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Has it got a picture of you on it?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: If it does not have a photograph of me on it, I will take up the Hon. Lynda Voltz's suggestion and have one posted on it.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: Members opposite are not interested in regional development issues—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is making a debating point, not taking a point of order. The member will resume her seat.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Government has also established a dedicated toll free procurement information line—1800 679 289—for small and medium sized businesses that want to give their views. This is just the beginning of the dialogue with the business community. The current reforms on the table will be followed in coming months by others targeting procurement capability within government agencies, procurement data and current regulations and policies. This is the first step in a new system that will make doing business with the New South Wales Government simpler, easier and more attractive. I urge the Hon. Lynda Voltz to go to the website www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/procurement and I will make sure I have a photo of me posted there by tomorrow.

SANDON POINT DEVELOPMENT

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. What principles are governing further development at Sandon Point now that the Government has confirmed in answers to questions on notice in March that the commission of inquiry's recommendations have been formally rejected as "impractical and not capable of producing a sustainable balance between environmental and development outcomes"?

The Hon. Walt Secord: Sandon Point is back. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10427

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Sandon Point may be back but Mr David Shoebridge has only just arrived, 55 minutes into question time, so he can collect just one-tenth of his pay—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am not sure what the Minister was doing. But I remind him of the need for him to be generally relevant.

Mr David Shoebridge: I suffered you by webcast earlier while I was away from the Chamber.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Now I am worried about Mr David Shoebridge. We know from the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham about the North Koreans but if Mr David Shoebridge is watching me on the webcast, I am not quite sure how I can respond to that. Having said that, I suggest that if the member goes to the Planning website he will get his answers.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. What was the cost of the review of the alternative alignment for the Warrell Creek to Urunga section of the Pacific Highway upgrade and how long was the project delayed as a result of the Minister's decision to call the review even though the approved route had been subject to community consultation? Will the Minister now assure the residents that he will not delay the upgrade any longer and accept the recommendation of the report that "when considering functionality, environmental, social and economic criteria, the approved alignment offers greater performance than the alternative alignment"?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. Off the top of my head I do not have the information about the cost of the review and the detail he seeks. We will carefully analyse the question and provide what information we can.

ITU WORLD TRIATHLON SERIES

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the upcoming ITU Triathlon?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for her question. We know a well-known participant who last weekend travelled 45 kilometres in a marathon between Red Rock and Coffs Harbour. I note that there are no members of The Greens here in the House at question time, and that is a pity. The ITU Triathlon is taking place in Sydney on the weekend of 14 and 15 April. The ITU World Triathlon Series attracts elite athletes from around the world competing in events held in eight major global cities, beginning with Sydney in April. The New South Wales Government understands the importance of these events to Sydney, but it is absolutely essential that they are managed properly. The contract between Destination NSW and the event organiser to hold this event in Sydney's central business district was entered into by the former Labor Government and locks us into holding the event around Sydney Harbour.

Last year we experienced some heavy disruptions to traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and in the Sydney central business district. Due to this disruption the Government last year held negotiations with the event organiser to examine the possibility of relocating the triathlon to western Sydney or changing its structure to allow better traffic management. Unfortunately, under the deal signed by Labor, it was not possible to get out of the contract without significant cost ramifications. Whilst we could not change the event location, we have learnt from last year's problems. The days of ad hoc planning for major events are over. The focus of all government agencies and organisers has been to change key aspects this year to reduce the impact on traffic. Changing the Government was important.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A review of the traffic management operations and problems that have occurred has taken place and a number of significant changes have been incorporated for the 2012 event. This year the Harbour Bridge and the Cahill Expressway will both reopen at 11.00 a.m. This is a major and welcome change. One of the main issues last year was that the Cahill Expressway remained closed for most of the day 10428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

after the bridge reopened, forcing many vehicles into the northern part of the central business district. Road closures and special event clearways will be in place in the Sydney central business district during the morning of Saturday 14 April and Sunday 15 April 2012.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge and Cahill Expressway will be closed on the Sunday morning only. An extensive communications plan has been prepared to notify road users, local residents and businesses affected by road closures and special event clearways. During the running of both days of the event a joint operations centre will be in place with staff managing the road closures and traffic condition. The Government co-ordination centre also will be in operation. I encourage motorists to heed these warnings and avoid the city if possible.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I suggest if members have further questions that they put them on notice.

ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 8 March 2012 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked me a question relating to Roads and Maritime Services staffing arrangements. I provide the following response:

I am advised:

The representation of women across Roads and Maritime Services is 37 per cent of the total workforce.

Our leadership pool equates to 13 per cent of the workforce and of that 21 per cent of the roles are held by women. This is a 2 per cent increase from last year.

There are a number of programs in place to improve opportunities for women. These programs are having a significant impact in improving the gender balance, particularly in previously male-dominated roles and in senior management positions.

Questions without notice concluded.

UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION

The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 2 April 2012, copies of which are available on request from the Clerks at the table.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled the following papers:

1. Report of the Department of Finance and Services entitled, "Fact Finding Investigation Report into the processes utilised by Housing NSW in the management of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Program [NBESP] and Perle Construction Management Pty Ltd", dated November 2011.

2. Report entitled, "Department of Finance and Services' response to recommendations for future improvement in any construction-related programs", dated April 2012.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) BILL 2012

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day for a later hour. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10429

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.34 p.m.]: Earlier today I explained how the socialist wing of The Greens wanted a bigger and more bloated public service. Deep down they would like everybody to be in the public service, as it is in North Korea, because that is what socialism is all about. The Greens seem to have a disdain for anything emanating from the private sector. For example, The Greens have an animosity towards non-government schools and never miss an opportunity to plunge the knife into them. The Greens have an animosity towards private enterprise and would like to close down the entire coal industry. They always put the boot into the mining industry because they hate it.

The Greens have an animosity towards supporting any measure that promotes private transport facilities—unless it is more cycleways, and that is probably to force private motorists off the road and to use public transport. Dr John Kaye accused this Government of terrorising workers by the introduction of this bill. The Greens have been terrorising the people of Australia for some years now, and the people of Australia have had enough. The people of Queensland have also had enough and that is why The Greens vote in the recent Queensland election fell by 10 per cent. Their vote will continue to diminish into an irreversible decline and oblivion. This is a fine bill. The overview states that the object of the bill is to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002:

(a) to revise the provisions of that Act relating to excess officers of Public Service Departments and the circumstances in which the services of those officers may be dispensed with,

That is a common sense aim, and paragraph (c) states:

(c) to require the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff and to require the Public Service Commissioner to issue guidelines for that purpose.

Who could oppose that common sense aim? The Labor Party and The Greens oppose performance management systems. That is deplorable. The Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012 is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [3.37 p.m.]: I oppose the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. As a number of speakers on this side of the House have said, this is yet another attack by this Government on public sector workers. These attacks have occurred over and over again since this Government came into office. I have listened to a number of contributions from Government members. Without fail, they have made platitudes about how they value public sector workers but then they condemn and criticise the work of those employees. One member, when talking about public sector workers, referred to parasites on society. I did not hear the contribution of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps but no doubt I would have found it entertaining.

For almost my entire working life I have been a public sector worker. I am an elected public servant, as are all members in this place. I worked in the Federal public sector for a number of years. I remember when John Howard was first elected and his cuts to the public sector, and this New South Wales Government is operating in the same way. The joke around Canberra at the time was: What is a public servant who irons five shirts on a Sunday night? The answer is: Optimistic. The Howard Government, when it was elected, made huge cuts to the public sector in Canberra, and we are seeing the same attitude from this Government in this State towards public sector workers. Of course, this Government capped public sector wage increases so that over time they will fall behind the rate of inflation and lose real value.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Inflation is lower than 2.5 per cent.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Government Whip says that inflation is lower than 2.5 per cent. I have not noticed him giving credit to the Gillard Government for its good economic management in achieving low inflation outcomes and strong growth in this country. It has managed to do that despite worldwide financial problems. Over the years, public sector real wages in New South Wales will fall behind inflation, which will result in an exodus of public sector workers from Queanbeyan to the Australian Capital Territory public service and the Commonwealth public service and put great strain on our health and other important services. 10430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

I responded to a tweet from the Australian Capital Territory Treasurer, who took great delight in pointing out that under the O'Farrell Government's policies nurses' wages in the Australian Capital Territory would catch up to and overtake nurses' wages in New South Wales. He thinks that is great because he will be able to attract nurses from New South Wales to the Australian Capital Territory. That is the Coalition's policy in action and this latest piece of legislation will have a similar impact.

Public sector workers were valued by previous governments. I acknowledge that restructures happen and that sometimes people are displaced. However, a caring government that values public sector workers does its best to place them in meaningful jobs. This Government thinks that is too hard. It obviously does not value public sector workers and will now push them out the door at the first opportunity it gets. That is what this legislation is all about.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: There are people who have been on the unattached list for seven years.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Government Whip seems to believe that the standing orders do not apply to him. He insists on interjecting about people being on the unattached list for seven years. We are talking about people whose positions have been made redundant for only a short time. They certainly will not be waiting to be redeployed for seven years. This legislation is not about the old unattached list; it goes much further than that. This Government simply cannot be bothered to do its best to find reasonable jobs for people whose positions have been abolished in restructures. That proves this Government does not value the work of the staff of the Department of Primary Industries, and particularly the field officers and other staff whose jobs have just been restructured. That was a breach of the Government's election promise to create a stand-alone Department of Primary Industries. Instead it created an even bigger super department.

Those people who not only saw that promise broken but who are also part of the new super department are not valued because we are being asked to support Government legislation that will allow them to be sacked rather than redeployed to other areas in the department. People working in the Department of Family and Community Services will suffer because the Minister for Family and Community Services thinks the department is over-funded. She does not want to spend any extra money to help children who have been abused. Those people are not valued. I always thought that the staff of the Treasury should be the first to be relocated to rural and regional New South Wales. If they were, they would have a much better perspective of the State. Public sector employees' work is being devalued because of this Government's attitude.

Members opposite are generous with their platitudes during election campaigns and with the media when they talk about the wonderful work done by nurses, ambulance officers and police officers. However, that appreciation is never extended to the people working in the back rooms ensuring that the nurses, ambulance officers and police officers can do their jobs. We never hear those comments extended to the people doing fabulous work in the Department of Primary Industries and Industry and Investment NSW who develop trade opportunities or the terrific people who do the administrative work for the education and health sectors. They were constantly bagged by members opposite when they were in opposition. We never hear them talking about the valuable work done by central agency staff. All we hear are more and more excuses to jump on the bandwagon of bashing public sector workers. That is what this legislation is all about. It is an attempt to save money by not making a reasonable effort to find these people new jobs. This Government's actions prove its contempt for public sector workers. I urge the House to vote against this legislation.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. We know that the community has very high expectations of public servants and we are well served by our public service. They also have very high expectations about members of Parliament being honest and forthright in their contributions in this place. I listened very closely to the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and a number of other members of the Opposition.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: And me.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am glad the Hon. Sophie Cotsis drew attention to herself. She may have played a role in a matter to which I will refer and she glossed over some issues during her contribution. I thank all honourable members who participated positively to this debate.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It's not true. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10431

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I remind the honourable member of a proposed piece of legislation that the Labor Government had drafted. The legislation was entitled the "Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005".

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What year was that?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was drafted in 2005.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: So?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The honourable member says, "So?" Of course, the Labor Government was in power in New South Wales at that time. This legislation is very important in the context of this debate.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It was Costa's bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The honourable member says that it was Costa's fault. Legislation is not drafted unless it has Cabinet approval. It is important to put on the record the overview of the bill. It states:

The objects of this Bill are:

(a) to provide that displaced public sector employees who have been displaced for a continuous period of more than 12 months may either have their salaries reduced by 15%, as a last and unavoidable resort, or have their employment terminated …

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Really?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They would be forced to take a 15 per cent pay cut or get the sack.

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: It is almost certainly a breach of the standing orders to use Michael Costa in defence.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The legislation goes on:

(b) to enable the Public Employment Office to direct that the transfer of a displaced employee from one public sector agency to another does not require the approval of the head of that other agency ...

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What year was that?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was 2005. This is important for The Greens because this is what their coalition partners were proposing to do. I would be stepping away if I were The Greens because the Labor Party did not bother to show them this legislation. It showed the Labor Council and fortunately some people believe in transparency and accountability. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis may have been working in the industrial area at that time and she may well have typed something similar to this legislation. We see the honourable member's crocodile tears about this legislation. This is one of my favourites and I am sure The Greens will be happy to note that schedule 1 states:

Proposed section 99C provides that action taken under proposed Division 3 has effect despite any State Industrial Instrument…

In other words, despite any industrial instrument, this was going to take effect. This was the legislation that they were proposing to introduce—until they showed their leaders at the Labor Council. Sophie, did you write this legislation? You need to explain what you know about this legislation.

Mr David Shoebridge: Table it. 10432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Do you want me to table it? I am very happy to table it, if you want me to.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister knows that he should address members in this Chamber by their correct titles. The Minister should not address members of the Chamber directly but through the Chair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Minister to refer to other members by their correct titles. In addition, I ask the Minister to direct his comments through the Chair.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I apologise to the architect of this legislation—the Hon. Sophie Cotsis—for any inference. I am happy to table this copy but if the member opposite wants to table the original copy that she drafted and the advice that goes with it I am happy for her to do so. I am also happy for the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition members to circulate their contributions.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister has said that he wishes to table the document. I would ask the Minister to table that document and any document of Michael Costa that he feels supports his arguments.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am more than happy to table the former Labor Government's legislation. I am sure they have pristine pieces of legislation spirited away. But the fact is it is an important lesson in hypocrisy and I am going to use it as a prop at this stage. I am going to read it and refresh my memory on some of the views of the former Labor Government.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Minister must seek leave to table a document. Does the Minister seek leave to table the document?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I seek leave to table the draft Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

It is between a rock and a hard place. There is plenty of good reading still to be had in this. Those opposite wailed and spread fear during the debate saying, "This is the end of the world as we know it. Isn't it dreadful legislation?" The Hon. Sophie Cotsis not only has said enough on this issue, she has written enough. I would advise her to let sleeping dogs lie, as much as I try to wake the dogs. I refer members to the definitions in the former Government's legislation. As a result of the generosity of those opposite who sought to have this document tabled, members now will have an opportunity to reflect on the former Government's definitions. They will find that the definition of "excess public servants" is incredibly close to that in our legislation.

If I did not know better, I would have thought the Hon. Sophie Cotsis was freelancing for us in the drafting of our legislation. But our legislation is better because it recognises the contribution that public servants make. Our legislation provides them with a career path and certainty. In its legislation the former Labor Government was interested only in excess public servants either taking a pay cut or walking. That was their legislation. I am more than happy to table the former Labor Government's legislation that they hid from the public and have tried to continue to hide. Thank heavens for our friends at the Labor Council of New South Wales, who could see through the disgraceful attempt by those opposite and who ensured that the public knew exactly what that pathetic, miserable Labor Government was considering.

Mr David Shoebridge: It is the same bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is not the same bill. Mr David Shoebridge needs to read it. Our bill recognises the contribution of public servants; their bill was simply about getting rid of them.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Minister will not respond to interjections; he will speak to the bill. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10433

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Members should look at our legislation, at the depth of the amendments and at what is being proposed to provide a level of professionalism and a future for public servants. Our legislation will provide them with certainty so that they are not stuck on a list forever and forgotten, as they were under those opposite. Under our Government public servants will have certainty and they will have an opportunity to plan for their careers. They will not be wasted individuals, as they were under that wasteful Government. Members should look at the legislation that was proposed by those opposite, and I would challenge anyone to suggest that what the Government is proposing is not far better in providing certainty for New South Wales public servants. Better management of our public sector workforce at all levels will help to achieve long overdue improvements in both service delivery and productivity.

The Government knows performance management systems are essential if agencies are to identify areas for improvement, set career goals for individuals, highlight their investment in training and acknowledge superior performance. Therefore, this bill amends the Public Sector Employment Management Act 2002 to require the Public Service Commissioner to develop and issue guidelines to public sector agencies on the essential elements of performance management systems. Properly designed performance management systems in public sector agencies will contribute to the Government's aim to make the New South Wales public sector an employer of choice. This bill also seeks to amend sections 56 and 57 of the Act. As members will be aware, the Government introduced a new policy for the management of excess employees from 1 August 2011, abolishing Labor's no forced redundancies policy. The Government wants to help public servants who lose their jobs as a result of changing priorities or structural reforms but employees who cannot be redeployed cannot be kept on the books indefinitely. Excess employees who decline voluntary redundancy and cannot find a new job within three months will be made redundant. For public servants, this means termination under section 56 of the Public Sector Employment Management Act 2002.

The unions challenged the new arrangements in the Industrial Court of New South Wales and in November last year the court handed down its decision. The new policy is unaffected by the judgement and it continues to apply to employees made excess on or after 1 August 2011. However, in comments contained in its decision, the Industrial Court proposed an interpretation of section 56 of the Act to significantly broaden its application and has made this section impractical and onerous to apply. Under the court's broad interpretation, "useful work" would include all work undertaken on a temporary, casual and contractual basis, as well as that performed on an ongoing basis. If this interpretation of section 56 were to be applied, I am advised that it would be almost impossible to satisfy the requirements in the current provision and proceed to terminate an excess employee who could not be found a new permanent position. In fact, the court's "useful work" test would result in a de facto return to the no forced redundancies policy.

The Government wants to retain the requirement that a department head, before terminating an excess employee, must be satisfied that there is no vacant permanent position for that person, not only in their own department but in all other departments and agencies in the public sector. It is only fair that the search for a job across the whole of the public sector is for an ongoing public sector position and not the unrealistic and useless work obligation as proposed by the Industrial Court. I have noted the concerns of members opposite that excess employees will not have sufficient time to apply and be assessed for vacant public sector jobs during the three-month retention period. Under the Government's policy, excess employees are given priority for consideration for a new permanent job. Vacant positions which are to be advertised will be held over for three days so that excess employees can be matched to a suitable job. Excess employees must be considered before, and separately from, any other applicants.

Strict time frames apply and the process to consider an excess employee for a suitable vacancy takes no longer than 14 days. This means that there is ample time within the retention period for excess employees to be considered for vacant ongoing positions that match their skills and experience. Importantly, this amendment is consistent with the provision in section 7 (3) of the Act that states the usual basis for the employment of public servants is as an officer in a permanent position. In addition to the changes to section 56, it is appropriate for consistency and fairness to amend the requirement in section 57 of the Act concerning public servants on excessive salaries relative to the position they are currently occupying. This will ensure that the search for a job at the same salary level continues to be across the whole of the public sector but is limited to an ongoing public sector position within either departments or public sector agencies and not just any type of work.

The bill proposes to exclude the application of the unfair contracts provision in division 2 of part 9 in chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act to arrangements for dispensing with excess employees. Such an approach is consistent with arrangements in the general community where access to rights under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act is not widely available. The amendments are necessary to 10434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

avoid lengthy and ongoing proceedings not brought under the principal Act relating to the employment of public servants—the Public Sector Employment Management Act—but under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. These proceedings, under the unfair contracts provisions, seek to prevent agencies from implementing reasonable changes to their excess employee policies that are consistent with the Public Sector Employment Management Act and are rightly a matter for the Government to determine through policy decisions from time to time.

The amendments will clarify that the Industrial Court will no longer have the power unilaterally to determine the provisions that apply to excess employees in the public sector. However, it is important to note that redundancy arrangements in the industrial instruments will not be displaced. The bill also makes it clear that the amendments do not affect any orders of the Industrial Court that were made prior to the commencement of the legislation. While the changes will mean that the Industrial Court cannot deal with these matters, individual excess employee disputes and unfair dismissal matters will still be able to be heard and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission. The independent umpire will still have an important role to play by ensuring that excess employees are treated fairly, that they receive their entitlements at law and under the policy, and have access to relief for unfair dismissal.

The proposed changes will support the Government's fair and reasonable policies for managing excess employees and improve the ability of agencies to deliver flexible, quality and better targeted public services in line with community expectations. This Government has a mandate for this legislation. In January 2011 it was announced that we would abolish the unattached list. In that announcement our commitment to make every effort to redeploy staff to vacant and suitable roles within the public sector was clearly stated. This bill honours those commitments. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Mitchell Mr Borsak Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Tellers, Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Dr Phelps

Noes, 18

Ms Barham Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Ms Cotsis Mr Searle Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Ms Faehrmann Ms Sharpe Tellers, Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge Ms Fazio Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Ms Voltz

Pair

Ms Ficarra Mr Foley

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10435

Third Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

During my reply to the second reading debate the Opposition asked me to table the draft Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT) BILL 2012

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.12 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. The object of the bill is to remove the potential for conflicts of duties between State and local council matters by ensuring that a person can serve in only one elected position at any one time in either the Parliament of New South Wales or on a local council.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I cannot hear a word the Minister is saying.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly. I am having difficulty hearing the Minister. The Minister has commenced his second reading speech.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To achieve this, the bill proposes that the Local Government Act 1993 be amended to disqualify a person who is a member of the Parliament of New South Wales from being at the same time a mayor or a councillor of a local council. It will allow a sitting councillor, including a mayor, to stand for election to the New South Wales Parliament. If elected, the councillor will be able to complete their term of civic office, provided the term does not exceed two years. This will apply to all current and future terms of civic office. This will allow most councillors who are elected to the New South Wales Parliament to see out their term of civic office. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! Members will allow the Minister to be heard in silence.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: New South Wales State general elections are held on the fourth Saturday in March every four years. Local government ordinary elections in New South Wales are held approximately 18 months later, on the second Saturday of September every four years. Consequently, mayors and councillors who are elected to the New South Wales Parliament at a State general election will be able to retain their civic office until the end of the term of the council. This phased approach will ensure continuity and certainty for councils, communities and candidates for both local government and State elections.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: The Minister is giving the Labor Party and The Greens important information they do not have. 10436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: What? That we have elections every four years?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order!

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The Minister sought the leave of the House to incorporate the speech. Leave was not granted. As members opposite insisted that the speech be given, they should at least have the courtesy to listen to the Minister in silence

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: I was listening intently to what the Minister said as he went through the rudimentary issues relating to elections. However, the Hon. Catherine Cusack keeps taking points of order, which is interrupting my train of thought and the flow of debate. I ask you to bring her to order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! While some members are enthusiastic as we approach the Easter break, I ask them to cease interjecting. I cannot hear the Minister's speech.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: We must be getting close to the wonderful Easter holidays because all the rabbits are running. There may be occasions when a sitting councillor or mayor is elected to the New South Wales Parliament at a State by-election. If this happens, they may retain their dual roles for a maximum period of two years. At the end of two years they must choose which role they wish to retain and resign from the other. Should a serving mayor or councillor who is elected to the New South Wales Parliament at a State general election nevertheless choose to resign their office as a councillor, in most instances they will be able to do so without triggering a by-election.

This is a direct result of the Government's initiative in 2011 in amending the Local Government Act to provide councils with the opportunity to avoid filling a vacancy in a civic office when it occurs within 18 months prior to an ordinary council election. This saves councils the time and cost of holding by-elections during the run-up to ordinary elections. A member of the New South Wales Parliament will not be forced to resign their seat in Parliament to be eligible to stand for civic office. This is because the bill will allow a member of the New South Wales Parliament to stand for civic office, that is, as a mayor or councillor, either at a local government by-election or at an ordinary election.

The Local Government Act 1993 provides a legislative framework reflecting contemporary community expectations and gives local councils broad powers to plan for and provide local community services and facilities. It ensures that leadership of councils is provided by all the elected councillors who work together to provide good governance for the betterment of their community. Councillors can, and do, have a major impact on the health and wellbeing of the whole community. Consequently, the importance of the community's confidence in the integrity of its councillors cannot be underestimated. One key ingredient supporting that confidence is the underlying principle that those who are elected as local government councillors should not have obligations to other governments which may limit their impartiality or their ability to act in the best interests of their local community.

Such competing obligations can impact on the effective and appropriate exercise of a person's role as a local government representative in two respects. Firstly, the person may be influenced in the performance of their role as a mayor or councillor by their obligations to another level of government or by political considerations arising from their service in the State Parliament. Secondly, the demands on a person's time that arise from meeting their obligations as a member of the State Parliament may inhibit their capacity effectively to represent the interests of the community the council serves.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: The Hon. Eric Roozendaal interjected and said, "Yada yada yada", which contradicts his earlier claim that he was listening intently to the Minister.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: To the point of order: "Yada yada yada" is an encouragement because I am so interested in this speech. Mr Deputy-President, I ask you to call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order because she is the only member who keeps taking ridiculous points of order, interrupting and extending the debate far more than she should. If she cannot hear she should move down to the frontbench where I know she wants to be.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: This proposal will address concerns that have been raised frequently by community groups and members of the public about the level of performance and value judgements made by 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10437

some councillors who serve also as members of the New South Wales Parliament. Those concerns have included difficulties for ratepayers to know who to approach when they wish to raise a problem with their local member of Parliament about their council and the member happens to be the mayor or a councillor on that council. They raise concerns also about fairness and equity in the sense that mayors and councillors who are not members of Parliament will not have the same capacity to raise issues directly in Parliament or with Ministers with whom they do not have regular contact. A further series of concerns relates to the potential for perceptions about the inappropriate use of one position for the purposes of another.

Is David Shoebridge still in the Chamber? He is the person who wanted to hear this. Of course, he has gone to his council meeting. The proposal is also a further step in the implementation of the Government's policy to enhance the autonomy of councils, to enhance democracy and to enhance accountability in local government. This proposal also is made in the context that the local government sector in New South Wales has expressed a desire to define more clearly the responsibilities of State and local government. The bill will assist in ensuring that elected representation in each tier of government, that is, State and local, is distinct, thereby enhancing clear and distinct responsibilities.

I must stress that the proposal is not targeted at any particular member of the New South Wales Parliament or at any local government mayor or councillor; it is about all persons currently in the New South Wales Parliament. Following the March 2011 State election, which we won very handsomely, 29 councillors from 24 councils in New South Wales also were elected to the New South Wales Parliament, although it is recognised that these numbers fluctuate through time. They hailed from all parties and include Independents. In fact, the majority are members of the Coalition Government.

This bill will bring New South Wales into line with contemporary democratic practice. In the course of developing this proposal the Government undertook consultation with the public and local government stakeholders. This involved the release of a discussion paper and consideration of over 450 submissions that were received. The proposal in the bill will serve to enhance the integrity of local government in New South Wales as a distinct and essential tier of government. It also will promote the impartiality of decision-making by elected councils. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [4.23 p.m.]: The Labor Opposition strongly opposes the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012, which is designed to remove the democratic right of local communities to choose their representatives. The Government again needs a lesson in democracy. Democracy generally means that people can have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The term "democracy" comes from the Greek word "demokratia", which means rule of the people. The word combines "demos", which means people and "kratos" which means power. I believe in democracy and in local democracy. Furthermore our Australian Government, State governments and local governments have been built on that principle—people's right to choose their representatives. Men and women have fought on battlefields—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I realise that there is only one Labor member and only one member of The Greens in the Chamber while we are trying to debate democracy. Given that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is the only member of her party in the Chamber, I ask that she be relevant to the bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Given that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is leading for the Opposition and that the Hon. Catherine Cusack's five points of order have been debating points, in future the Chair should call her to order.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: This is an abuse of the standing orders. In fact, it is disorderly conduct to use debating points repeatedly to interrupt debate; there is a ruling to that effect.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! There is no point of order. The member is being generally relevant to the bill.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Men and women of Australia have fought on battlefields across the world to protect the democratic rights of Australians at home and to advance the cause of democracy abroad. The Government should not use its legislative majority to take away people's freedom of choice. The Government did not take this policy to the people prior to the last election. I remember time and again hearing Barry O'Farrell saying he would return power to local communities. This bill does exactly the opposite. In effect, this bill states, "We will decide who is elected and the circumstance in which they are elected." This bill breaks Barry O'Farrell's election promise to return power to local communities. 10438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Can we use that?

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: The member will have to pay for it. The object of this bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to prohibit a person holding the dual roles of a member of Parliament of New South Wales and a councillor or mayor of a council. Despite that objective the bill provides for two exemptions to this intended prohibition. First, the bill will allow a current member of Parliament who is also a councillor or mayor or a councillor or mayor who is elected as a member of Parliament in future to continue to hold the office of councillor or mayor until the next ordinary election of councillors or for the period of two years, whichever is the shorter period.

Second, the bill allows a member of Parliament to nominate for and be elected as a councillor or mayor without first resigning from Parliament. If elected, the person will need to resign from Parliament before the first meeting of the council after the election. The bill sets out to make a widely observed practice and convention into a legal requirement. As members know, this bill will have no material effect on most members of Parliament. Most members of Parliament who are councillors do not recontest their council positions or run as mayor. What normally happens is that the person completes his or her term on council to avoid the need for a costly or burdensome by-election and does not contest the following local government elections.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That doesn't always happen.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I have observed over many years that that is the norm; it is the practice of the major parties. Councillors who are fortunate to be elected as members of Parliament normally do not recontest the next local government elections. To give the House a few examples from the Labor side of politics, the member for Maroubra, Michael Daley, was elected as the State member for Maroubra in 2005. At the time he was a councillor on Randwick City Council. He completed his term as a councillor and did not seek re-election to council in 2008. The member for Wallsend, Sonia Hornery, was elected as the State member for Wallsend in 2007. At the time she was a councillor on Newcastle City Council. She completed her term as a councillor and did not seek re-election to council in 2008.

The member for Lakemba, Robert Furolo, was elected at a by-election in 2008. At the time he was the popularly elected mayor of Canterbury. Following the amendments to the Local Government Act in June last year, which we supported, he stepped down from his role as mayor. This has happened for Labor, Liberal and Nationals members of Parliament. We recognise the important role that councillors play in their local communities. Councillors from all sides of politics—whether they are Independents, Nationals, my colleagues from the Labor Party or Liberals—make excellent members of State Parliament.

The bill will do nothing to alter the current practice among most members of Parliament but will make a convention into a legal requirement. However, this bill is not aimed at changing anything to do with most Coalition or Labor members of Parliament. The Government claims that its rationale for the bill is that it is inappropriate for a person to hold the role of local councillor as well as that of a member of State Parliament. If the Government really believes this and it is really the position of the Liberals and The Nationals, why did they preselect so many councillors to stand for State Parliament at the last election? The Government will say that the bill is not about the member for Sydney, Clover Moore, but there is no other explanation for it.

Eighteen local councillors were elected as Liberal or Nationals members of Parliament at the last State election. If serving in these dual roles is as inappropriate as the Minister claims, why have those Coalition members of Parliament who also serve as councillors not resigned? The fact is that all those Coalition members campaigned for State Parliament in part on their record in local government. The people who voted for the Liberal and The Nationals candidates for State Parliament knew that they were also local councillors. They had the faith and the good will to vote for those Liberal and Nationals councillors to be their local member of Parliament. However, it also means the people who elected a councillor to be a member of Parliament were aware of the choice they were making. The voters are aware.

This is democracy at work, where the people are familiar with who we are, familiar with our responsiveness as a local councillor or member of Parliament, and familiar with the party we stand for. People know whether someone holds two roles and they make a democratic choice. If someone is elected as a local councillor and that person does a fantastic job and then has the privilege of running for a State seat, is elected by the people and has the privilege of representing them in the Parliament, and that person chooses to stand again as a councillor or mayor, the people will decide. Let the people have a choice; let the people make the decision about whether someone should be a councillor or a mayor and a member of State Parliament. The bill is entirely about the member for Sydney— 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10439

Mr David Shoebridge: Not entirely. This could also be about the Federal member for Gilmore.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: We will get to her in a minute. The bill is entirely about the member for Sydney and stopping her from holding the roles of a member of State Parliament and Lord Mayor of Sydney. On this basis the bill is undemocratic and represents an arrogant grab for power by the Liberal Party. I will tell members the facts. I take this seriously; I take democracy seriously. This is unprecedented in New South Wales. The member for Sydney was first elected to the New South Wales Parliament as the member for Bligh in 1988 and has served continuously since then. She has been re-elected to the Parliament six times: in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. The member for Sydney first stood for the position of Lord Mayor of Sydney in 2004 and was re-elected as Lord Mayor in 2008. That means the voters of Sydney have had the opportunity to reject this dual role arrangement four times.

The Government is saying that the residents of the Sydney local government area not only should not have a say but do not understand what they are getting themselves into. They know what they are getting themselves into because they made the decision on four occasions. They could have voted against the member for Sydney when she was running for Lord Mayor in 2004. They could have voted against her continuing to serve as their member of State Parliament in 2007. They could have voted against her in either 2008 or in 2011 when it was well and truly established that the member for Sydney intended to hold both roles concurrently.

The Labor Party stood candidates against the member for Sydney at all of those elections and lost. We are not happy about it—of course we are not happy—but we did not use our power when we were the State Government to move this type of legislation to remove the member for Sydney from her position as Lord Mayor. Labor accepted the people's choice. The people made a decision; they went to the ballot box knowing that Clover Moore, the member for Sydney, was a lord mayoral candidate. The very good people of Sydney, whom this Government is trying to undermine and whose democratic right the Government is trying to remove, voted for her as Lord Mayor. They voted for her again as the member for Sydney.

The Coalition is seeking to make that choice unlawful. The bill represents an undemocratic partisan power grab by the Coalition. The Coalition was elected by huge mandate—I keep saying that—and it has to respect that mandate. It was elected on a platform that included a promise to deliver more train services, but we have seen nothing; it has not delivered those train services. The Coalition promised to build new roads and improve hospitals. In its first year in office it has failed to do any of those things; it has broken 200 promises.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: List them.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I will table them. However, it has wasted no time working out clever little schemes to try to take even more power for itself. We have already seen it work with The Greens to pass sweeping changes to campaign finance laws that undermine the rights of working people to organise and take political action. Now it has had a look at the last election results for the State electorate of Sydney as well and seen that the Liberal Party might be in with a chance, so it has brought a bill into this place to do through legislation what they were unable to do at the ballot box. This is a fundamentally undemocratic piece of legislation. It is utterly contrary to the promise made repeatedly by the Premier before the last election that he would return power to local communities.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Another broken promise.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Of course. As a proud member of the Labor Party I would rather see someone who shares my progressive values serving as the Lord Mayor of Sydney and as the State member for Sydney. However, the Labor Party has not and will not put its own partisan interests ahead of our deeper fundamental belief in democracy. The Labor Party believes in local democracy. That is why this year we are trialling a community preselection in the local government area of the City of Sydney. This means we will open up the choice of who will be Labor's candidate for Lord Mayor to all 90,000 voters in the City of Sydney. The ballot will be conducted online on a weekend in June. Polling booths will be set up—

The Hon. Robert Brown: Point of order: I cannot hear the member's contribution because of the level of noise in the Chamber.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. 10440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I am talking about what we are going to do. The Labor Party will open up the choice for who will be Labor's candidate for Lord Mayor to all 90,000 voters in the City of Sydney. This is exciting for all members of the Labor Party and for the people of Sydney who will have an opportunity to have a say in who will be Labor's Lord Mayoral candidate.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: This bill relates to local government changes, not to the internal preselection processes of the Labor Party. I ask you to draw the Hon. Sophie Cotsis back to the substance of the bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The Hon. Sophie Cotsis is referring to the long title of the bill, which concerns local government elections and democracy in the local government arena. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis is well within the purview of the bill.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! At this stage the comments of the Hon. Sophie Cotsis are generally relevant to the bill.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Already seven candidates have stepped forward to run in this community preselection. They are excellent local people with diverse backgrounds. This is what Labor is doing in the Sydney area. We are giving people more choices and more opportunities to have their say because we do believe in local democracy. In his second reading speech the Minister talked about the release of a discussion paper. I acknowledge that a discussion paper was released last year. More than 450 submissions have been made and we want those submissions disclosed to the public. We also want to see the report—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: What, so you can intimidate the people who wrote the submissions? You want to be able to intimidate them?

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: When the Labor Lord Mayoral candidate is selected by—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister is interjecting and making aspersions against the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. I ask the Minister to withdraw his allegations that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis would want to intimidate people who made submissions.

The Hon. Rick Colless: The comments were not acknowledged: You just put them on the record, Lynda.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: I ask the Minister to withdraw that allegation.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Minister made no such allegation. The member while speaking indicated that she wished certain documents tabled. The Minister was slightly out of order in interjecting, but he merely sought to query Labor's motivation behind requesting the tabling of such documents. A question is not an assertion.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The Minister did not say words to the effect of; the Minister said, "What, so you can intimidate them?" The implication is clear, and I ask the Minister to withdraw his statements.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Minister's statement was "Why"—with a silent question mark after it, then "To intimidate them?" There was no assertion; it was clearly questioning as to why the papers were being requested.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to point the of order: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps can put whatever spin on what he thinks was said. The actual words were, "What, so you can intimidate them?" Hansard will reflect that. The Minister knows exactly what he said. He made an allegation and imputation against the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. He should withdraw it.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly. All imputations made against members must be made by way of substantive motion. Given that it was an interjection, I do not have the capacity to ask the Minister to withdraw it.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Point of order: I asked the Minister to disclose the submissions that have been made by 400 people. The Minister indicated that I would intimidate those people. I take offence to that. I ask him to withdraw that comment as it is quite offensive. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10441

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: Madam Deputy-President, you have already ruled on the previous point of order.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The previous ruling was on an interjection. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis has taken offence to the comments and asked that the Minister withdraw his statement. I ask you to make a ruling on that point of order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Given that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis has taken offence, I ask the Minister to withdraw his comment.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Of course, I withdraw.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: When the Labor Lord Mayoral candidate is selected by the residents of Sydney I will be out there taking Labor's message of improving services and infrastructure to the people of Sydney. Meanwhile the Liberal Party is passing laws to attempt to prescribe a result. The Liberal Party is arrogantly—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: I find it offensive for the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to suggest that we are using the laws to try to prescribe a result. I ask the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to withdraw her statement.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! The comment was made in a general sense, which is allowed under the standing orders. However, I ask the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to temper her remarks.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: This bill is disrespectful to the choice made by the people of Sydney and sets out to tell them who they can and cannot elect. The bill is an affront to democracy. Labor opposes the bill.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [4.47 p.m.]: I am Mayor of Shoalhaven City Council, which is noted in my declaration of interests. I have sought advice from the Clerk about contributing to this debate, and have been cleared to do so. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak to the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. If Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile were not absent, he would lead in this debate. The overview of the bill states:

The object of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to prohibit a person holding the dual roles of a member of the Parliament of New South Wales and a councillor or mayor of a council.

This bill brings New South Wales into line with other Australian mainland States: Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. In Western Australia people are not only prohibited from serving concurrently as a State member of Parliament and a councillor, but also as a Federal member and a councillor. That has always been an argument of the Christian Democratic Party with respect to this bill. It would not be fair if a State member of Parliament could not be a local mayor, but a Federal member of Parliament could hold both roles. I understand that a member of the New South Wales Parliament will not be forced to resign his or her parliamentary seat to be eligible to stand for civic office.

Dr John Kaye: What about Joanna Gash?

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Madam Deputy-President, I ask that you direct the honourable member to display some courtesy.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Interjections are disorderly at all times. The Hon. Paul Green should be heard in silence and treated with courtesy.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: If elected to civic office, a member of the New South Wales Parliament— and I imagine also the Commonwealth Parliament—would have a choice of either resigning that office to take up that civic office or remaining in the Parliament. That choice must be made prior to the first meeting of the council following the council election. There may be occasions when a sitting councillor or mayor is elected to the New South Wales Parliament at a State by-election. In that event that member may retain the dual role for a maximum of two years. At the end of that time they must choose which role they wish to retain and resign from the other role. 10442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

Local councils produce young leaders who may or may not aspire to represent their local area in State Parliament. However, being a local councillor is an opportunity to develop the leadership skills that are required to fulfil that role effectively. Currently 29 members of this Parliament are serving concurrently as local councillors. Of them, 17 are members of the Liberal Party, two are members of The Nationals, four are members of the Labor Party, three are members of The Greens, two are Independents and one is a member of the Christian Democratic Party.

The Hon. Niall Blair: Who is that?

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: In my role as mayor I am an Independent member and obviously I represent the Christian Democratic Party in this place. The Minister for Local Government said that this bill will make it easier to determine the difference between local government and State Government responsibilities and increase the independence of councils. It also honours a Government commitment to decentralise decision-making and to give greater power over local matters to local councils.

Members are aware of my dilemma with regard to this legislation. I see the advantages and disadvantages of members holding dual roles. One positive is that the Local Government and Shires Associations supports the concept of dual roles. A media release issued by the associations states that positive opportunities exist for those who choose to take on both roles. Candidates are also democratically elected by the community and they should be trusted to decide whether to stand for office in another tier of government. I am glad that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis mentioned that the members involved offered themselves to their electorates in the full knowledge that they held a local government position. I did not hide the fact that I was a mayor; in fact, I think it was on my corflute. Obviously the member for Sydney's constituents knew about her position as the Lord Mayor of Sydney.

The skills, knowledge and experience gained by councillors assist them in their role as a member of Parliament. Their local government role gives them a broader understanding of the issues that are important to local communities. One of the reasons so many councillors stood at the last State election is that they felt the Labor Government was not listening to them. Members who are also local councillors can be more effective advocates. They are encouraged to be more effective representatives because they have greater access to decision-makers such as Ministers and other members. I often speak with the Hon. Jan Barham, who is also the Mayor of Byron, about the challenges facing local government and we can work together to achieve desirable outcomes for that level of government. The other advantage of also being a member of Parliament is that we can rub shoulders with other members and talk to them about our concerns and then report back to our council.

Another advantage of dual roles is the improved coordination of overlapping responsibilities and the minimisation of duplication. Members occupying positions at both levels know what is happening at the grassroots level and they also get a feel for what is happening at the State level. That can lead to a reduction in duplication of effort. Members of Parliament are often involved in other roles. We have members who are lawyers, farmers, shearers and private business owners. The issue is not having two occupations because many people do two or more jobs. My job as a member of Parliament is only one of the roles that I fulfil. I also have a photographic business and I am a husband and a father. We are not questioning whether people can perform more than one role—obviously we can. The question is whether those roles should be separate. The Premier wants those roles to be separate and that is why he has introduced this legislation.

It is important to note that our constituents do not want us to be both members of Parliament and local councillors. A Daily Telegraph poll resulted in 10,363 people, or 91.32 per cent, rejecting the concept and just under 1,000 supporting it. A ratio of 10:1 people said that they want local councillors to focus on local issues and members of Parliament to focus on State issues. Members have also raised the problem of conflicts of interest. I do not think that is a problem of the scale that the Government has suggested. People can go to the Department of Local Government, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and other bodies to resolve any conflict that might arise. We also have codes of conduct that can be applied.

Members also asked whom ratepayers should approach if they have a problem, especially if the mayor is a member of Parliament. That is not a big deal. Often those of us who perform both roles can be of more assistance because we have greater access to Ministers. Of course, that could present problems involving compromises on occasion. It has been suggested that it is not practical for a person to perform both roles because they cannot give equal time and effort to both. A councillor/member will at times be required to choose between being present in Parliament and attending a council meeting and vice versa. I admit that that is more difficult when one's electorate is a long way from Sydney. Not many members who perform both roles would 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10443

disagree that the further one lives from the city the more we are compromised. I do not mind admitting that. My heart and passion for my local government role has not diminished one iota. I want to give that role my best and I also try to give this place 110 per cent. There is no doubt that we must make compromises because we cannot be in two places at once. That is a valid point.

There is no doubt that my being a member of Parliament means that I have greater access to Ministers and other parliamentarians and that that is an advantage for my local government constituents. However, the little kid at the local school getting an award that would normally be presented by the mayor would be disappointed that that did not happen. Most members know that being a mayor or a councillor is awesome. We do many beautiful things on a daily basis as we connect with the grassroots of our communities. We enjoy a cuppa with volunteer groups and encourage them in their efforts. We might be discussing million-dollar developments and chairing meetings, but that must be balanced against our role in this place. As I said, we cannot be in two places at once.

When one looks at what is required to carry out both these roles, I can see why the Government wants a separation of the roles. It could be seen as inequitable for councillors who are not members of Parliament and who cannot raise issues directly in Parliament or have regular contact with Ministers. There also can be occasions when responsibilities become blurred. There is the potential for perceptions about the inappropriate use of one position for the purpose of the other. I am not contesting the next election and my wife is definitely not contesting the mayorship for Shoalhaven City Council. The Premier is trying to get rid of dual roles, never mind my wife's quintuplet roles. It would not be appropriate for her to take on also the role of mayor.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Women can do a lot.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: She could and she would do a very good job but she is not running for the mayor of Shoalhaven. This is a very difficult decision for me. I have spoken to Clover Moore, to the Government and to the media, and I have always said that this is a really difficult position to be in because I see the pros and cons of both sides. After discussing this matter with my colleague Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, I have suggested that he make the call on this bill. He has done so and I will adhere to the party position on this matter.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [5.02 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution on behalf of the Shooters and Fishers Party, which has no conflict of interest in this debate. The Shooters and Fishers Party supports the bill but I foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment that broadens the definition of "member of Parliament" not only to apply to members of the New South Wales Parliament but also to members of the Australian Parliament. I will speak further on that in the Committee stage. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made the clear point that this bill is not targeted at or meant to disadvantage a particular person. The corollary of that argument is that the bill should not advantage any particular person, whether they are a New South Wales parliamentarian or a Federal parliamentarian. I dare say that no-one in this House would countenance the idea of a member of the New South Wales Parliament also being a member of the Federal Parliament.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is unconstitutional.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is unconstitutional and from a practical point of view it would be silly. Some local government electorates are far larger than some Federal electorates. The bill before us prohibits a person from holding the dual roles of a member of the Parliament of New South Wales and a councillor or mayor of a council. In New South Wales there are 29 councillors who are also members of the New South Wales Parliament. I would have to say, following on from the Hon. Paul Green's contribution, that most, if not all, of those councillors and members of Parliament do their utmost to undertake both those roles to the best of their ability. But I have had conversations with the Hon. Jan Barham and the Hon. Paul Green about how difficult it is for them to apply themselves to both roles in the measure that is required. Holding dual positions in public office in different tiers of government ultimately can lead to a conflict of interest. There is also a perception that holding two public positions could lead to the neglect of one of those positions. Perhaps that is the reason behind the result of the poll mentioned by the Hon. Paul Green.

All public positions are full-time jobs. It is difficult for one person to do two full-time jobs properly and to the satisfaction of the general public. With the exception of one mayor who is also a member in the other place, not one other councillor or mayor, either in this place or the other place, has in any way lobbied the Shooters and Fishers Party on this bill—not even The Greens members. We can only conclude that they do not object to the bill before us, so the Shooters and Fishers Party will not stand in its way. The Shooters and Fishers 10444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

Party will be moving an amendment in Committee. We support this Government bill and believe that the original intent was to include all levels of government—local, State and Federal. We will see whether that is the current position of the Coalition. Through some error of omission, it was not clearly indicated in the bill that this was meant to be the case. I would have thought that members of the Government could have made the amendment that I propose to move in Committee. They have indicated that they are happy for others to do so. I hope they will support our amendment. I commend the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012 to the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.05 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak against the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. The truth-in-labelling laws should be applied here and the bill should be clearly identified as the Local Government (Get Clover Moore) Bill 2012. That is clearly the intent of the Government in bringing forward this legislation. The Hon. Robert Brown stated that there are 29 sitting councillors and/or mayors in both Houses of Parliament in New South Wales. Of those 29 councillors and mayors, only one has indicated her intention to recontest the office of local council—Clover Moore. So members can talk about this bill based on a theoretical, notionally principled stance—which is what the Government is pretending to do—but we know that this bill is directed at and will affect one person, that is, Clover Moore.

The Liberal Party knows that it cannot get rid of Clover Moore in a free and fair contest in an election for the seat of Sydney. It has tried and it has failed. The Greens have repeatedly contested Clover Moore's seat of Sydney and we have failed to defeat her. The reason that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and The Greens have failed to unseat Clover Moore from the electorate of Sydney is that the people of Sydney want to keep electing Clover Moore to the position of member for Sydney. What justification does this Parliament have to remove that right from the electors of the electorate of Sydney?

The only reason the Government has introduced this bill is for narrow, partisan, political advantage because it knows it cannot defeat the member at the ballot box. We have heard time and again that the position of a member of Parliament is a full-time job and one cannot also work as a local councillor. That denies 150 years of history of members having performed those dual roles. If one walks down the hallowed halls of the Town Hall in Sydney one will see member after member of the New South Wales State Parliament who at the same time has been the Lord Mayor of Sydney. It is an historical fact that this Government is seeking to deny.

The position of local councillor in New South Wales has never been a full-time position; it is very much a part-time position. The allowances that most councillors receive for performing their public service as a local councillor range between $10,000 and $18,000 and the stipend that is given to almost all mayors ranges between $33,000 and $45,000. The Lord Mayor of Sydney and possibly the Lord Mayor of Newcastle have significantly higher allowances. But the structure of local council is for councillors and mayors to be part-time positions. Hundreds of local councillors across New South Wales also have enormously demanding full-time positions. Those positions are every bit as demanding as the position of a member of Parliament but they still fit in their civic duty as a councillor in their part-time role.

By way of full and open disclosure for those who do not know, I am concluding my second term as a councillor on Woollahra Municipal Council. Literally hundreds of councillors have busy and demanding full-time jobs, yet they are still able to serve their communities as councillors. Greg Medcraft, Chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC], is also an elected member of Woollahra Municipal Council. As the statutory commissioner for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission he has one of the most demanding roles that one could imagine.

The Hon. Jan Barham: A big job.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: An enormously big job. He also wants to serve his community as a local councillor, and this bill will not prevent that from happening. Before becoming a member of Parliament I had an extremely busy practice at the Bar. In many ways that job was every bit as demanding as my job as a member of Parliament and it occupied as many hours, but I managed to fit my work as a local councillor around my busy full-time job. Local councillor is a part-time position with a modest stipend that does not pretend to cover full-time wages. Rather tragically for local councils, a number of very busy real estate agents and property developers are local councillors. All manner of people with enormously demanding full-time jobs, including doctors and bricklayers, perform that work while serving as local councillors. There is no meaningful distinction between being chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and a local councillor and being a 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10445

member of Parliament and a local councillor. There is no meaningful distinction between being a busy doctor and a local councillor and being a member of Parliament and a local councillor. It is nothing more than a barefaced distortion by the Government to suggest otherwise.

For the past 150 years, people with enormously demanding full-time positions have worked as part-time councillors. We also have heard rhetoric from the Government suggesting that one cannot do the busy job of a councillor or lord mayor and also be a member of Parliament. The converse argument that the Government is running is that apparently it is unfair to those who elect a member of Parliament for that member also to be a busy councillor or lord mayor. But one only has to look at the position of a Minister of the Crown, who has an enormously tiring and demanding job that often occupies 60 or 70 hours per week. It is still accepted that Ministers of the Crown also can be independent representatives for their local area. Surely the job of a Minister is more demanding than the job of a mayor, but the Government will not confront that argument. A score of Coalition members in this Government have the dual role of Minister and local member. There is no pretence from the Government that that is a problem or that there is a conflict of interest. Of course there is a conflict between not being able to speak out about Cabinet decisions while also trying to represent a local constituency.

Time and again we see the absolute blunted role of backbenchers in this Chamber and in the other place who do not even pretend to hold the Government to account in Question Time, where they continually ask Dorothy Dixers—printed questions with printed answers. Those members do not perform their roles as independent members of Parliament in holding the Government to account. The position of a notionally independent member is a charade, even more so in the case of Ministers, who are bound to abide unthinkingly by Cabinet determinations yet pretend to be genuinely independent members of Parliament. The rank hypocrisy of this Government in singling out this one notional conflict between being a mayor and a member of Parliament stinks of political opportunism. It is the kind of rank hypocrisy that brings the whole profession of politics to the lowest ebb. Hypocrisy laid upon hypocrisy will be seen in the Committee stage when the Shooters and Fishers Party moves an amendment to prevent Joanna Gash from running as a Nationals candidate the Shoalhaven City Council election because the Christian Democratic Party wants to hand the Hon. Paul Green's position to its chosen successor—

The Hon. Paul Green: Point of order: I have clearly stated my position in this debate. Mr David Shoebridge's comments are uncalled for. No-one has been lined up. This debate is about fairness. Mr David Shoebridge's comments are offensive and should be withdrawn.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To the point of order: There is no point of order. What standing order am I said to have offended?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Paul Green found the comments offensive. Therefore, I ask Mr David Shoebridge to withdraw them.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I ask for a ruling as to whether Madam Deputy-President determines the comments to be offensive. If Madam Deputy-President does determine the comments to be offensive then I will consider my position.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! If I were the Hon. Paul Green I would find the comments offensive.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: In light of the ruling of Madam Deputy-President I will withdraw the comments. It is known that the amendment to be moved by the Shooters and Fishers Party—a Christian Democratic Party amendment—is being moved because the Christian Democratic Party wants to prevent Joanna Gash, who has openly said that she wants to contest the mayoralty in the Shoalhaven, from running for mayor in the Shoalhaven council election. The fact that the Christian Democratic Party will get the Shooters and Fishers Party to move its amendment at the Committee stage shows what a rank political deal this is. It shows how divorced from political principles this charade is that is being acted out by the Government and the crossbench, the Guns and Moses Coalition.

The Hon. Paul Green: Point of order: Mr David Shoebridge is misleading the House. I wish Joanna Gash all the best in her bid for election. I ask that Mr David Shoebridge be brought back to the leave of the bill.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order. The Hon. Paul Green was making a debating point, not taking a point of order. 10446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Robert Brown: Let's get him through with interjections.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge that interjection. The Hon. Robert Brown commented that he wants to eat up my 20 minutes through interjections because those opposite do not want to face the ugly truth. The other crossbench members are being co-opted into the Coalition Government's ugly attempt to unseat Clover Moore and they have seized with both hands a further political contest in the Shoalhaven. I note that Minister Page has left the President's gallery. He is no doubt grossly embarrassed—

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. Mr David Shoebridge has been speaking about members of both Chambers. I ask that the member return to the leave of the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To the point of order—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: This is the third point of order that has been taken solely to soak up the time and prevent the truth from getting out about the ugly nature of what has happened. The Hon. Don Page has exited the President's gallery because he is almost certainly grossly embarrassed that an amendment will be moved by the Guns and Moses Coalition to prevent a Liberal Party member of Parliament from contesting the mayoralty in Shoalhaven.

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members of The Nationals will contain themselves.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: They got excited—I am sorry about that. The Government is embarrassed about being used as a tool by the Christian Democratic Party and not on the basis of any political principles. The Christian Democratic Party has turned the Minister into nothing but Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's poodle. The Minister is Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's poodle, delivering for the Christian Democratic Party at the expense of the Coalition.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Mr David Shoebridge is well and truly straying into the territory of casting aspersions on a member of another place. It is all well and good for him to get excited while debating what the Minister intends to do. As members know, the appropriate way to cast aspersions is by way of a substantive motion. Mr David Shoebridge should limit his contribution to debating the merits of the legislation, not attributing poor bona fides to a Minister who is not a member of this place and cannot defend himself.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I ask Mr David Shoebridge to keep the personalities out of this debate and to talk about the substance of the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the observation from the Chair. If the bill was not directed at personalities it would be easy to avoid those personalities. But let us be clear about this: From day one this legislation has been about personalities. It has been about Clover Moore and it has been about singling out political opponents and squashing them by way of legislation. This is a personality-driven position of the Government, not an ideologically driven position. The legislation has always been directed at personalities. Indeed, it is so embarrassingly transparent that I am surprised the Government has the chutzpah to continue to defend the legislation on the pretence of principle. This bill is deeply anti-democratic. It is a case of a government with the hubris of a large majority thinking that it can ignore democratic principles and that the people of New South Wales will turn a blind eye and overlook it. Over the next six months a by-election will be forced on the people of the electorate of Sydney, who cannot choose their member because Barry O'Farrell does not want them to. The stench will cover the balance of New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Members should refer to other members by their correct titles.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Premier Barry O'Farrell does not want the people of Sydney to be able to choose the candidate they have been choosing for two decades as their local member. Barry O'Farrell, the honourable Premier, in his hubris— 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10447

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The member should refer to other members in this Chamber and in the other place by their correct titles.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I did.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I remind Mr David Shoebridge to refer to other members by their correct titles.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I did and I will. The Premier will deny the people of Sydney that right because in his hubris he wants to impose his imperial will on them. He said that they cannot choose the person they would like to represent them in the seat of Sydney—the person they have chosen for two decades to represent them—because apparently he knows better than they do. The electors in the seat of Sydney and the people of New South Wales will pay the better part of $500,000 for a by-election to feed the hubris of the Premier and the Government because of a personality-driven, anti-democratic bill that will prevent them from electing the member of their choice. The fact that the ugly political machinations in Shoalhaven from the Christian Democratic Party have infected this bill at the last minute confirms that this legislation is not about principles; this bill is about privilege and pretence. It is a disgrace. [Time expired.]

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [5.25 p.m.]: At the outset I declare my opposition, as did my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, to the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. This bill will simply bar members of Parliament from holding dual roles. The sole basis of the bill is an attack on the Liberal-Nationals arch-Sydney-enemy, Her Worship the Lord Mayor of Sydney and the member for Sydney, Clover Moore. The Government is out to get Ms Moore, and this time it is determined to knock her off, one way or another. At the 2011 State election the Liberals received more primary votes in the State seat of Sydney than Ms Moore but failed to get rid of her; they are trying all avenues to get rid of her now. The member for Sydney has clearly become a thorn in the Government's side.

It is clear that the Liberals are desperate to get rid of Clover. Is it because she defeated their candidate at the last election, or is it because she is the master of her own destiny and would not cower to the Government's pressure on planning and other changes it wants to implement in the city of Sydney? No-one really knows, other than the Government Executive. Only they know exactly what drives the Government to want to remove her from the mayoralty and/or oust her from the Parliament. Every man and his dog know that the Government is hell-bent on getting rid of Clover Moore from her seat in this Parliament or from the Council of the City of Sydney.

Yet the Government dresses up this bill as one that is designed to minimise potential conflicts of interests and competing obligations that can arise with respect to members who have additional responsibilities as either a councillor or mayor. One wonders what is next on the Government's agenda. Will the Government move another amendment or introduce a new bill to prevent parliamentarians from holding board positions or from having other additional responsibilities on community boards and in community groups and organisations? We are informed that the objects of the bill are:

… to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to prohibit a person holding the dual roles of a member of the Parliament of New South Wales and a councillor or mayor of a council. Despite that prohibition, the Bill:

(a) allows a current member of Parliament who is also a councillor or mayor, or a councillor or mayor who is elected as a member of Parliament in future, to continue to hold the office of councillor or mayor until the next ordinary election of councillors or for the period of 2 years (whichever is the shorter period), and

(b) allows a member of Parliament to nominate for and be elected as a councillor or mayor without first resigning from Parliament.

According to the Minister responsible, the Hon. Don Page, the reason for this bill is to minimise potential conflicts of interests and competing obligations. As I said, the argument put forward by the Government is simply a load of hogwash. Every member of the New South Wales community, young and old, knows that the bill is targeted at Clover Moore, who holds positions as both the member for Sydney and the Lord Mayor of Sydney. Let us not beat around the bush; let us cut to the chase and tell it as it is. To put it simply, the Government wants Clover's head.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: It is appropriate for members to refer to members in this Chamber and the other Chamber by their correct name and full title. 10448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The member will refer to other members by their correct titles.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Simply put, this Government wants the head of the member for Sydney. This Government has the numbers in the lower House and it can do as it pleases. It wants to get rid of Clover, it now has an opportunity to do so and it is taking advantage of that opportunity right now. This bill obviously has no significant policy objective and no tangible benefit to the people of New South Wales. The intention of this legislation is to kick one Independent member in the guts. It is all out there in the media; it is now common knowledge that this legislation is aimed at Ms Clover Moore. I am a councillor, as are Paul Green and Jan Barham, and in the lower House Nick Lalich, John Sidotti, John Flowers and many others, yet only the name of Clover Moore and not those names has been mentioned in the media. The media knows full well that the main objective of this bill is to oust Clover Moore.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It's all about you.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I do not want my picture in there. The member for Sydney was elected Lord Mayor of Sydney in 2004 and re-elected in 2008. She is also the State member for Sydney— formerly Bligh—and currently is serving her sixth term as an Independent in the Legislative Assembly of the New South Wales Parliament. Between 1992 and 1995 she held the balance of power with fellow Independents John Hatton and Peter Macdonald. However, in this Parliament there is absolutely no danger of her holding a balance of power as the Christian Democratic Party does in this House. In fact, Ms Moore, along with her Independent colleagues, will have little impact in the Chamber in the face of the Government's overwhelming majority in the Legislative Assembly. The Government is attacking her when she will have no impact.

There are obviously other hidden agendas; what they are we do not know. Obviously she has achieved for her constituents for them to elect her and re-elect her as mayor and as member for Sydney. There does not appear to be a conflict between her role as Lord Mayor and her role as the member for Sydney. The supposed conflict in the roles clearly does not seem to hold water or to have limited her capacity to achieve for her constituents as they have re-elected her time and again. I am of the view that if her constituents believe that she is failing or falling short on the delivery of services to them they will turf her out. However, they have not done so. It is a matter of choice for her constituents to determine whether the member or mayor is capable of doing two jobs at once. We all know that many of us can not only do two jobs—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Chew gum as well?

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Yes, some members can chew gum as well.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: How many meetings have you missed on Rockdale council?

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I will deal later with that issue. While we are working we also can serve organisations such as the State Emergency Service, teach, doorknock for the Salvation Army, join a local sporting club, do other work on boards, community committees and in groups, and volunteer. Most members of this Parliament who are councillors will testify to the fact that they work very hard to achieve for their communities. In the case of Clover Moore, the electors of Sydney voted her in as mayor and as a member of Parliament. It is their will to do so. Obviously they are happy with her, but if they are not we will know at the upcoming council elections in September 2012. During his agreement in principle speech the Minister said that the bill gives recognition to the fact that the respective roles of members of the New South Wales Parliament and local government civic office deserve the full attention and efforts of those elected to those roles. I agree. I know for a fact that members of this Parliament who also are councillors give their full attention to both jobs.

I am a councillor and I remain a councillor on Rockdale City Council today, despite my election to this Parliament. I was mayor at the time I was preselected, but I subsequently resigned from that position. However, I remained a councillor so that I could serve the community in that capacity. It goes without saying that anyone with two jobs will have to better manage his or her time. Rockdale City Council meets twice a month. It has the capacity to meet twice more if the council has committee or information nights, which is a total of four nights a month. That is the bare minimum required of councillors, but councillors do far more than that, even though the work remains part time. Even mayors work part time and are remunerated accordingly. Therefore, the argument that the two roles clash is a furphy. In fact, in most instances they complement each other.

I conclude my remarks by noting that at the end of this term I will have served the City of Rockdale for the past 16 years. I am satisfied that I have served the community with dedication. I took every decision with the 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10449

community in mind. I love Rockdale and the people of Rockdale. I have lived in Rockdale for the past 35 years. I have lived in four different streets in Rockdale and all within a 500-metre radius. I am proud of my contribution to that beautiful city. It deserves the best, as do its residents. I will miss the council and I will miss serving the community at a local government level, but I take solace in the fact that I can serve the people of Rockdale and the wider community of New South Wales as a member of this Parliament. It is an enormous privilege to serve the community of Rockdale and I look forward to continuing to do so in the future. I oppose the bill.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [5.37 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012 and acknowledge that I am a mayor and a councillor and therefore have an interest but no conflict.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Three positions.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: Three positions, yes—mayor, councillor and member of Parliament for a short time. This has been an important debate and it has been interesting to hear the comments of members. I add some comments from my own experience, having had the pleasure of working in this place from 1995 to 1999 when I watched the operations of the House and then as quickly as possible retreated into local government. I thought local government was the place to be; it represented the real world where one sees on the ground the implications and outcomes of what happens in this place. I very much enjoyed my 12½ years in local government, but I will not be recontesting the local government elections in September. I chose not to resign from my role after being elected as a member of Parliament out of a commitment to my community, which was aware of my commitment. Some aspects of this bill raise concerns that have been expressed by many in my community.

People feel that some of the debate in the public arena has been disrespectful of local government and does not acknowledge the reality that many people in communities believe local government represents. I make the point, as my colleague Mr Shoebridge mentioned, that the notion that a mayoral role is a job has created confusion in the minds of community members. It is not regarded as a job. It is not well paid, one does not receive superannuation and one does not receive the entitlements of employment. This has led to quite a number of people raising issues related to this aspect. Some of those who are prospective candidates for the position of mayor of Byron Shire Council were very interested to hear all of a sudden that it was regarded as a job. They were interested to know whether changes would be made to remuneration as a result of this piece of legislation.

As Mr Shoebridge pointed out, many people who hold the office of mayor have other very important roles. My predecessor on Byron council was a restaurant and cafe owner. In a tourist town that is a pretty intense job. He was very busy and managed to perform his council role as well as being a businessman in the town. Prior to that, for two terms, the mayor of Byron shire was a doctor in the community. He managed to perform the role of mayor to a point where he was much loved and respected. That seems to define the position that has been put forward by some. The Minister for Local Government is my local member and I have great respect for him, but some comments that were made in the other place diminished the respect for some members who hold both roles.

It was implied that they did not deliver adequately or impartially in those roles, which I think is a little unfair. We are getting close to the point, as another member indicated, of considering whether we need to ban people from other roles they might hold, such as being members of community groups or sporting associations or sitting on boards and being chairpersons of other groups. How much do we want to become a nanny State? Do we ask everyone how many children they have, whether they are married and how much time they spend with their families? These are the questions we are starting to ask. How much time do members spend between clocking on and clocking off in their role as an elected representative, whether in this Chamber, as a local government member or, as the Hon. Paul Green mentioned, as a Federal member?

This is about democracy. People elect other people and trust them to deliver in their roles. They believe in what those representatives say and do in their community. That applies particularly at local government level because those representatives are so close to the people. They know who their representatives are and they know the power of their word and their intent. They would not elect representatives if they thought they could not do the job. In some circumstances people who have been doing a job for some time may not need to contribute the hours that others might because they know their job well, they know their community well and they know the operations of council well. 10450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

It has created real discontent in the community and I think that is unfair because once again it diminishes the role of local government. Too often local government is regarded poorly by the media and sometimes by members of Parliament. However, as one who has spent more than a dozen years in local government I can say it is something I feel a bit sad about leaving. I will always represent the interests of my community and I am looking forward to having public access to the new councillors and giving them a hard time jsut as many of them have given me a hard time. It will be fun because as a mayor one is constrained in some of the things that one can say and do.

This legislation denies the history of 150 years during which we have seen mayors and councillors also be members of this place and provide fantastic representation to the community in carrying out their duties. Mr Shoebridge also mentioned the full-time or part-time designation of a councillor or mayor and the allowances that are paid commensurate with those roles. When that information is in the public arena and in people's minds there is not really a conflict in holding two jobs. It is not double dipping as one member said by way of interjection. Some of the points raised are very valid. There has been a process in place and the Minister referred to Destination 2036 in Dubbo. Matters of governance were raised and a discussion paper was released for public comment. However, we have not seen the outcome of that. Is that fair to all the people who made submissions and took the time and trouble to engage in democracy and comment on a discussion paper that failed to describe the conflict properly?

A number of people have approached me and said, "I couldn't work out from the discussion paper where the conflict is." There was a lack of description about the conflict that might arise in having dual roles and that it might differ depending on whether someone was a lower House member or an upper House member. I think we short-changed the community a bit by not fully describing the situation. We did not fully explain that if this bill truly was about the mayor of Sydney, as many are saying, the Government could quite easily have made a change to the City of Sydney Act. There was a much simpler way to do this without engaging and embroiling 152 councils and the whole State in a debate about this issue.

[Interruption]

That would indicate it is not about Clover Moore. I will accept there are two points of view. I come from the country and I am used to trying to understand both points of view and to consider the issues. If it is just about the Lord Mayor of Sydney it is a very long path to get to the desired end. However, it does appear that way. I have spoken to a number of members of Parliament who are less than happy—some of them may be members of the Government—that their future will be constrained by this legislation. It is not fair. We have talked about fairness but is it fair that this long-held tradition of people holding two roles and doing them reasonably well to the point where their community re-elects them should be changed? The true test of democracy is whether they can get re-elected and whether the community will trust them and vote for them yet again. That should always be the test in a democracy. People stand for election and those who are elected have the trust and support of the community.

There is the argument that the positions are demanding and it is not practical for one person to have two roles. I note that during this whole debate the media has been intensely interested in finding people who have dual roles. I have been open, as has my colleague the Hon. Paul Green, and said that the tyranny of distance does make it difficult. I have spent a lot of time travelling. It is fortunate I do not have much else to distract me in my life. I appreciate some of the travelling time; it is good for reading documents. It is great to be able to sit at an airport or on a plane and do the catch-up reading that one needs to do. I made the point that it would be much easier to be a member of the lower House and a mayor for the same electorate. That would be reasonably easy to do. One member of Parliament who has the luxury of having the Parliament and her local government electorate in the same town can jump on a bike and ride between the two places if she so wishes. This bill will not permit the Lord Mayor of Sydney and the member for Sydney to continue in dual roles. The difficulty lies in the fact that additional time and energy would be required of someone who held both positions and who had to travel long distances to perform both roles.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: And the size of the council makes a difference.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: The size of a council area makes a difference, yes. I have an electorate of 30,00 people, but 1.5 million people visit my local area every year and they feel they have the right to write to me and to complain about garbage bins, the lack of roadways or cycleways.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Probably from Sydney. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10451

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: Many of those visitors come from Sydney and Melbourne. Many visitors come from all over the State, the country and the world, but they believe they have the right to contact me and they do.

[Interruption]

Former members—not just the Hon. Ian Cohen but also the Hon. Richard Jones—are my constituents. These former members who know the ropes ring me up and complain, send me an email, or catch me on the beach or on the street to make representations to me. Those well-respected former members were good members of this Chamber who gave years of service to their communities. I have been encouraging both of them to think about running for local government. I am not sure whether I will succeed in that area but I believe that former members of Parliament should think about entering local government and bringing their expertise into such a role. It is difficult to understand the intent of this bill. According to some people the intent of this bill is to reduce conflict and to prohibit a person from holding the dual roles of a member of the Parliament of New South Wales and a councillor or a mayor of a council.

Many people have said that this legislation is aimed at the current Lord Mayor of Sydney. No other mayors are willing to continue to serve as a mayor and as a member of Parliament. It is unfortunate that this bill was introduced as it raises doubt about the capacity of some people to serve their communities. It is an honour to have both roles—a privilege that is given to someone who stands for public office. As the conflict issue has not been well described it is unfortunate that this matter is in the public arena as it raises doubts about the integrity of some people and it continues to devalue people's trust in the system. One of the biggest shortcomings for members of our communities is that often democracy is portrayed in a way that devalues the trust that is placed in us. I do not support this bill. I will not run for local government in September but I will continue to be a member of this Chamber and enjoy robust debate in this place. I will always represent my community.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.53 p.m.]: I oppose the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. Despite the fact that the Government attempted to sell this bill as being about the generic issue of dual roles being held by people in local government and members of Parliament, we must face the facts. This bill simply targets the current Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney. I state at the outset that I am not a great fan of Clover Moore but the simple fact is that I do not have to be because I do not live in either the State electorate of Sydney or the council area of the City of Sydney. It is up to the voters in those two areas to determine who they want to represent them at the local government and State government levels. We must face the facts: there are no key performance indicators or any other performance measures for members of Parliament or councillors other than the perceptions of their performance by those who elect them—the voters in their constituencies—in local government or State government.

Many people have very heavy workloads. Mr David Shoebridge referred to one example of Ministers and members of Parliament on which I will elaborate. In some jurisdictions Ministers are drawn from outside the pool of elected representatives such as members of Congress or members of the House of Representatives. In the United States of America they can select people from outside. That is one way in which to deal with the heavy workload that is alleged to exist for members of Parliament. But many members in this Chamber and in the Legislative Assembly have a number of responsibilities with which they have to keep up, apart from being a member of Parliament.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn is very involved in taking people along the Kokoda Track, which would be a full-time job for many people. However, the Hon. Charlie Lynn, who is also a member of Parliament, obviously convinced Liberal Party preselectors that he can manage those dual roles. I have no doubt that people expect Ministers to undertake their responsibilities as Ministers, if they are from the Legislative Assembly, and also to represent their local constituencies as members of Parliament. I do not understand why there is this beat-up concern that people in local government cannot also serve as members of Parliament because they are incapable of performing both duties properly.

I refer to the possible conflict of interest in holding dual roles. On a number of occasions people who hold public office also have a conflict of interest. Clearly this Parliament has guidelines relating to how members of Parliament should deal with such conflicts of interest. People can even consult an ethics adviser if they believe they have a conflict of interest. Statutory guidelines for the conduct of members of local government deal with issues relating to conflicts of interest. I do not believe this issue is about a conflict of interest and that has not been clearly demonstrated. I believe it should be left up to the voters. Under our current 10452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

form of democracy voters have the right to make that determination. I do not believe we should be diminishing democracy by supporting a bill that has no public policy basis—a bill that is merely a political fix to get rid of someone who irritates the current Government.

It has been said that two members in this Chamber hold the position of mayor, that is, the Hon. Jan Barham and the Hon. Paul Green. They have decided not to contest the local government elections in September 2012 which is their decision to make. Individuals determine the workload they can take on, given other commitments to their families or their communities. That is their choice. I say: Good on them for representing their local areas in local government. I am not concerned about the fact that they have decided not to run again. As the Hon. Jan Barham said, tyranny of distance comes into play, if someone who is the mayor of Shoalhaven has to attend Legislative Council sittings and hearings. The same applies to the Hon. Jan Barham. I am a frequent visitor to Byron Bay as it is in Ballina, one of my duty electorates. It is not necessarily a quick trip to travel to Byron Bay. I commend the Hon. Jan Barham for her work in managing her roles as the mayor of Byron Bay and a member of Parliament. She made the decision not to contest the local government elections; that decision should not be imposed on her by legislative change.

I do not believe there is any groundswell of support for this change. There is certainly no mandate for it and the Government made no commitment during the election campaign to introduce it. As a corollary, the Government has no intention of implementing any mechanism to measure the performance of other members of Parliament. If this were a serious attempt to ensure that members of Parliament were concentrating first and foremost on their role as a member of Parliament the Government would have mooted other changes, but it has done nothing along those lines. This legislation focuses only on dual roles held at the local government and State level.

Mention was made of a poll conducted by the Daily Telegraph in which the overwhelming majority of people who participated supported the prohibition on members holding office in local government and in this Parliament. Members should face the fact that the polls conducted by the Daily Telegraph are merely a reflection of the intention of its readers based on questions that are not statistically sound. They are known by legitimate pollsters as "loaded" questions. It is fair enough for the Daily Telegraph to conduct such polls and it does not pretend that they are anything else. However, for members to give them the same credibility as a poll conducted over a random selection of people with questions that are not loaded and overseen by a company such as Auspoll or any of the other legitimate pollsters—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about Newspoll?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes. That is exactly what we should not be doing. I will now articulate why this legislation is no good. If the Government wanted to prove that it was not aimed at Clover Moore it would have accepted the proposed amendments prohibiting Federal members from holding dual roles. If it had genuine concerns about members who hold dual roles it would not be tinkering at the edges of this issue by introducing this sort of legislation. It would be seriously considering other changes to our system of government. It would be considering whether members of the Executive should be drawn only from the pool of elected members of Parliament. It would be considering a much broader range of issues. The fact that it is not is confirmation that this is simply an attack on Clover Moore. Where does it end? What class of person will the Government next decide is ineligible to contest an election at the local government or State government level? Where will this stop? Who else will this Government disenfranchise?

It is our responsibility to look at this Government's track record since it was elected with regard to supporting democracy. It has made changes to the standing orders in this place effectively to gag debate. Gags have never before been imposed on debates in the history of this Chamber. The Government has also amended the electoral funding laws to nobble the main opposition party. Now it wants to prohibit an Independent member who is a thorn in its side in the other House from running for Lord Mayor of Sydney.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: She is double dipping.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I note the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' interjection. It is well known, well reported and well publicised that the member for Sydney, who is also the Lord Mayor of Sydney, uses her mayoral salary to fund local community projects. She does not take that money for herself; it is used for community grants for organisations within the City of Sydney boundary. That is not double dipping.

If the Government were so concerned about double dipping it would be doing something about Nick Greiner. Nick Greiner receives a New South Wales parliamentary pension as a former Premier of this State, he 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10453

is also the chairman of Infrastructure NSW and he is a director of numerous companies. He is not only doubling dipping but also has an onerous workload. Has the Government expressed concern about his workload? No, it has not. Has it said that it will not appoint him to any more boards and asked him to stand down as chairman of Infrastructure NSW? No, it has not. The Government is happy for him to be the chairman of Infrastructure NSW and a board director and to be paid for those positions and to draw a parliamentary pension. Its suggestions about conflicts of interest, double dipping and people not being able to manage heavy workloads is absolute rubbish because its franchising and privatisation idol does all of those things. Is the Government suggesting that he cannot perform those roles effectively? No, it is not. This legislation simply targets a member that the Government wants to knock off.

The Government may have another reason for introducing this legislation. Perhaps some Ministers cannot cope with their workload as both a Minister and a local member and perhaps they cannot work out conflicts of interest or balance their priorities. That may be why the New South Wales planning system is based on what is good for the people of Ku-ring-gai rather than the building and construction industry, the economy and sensible planning throughout this State. Perhaps that is why we have this situation. We must recognise the fact that there is no big hue and cry in the community about members performing dual roles. The Government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation and its attempts to suggest that this is anything other than a ruse to get rid of someone who irritates them are a farce.

The Hon. Duncan Gay, the Minister for Roads and Ports, has told us what he thinks of some of Clover Moore's initiatives involving traffic changes and cycleways in Sydney. I sometimes do not like what I see happening in the city area. However, that does not mean that we should disenfranchise people who wish to be a local government candidate or that we should tell the residents of the local government area or seat of Sydney that their choice of candidate will be restricted. This is a fundamental attack on democracy in this State. Until the system is changed completely the only determinant of who is and is not elected should be the popularity of the candidates and voter satisfaction with their performance.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is once again interjecting and raising a spurious issue. Shame on him if he does not know better after years of working for Federal parliamentarians and if he has not bothered to read the Australian Constitution or the Constitution of New South Wales. If he knows the answer, why is he making such inane interjections?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Where is your amendment to the Constitution?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: We have no intention of amending the Constitution or supporting this bill because it does not represent good public policy. It is simply a political fix to stop Clover Moore being an irritant. The Government has a big enough majority in the other place to do what it wants so I do not know why it has introduced this legislation. I do not know whom it has promised will be the next Lord Mayor of Sydney if it manages to oust Clover Moore. I have confidence in the good judgement of the people in the State seat of Sydney and the people who vote for the Council of the City of Sydney to elect whomever they think will do the best job of representing their interests.

Accordingly, I call on all reasonably minded members to oppose this bill. It is simply a Liberal Party fix and a grudge match. It is all about personalities and it will achieve nothing good for the people of New South Wales. The less democracy we have the worse off we will be. The O'Farrell Government has scant regard for democracy in New South Wales and this is yet another instalment in its attack on the democracy we have come to depend upon in this State. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Those opposite have been elected on a system of democracy that they have set about attacking ever since they were elected. The fact that some of them on the back bench look shamefaced shows that they have an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. I urge all members to oppose the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.10 p.m.]: I join my colleagues in opposing the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. This is another politically motivated bill on the recurring theme of the O'Farrell Government: smash your political opponents. We have seen that recurring theme in the first year of this Government. Everything is okay, as long as it is about using one's power to demolish an opponent or to look after a mate.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: We smashed you. 10454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I note the interjection of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps about smashing things. It is reminiscent of the language that was apparently used in certain text messages about The Star casino of which the Premier now seems to have no memory.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: It is convention in this place for second reading speeches to be somewhat wide ranging in their ambit. However, there is nothing that I have seen in this bill that would indicate any relevance to gaming, to The Star casino or to the entertainment industry in this State. I would ask you to draw the member back to the substance of the bill.

The Hon. Helen Westwood: To the point of order: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has been constantly interjecting. He was the one who raised the issue of smashing, not the Hon. Steve Whan. If he would abide by the standing orders of this place, be quiet and stop his offensive interjections, we could continue this debate with some decorum.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: Smashing was, in fact, introduced by the Hon. Steve Whan, to which I responded about us smashing the then Labor Government in March 2011. It is simply wrong for the member to suggest that I raised smashing when, in fact, her colleague did so.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members will desist from responding to interjections. Members will confine their remarks to the bill before the House.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps says that we had not introduced the entertainment industry into this debate—he provides entertainment every time he takes a point of order. This bill is on the recurring theme of getting stuck into your political opponents. For obvious reasons it is known by most people as the "Get Clover bill". We hear all sorts of justifications for the bill, but it is designed to rid the Government of a political opponent that it does not believe it can defeat in the next Council of the City of Sydney elections. There are 152 local councils in New South Wales. It is often the case that people go into local government and then move into State or Federal politics. I am not one of those people, but local government is an important training ground for people to move into State Parliament.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: John Barilaro is one.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, who would like to introduce a Queanbeyan city councillor into this debate. I will defend the right of the member for Monaro to run also for local government. I will not say that he has done a particularly good job of balancing the two jobs, but the decision should be left to the voters. This point was raised by an earlier speaker. I concede that it is possible. Some of my colleagues sat on councils in the Sydney area and were also members of Parliament. I think the balancing act is more difficult for someone from a regional centre because they are inevitably going to miss multiple council meetings because of the difficulty of getting back on a sitting night to attend them. I do not think it is good for voters or ratepayers if a councillor is frequently absent from meetings. In a democratic system it is up to voters to weigh that up, in the same way that they weigh up whether their local members are doing other jobs.

There is an element of hypocrisy in this in that we are talking only about local government positions. These positions only provide expenses as payment and are, by definition, part time. The Government is not concerned about members of Parliament who have second jobs or who continue to conduct other businesses. I have never had a second job. I do not doubt that I could cope with a position on a board, for example, just as I was able to cope with being a Minister and a local member. But the Government shows its hypocrisy in this debate because it is not tackling members of Parliament who have second jobs. I am constantly hearing stories about members in the other place who have a second job. I would be far more concerned if I heard that someone who was a member of Parliament and also a councillor might also be involved in the day-to-day running of their former business. I have heard that at least two members of the lower House who were elected at the last election are doing that. If one were spending too much time in the running of a business as well as handling the job of a member of Parliament it would be a distraction. If one also became a Minister, that would be attempting the impossible.

This bill is about the recurring theme of smashing the Coalition's political opponents. I hear the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps groaning. What else could it be? Is the Premier saying that he has no confidence in the 18 Liberal-Nationals members of Parliament who also hold positions as local councillors? By introducing this bill, is the Premier saying that they are not doing a reasonable job of representing their local electorates? If he is 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10455

saying that, I suspect that is something the voters might want to know when they pass judgement on those members of Parliament at the next election. It is up to the voters to do that. Many people run for local government out of a desire to help their local communities. They find that they enjoy representing their community and they want to take that to the State Parliament or Federal Parliament. I admire their commitment in doing that. I admire the people who will be running for local government elections later this year.

Brian Brown will be the Labor candidate for the position of Mayor of Queanbeyan City Council. I know that he will do a fantastic job. He is a father of five. Some might say that being a father of five is a second job in itself, but I am confident that he has the ability to balance those roles. Brian Brown was one of the drivers behind the establishment of the Jerrabomberra Community Bank, a branch of the Bendigo Bank. He was involved in the aircraft noise issues affecting the area and the local parents and citizens' association. Brian did a great job as my representative on the traffic committee at the Queanbeyan City Council. He is on the advisory committee for the Queanbeyan Hospital, and I know that he will do a fantastic job. Some might say that he has a lot of jobs, but I know that he will do them well. In the City of Sydney we see the main target of this legislation: to remove Clover Moore.

We would love to see the voters elect one of the seven candidates who will go to community preselection as Labor's candidate for Lord Mayor. The voters should make those decisions, not political opposition in the Liberal-Nationals Government. The political theme in the political donations legislation, where the Government obscenely used its numbers to impose its version of change on political opposition to smash the power of those who might campaign against it, shines through in this bill. At the same time the Government was looking after its mates in private business, who will continue to fund third party campaigns to support Liberal Ministers such as the Minister seated at the table—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The member is reflecting on a bill that has passed through this Chamber. In passing, he is also reflecting on this House. I ask that the Hon. Steve Whan return to the leave of the bill and not seek to fight old lost battles.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! It is inappropriate for the Hon. Steve Whan to reflect upon previous decisions of this House. The member will direct his comments to the bill before the House.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I am surprised that point of order was not taken in relation to a comment I made in debate on another bill earlier today. As the shadow Minister said, the Labor Party believes in democracy. It is up to the voters to decide if they think someone is overcommitting themself. It is up to the voters to cast their opinion as to whether those working as local councillors and members of Parliament are doing an adequate job. It is not up to this Parliament to make those decisions.

It would be far more useful if the Government did something about those Liberal and National members who masquerade as Independents at council elections and then pop up a few days later wearing a Liberal or Nationals T-shirt—members seeking to con progressive voting communities into electing conservatives. That is what happened with the tickets at the last Queanbeyan council election. The current member for Monaro is a case in point—he claimed to be an Independent councillor standing for election when he was a member of The Nationals. It would be far more useful if the Government pursued that sort of deception rather than this attempt to smash political opposition. I urge the House to vote against the bill.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The Hon. Steve Whan may have finished his contribution but he has cast aspersions on a member in the other place. I ask the Hon. Steve Whan to withdraw those comments.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I was speaking to an attendant and did not hear which member the Hon. Steve Whan was referring to.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I withdraw the point of order.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [6.23 p.m.]: I was not going to make a contribution to debate on the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012 but the Government Whip made a rather unbecoming comment so I feel compelled to do so. He made an outrageous slur against a number of members, from all sides of politics, by accusing those who are local councillors of double dipping. Sometimes the Government Whip gets a little bit carried away. Perhaps he needs some sort of circuit-breaker to think things through before speaking. 10456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Perhaps the Hon. Mick Veitch should be less sensitive.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: The continual interjections by the Government Whip are also becoming an issue as members are unable to have their debates heard. The Government Whip should read the standing orders about interjections. In 2007 when I was elected as a member of this Parliament I was a shire councillor. For 12 months I made the five-hour or so drive from Sydney to Young to meet my local government commitments. Then I made the decision that it was becoming too much for me to keep doing that five-hour drive to Young and be back here the next day, as well as a risk that involved for my family. That has not presented as a problem for others in this Parliament who have continued to conduct both roles. If those members were not adequately conducting both roles it would be an issue for those who elect them in either capacity, or both capacities, not the Parliament.

The Hon. Jan Barham and the Hon. Paul Green have advised the House that they will not be contesting the next local council elections. The suggestion of double dipping seriously underestimates the commitment of members to local government and the remuneration level of those in local government—they do not receive the same remuneration as a member of Parliament. Such a suggestion is seriously ignorant of their role and the funding they receive in that capacity. In the future I hope members will give serious consideration to the comments they make. To cast an aspersion on members of all political parties—the Liberal Party, The Nationals, crossbenches, the Labor Party and The Greens—in this place is far from parliamentary behaviour and unacceptable.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [6.26 p.m.]: I was not going to speak to the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012, but after the contribution of the Hon. Mick Veitch I feel I have to add something. Members should not be so sensitive when I am not speaking about them in the first place. I was talking about a case where certain members have raised the allegation that Saint Clover manages to give her remuneration to charity. She does not give her mayoral car to charity, does she?

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: Time and again the Chair has ruled—even as recently as today—that members are to be referred to by their correct title. The Government Whip has flouted the Chair's rulings by referring to the member for Sydney as Saint Clover. The Government Whip should be directed to correct the record, to refer to the member for Sydney by her correct title and to apologise to the member.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I uphold the point of order. Debate should be conducted in a civilised manner. Members will refer to other members by their correct titles.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [6.27 p.m.]: I speak against the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. Like many members of Parliament, I too have served in local government. I am passionate about it. I strongly believe that local government has a very important place in the governance of this State. Importantly, it plays an important role in people's daily lives. The characteristics of neighbourhoods and available facilities and services are very much determined by good governance at the local level. It is imperative that those willing to stand for election as councillors and mayors have an absolute commitment to their local communities and a passion for the important role that local government plays. We need people who are passionate, committed and dedicated. But I fail to see how having other roles prohibits people from effectively carrying out the role of a local councillor or mayor.

Indeed, there are many examples of people in local government who are also members of this House or the other place who have carried out those roles effectively. It is important to point out that in this State we support our democratic institutions and processes. As many members have said, the will of the people of Sydney is clear: they want Ms Clover Moore to represent them both as their Lord Mayor and as their member of Parliament. The Government should be willing to respect that. I turn to the issue of dual roles. Many of us have managed dual roles, whether as members of Parliament, in business or as parents. Like many others, I managed to raise a family as a single parent, care for my elderly parents, study and hold a job, as well as serve in local government. We can do all those things effectively. To suggest that a member of Parliament cannot also serve as a councillor or a mayor is absurd. It simply points to the fact that the Government is not genuine in its intent in this bill. As many members said, this bill is about getting rid of Clover.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: Time and again the point of order has been taken that members should use correct titles when referring to members in this House and in the other place.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! All members will refer to members of this place and the other place by their correct titles. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10457

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I apologise. I was not referring to the member for Sydney in an improper or inappropriate way. I was referring to the way the bill has been described in the media. Both social and electronic media have referred to the bill as the get Clover bill. I did not intend to be disrespectful to the member for Sydney. It is important to talk about dual roles. Certainly, some councillors and mayors run their own businesses and have full-time jobs at the same time. I have been the president of regional organisations, as have other members. In the past members also have served on county councils and various water authorities in their areas, and some have been company directors. And they have fulfilled all of those roles effectively.

Another way the Government has demonstrated its hypocrisy is the fact that many members in this House and in the other place have other occupations and professions as well. Some members run their own small businesses and profit from them, others run consultancies, some are farmers, some are veterinarians, chiropractors, dentists, solicitors or barristers, and some run their own adventure travel businesses, and we do not have a problem with that. It seems to be perfectly fine to do that, and to do it for personal gain. It is acceptable to profit from that; the Government has no problem with that. However, the Government has a problem with a member also holding a role in which they serve their community. Indeed, we have learned that the member for Sydney gives to charity the allowance that she receives as the Lord Mayor of Sydney. The Government has a problem with that, but it does not have a problem with members of this place running their own businesses.

Indeed, several members have many investment properties. They must spend an awful lot of time on managing their portfolio of investment properties for personal gain, and that is perfectly all right. Yet when a member of this Parliament wants to serve her community as Lord Mayor at the same time, the Government objects. As others have said, this legislation is not about the Government's concern with dual roles or a conflict of roles. We have heard a great deal about that. Ministers act in dual roles and, clearly, Ministers in this House and in the other place have significant roles and responsibilities. At times, as Ministers they must make decisions that may affect their electorates, and they are capable of doing that. Whether it is this Government or past governments, for decades Ministers have managed to perform dual roles, and the State has not been disadvantaged by that.

I fail to see how the Government can argue that the Lord Mayor of Sydney also cannot be the member for Sydney and have the capacity to manage any conflicts that arise in those roles. Ms Moore has demonstrated that she is capable of doing so. Clearly, this legislation is not only about removing the current member for Sydney; it is also about silencing a progressive voice in this State. Ms Moore clearly receives a lot of media attention in her roles as the Lord Mayor of Sydney and as the member for Sydney. She is one of the progressive voices heard in this city and in this State. The Government has continued to do all it can to silence the progressive voices in this State. The current Opposition receives half the budget for its Opposition business that the previous Opposition received. When the Coalition was in Opposition it had twice the resources that the current Opposition has to be an effective Opposition.

As we know, the Government changed the standing orders to silence progressive voices. Other speakers have referred to the election funding laws, which the Government introduced to prevent trade unionists having a voice through the Labor Party. Regrettably, The Greens, to their eternal shame, worked with the Government to silence workers through their trade unions and through the political wing of the trade union movement. The Greens should be ashamed about that. It is clear that this legislation is about silencing progressive voices. If the Government supports the amendment to prevent Joanna Gash from standing for election in her South Coast seat, it will be another act against women.

I do not think it is an accident that both of the bill's targets are women, because this Government's record on women is shameful. It is not enough that only 19 per cent of the Coalition Government are women. The Government does everything it can to silence those voices. We do not hear women's voices reflected in the Government. We have a strong progressive woman's voice in this State and in this city, and this Government is doing all it can to silence it. The Government should be ashamed.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [6.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. There has been quite a bit of hyperbole but I reiterate that the legislation on the dual roles is about optimal governance. It is about the separation of two distinct levels of government, State and local. The aim is to ensure there is clearly defined segregation between the three tiers of government in our political system, as there is in all other mainland States. This legislation is about a clear separation of roles. The question of secondary employment is a totally different question. A second job is completely different to holding two elected positions. 10458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

People with a second job do not have a responsibility that involves two distinct tiers of government. That applies to Ministers as well as those who have responsibility at the same tier of government. Claims that one person can represent at both the State and local level of government tends to devalue the importance of those elected roles. We want to stop any actual or perceived conflict of interest when one person concurrently represents two levels of government. That conclusion was reached long ago in all the other mainland States.

In Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia local councillors cannot be members of the State Legislature. If a person does serve in two elected roles, it is inevitable that there will be occasions when they have to make a choice between being available in one role or the other. They simply cannot be in two places at one time. A number of members in their contributions made that very point. There is a long history of individuals moving from one of the three tiers of government to another and we do not seek to end that practice. A number of members made very important points. The Hon. Paul Green said that it was polarising to have the two roles. He referred to some of the public commentary, the Daily Telegraph poll and so on and said that he will not contest the next council election because of issues caused by the two roles. The Hon. Jan Barham expressed similar concerns about the difficulty of the two roles and the confusion that it causes in the minds of the community.

The Hon. Robert Brown indicated the Shooters and Fishers Party support for the bill but suggested that the provisions extend to Federal members as well. That is where we come to the nub of the matter. Local councils are a creature of State government. Councils exist because we have State legislation designed to give local representation to local people on local issues without compromising the State Government's role for good governance for the whole State, including regulating local government itself. There is a fundamental conflict with being a member of the Parliament responsible for the whole State and regulating local government and also being a member of one of those local councils. Conflict could arise in many circumstances, not least of which is an amendment to the Local Government Act. A number of members spoke about whether or not councillors could be regarded as having a job, their hours and allowances. The State Government could bring in laws to make the position a full-time job, thus changing salaries and allowances. A fundamental conflict of interest exists and the shadow Minister does not understand.

It is interesting that we are debating this bill in the upper House because upper House members are in an even more difficult position than other members of Parliament. Upper House members represent the entire State and their conflict of interest is even more apparent. David Shoebridge made an interesting but confusing contribution. He alleged that the legislation was undemocratic. In support of that statement he criticised the concept of Cabinet solidarity and he criticised and ridiculed membership of political parties and the fact that political parties vote in accordance with the rules and tenets of their politics. He ignored democracy as we have known it throughout the Westminster system; he abused that system. I suggest that Mr Shoebridge checks with the Tasmanian Greens, who I am told are proposing a bill at this very moment to prevent dual roles. He might use the dinner break to log on to his iPad and consult with his Tasmanian colleagues, who are proposing a bill to prevent dual roles. Several members chose to try to personalise the debate by making it a sort of referendum about Clover Moore, MP. I will conclude my reply with comments that Clover Moore made in 2003 about members of Parliament holding two jobs. She stated:

I strongly believe that being a member of Parliament is a full-time job. The demands of the job require the full commitment of the member's time, energy, effort and intellect—

I question that—

I also believe that the citizens of NSW expect their members to be full-time members.

She said that in her submission to the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Mitchell Mr Borsak Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Tellers, Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Dr Phelps 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10459

Noes, 18

Ms Barham Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Primrose Mr Whan Ms Cotsis Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Ms Faehrmann Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Foley Mr Shoebridge Ms Fazio Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Ms Voltz

Pair

Ms Ficarra Mr Searle

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

[The President left the chair at 6.52 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [8.30 p.m.], by leave: I move Shooters and Fishers Party amendments Nos. 1 to 7 on sheet C2012-056 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 5. Omit "the Parliament of New South Wales". Insert instead "an Australian Parliament".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 10–11. Omit "the Parliament of New South Wales". Insert instead "an Australian Parliament".

No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 14–15. Omit "the Parliament of New South Wales". Insert instead "an Australian Parliament".

No. 4 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], line 21. Omit "the Parliament of New South Wales". Insert instead "an Australian Parliament".

No. 5 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 24–25. Omit "the Parliament of New South Wales". Insert instead "an Australian Parliament".

No. 6 Page 3, schedule 1 [2]. Insert after line 34:

(8) In this section, Australian Parliament means the Parliament of New South Wales, the Parliament of the Commonwealth or the Parliament of any other State or Territory.

No. 7 Page 1, long title. Omit "a member of Parliament". Insert instead "a member of any Australian Parliament".

Amendments Nos 1 to 5 omit the words "the Parliament of New South Wales" and insert instead in all cases "an Australian Parliament". As I stated in the second reading debate, these amendments extend the prohibition of a person holding dual roles to a member of the Parliament of New South Wales, a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and a member of the Parliament of any State or Territory. Amendment No. 6 provides for a definition of "Australian Parliament" and amendment No. 7 simply changes the long title of the bill to refer to a member of any Australian Parliament. I do not need to speak extensively to these amendments. As I foreshadowed earlier, we believe in one in, all in. These are probably fair amendments. I am not sure the Government will support this proposal but I think it is worthwhile the House considering these amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [8.32 p.m.]: Having just read Mr David Shoebridge's blog or news article I see that he has pre-empted the matter by saying that the Government will support this proposal. That is interesting. I support the amendments. The point of these amendments is fairness. The Premier of New South Wales said it was all about harmonising the laws with those of other States. That means that both State and 10460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

Federal members of Parliament would be included. Earlier the Hon. Greg Pearce referred to the Tasmanian Greens. I point out that the Tasmanian Greens' amendments in a similar bill were the same as those proposed by the Government. They sought to include a section 31A in a Tasmanian bill to the effect that:

(1) No Member of either House of the Parliament of this State shall be capable of sitting as a Member of any municipal council and electoral district as defined in the Local Government Act 1993.

(2) If a Member of any municipal council and electoral district as defined in Subsection 31A (1) becomes a Member of either House of the Parliament of this State, his or her place in that Municipal council shall become vacant upon the day the Returning Officer declares him or her elected a Member of either House of the Parliament of Tasmania.

The Greens first tabled the Constitution Amendment (Membership of State Parliament) Bill in 2002. They tried to reintroduce the bill again in 2004. Basically it was the same sort of legislation aimed at preventing members from having dual roles. In October 2005 they again brought on the bill for debate. Despite this proposal having been identified in Labor's policy platform in August 2005, the bill was defeated. What did The Greens do in 2011? They brought forward the same proposal for State and Federal members not to have dual roles or to be compromised in those roles. The Greens wanted members to give their position full value. That meant not having dual roles. I think there is a bit of hypocrisy on Mr Shoebridge's part. Of course, in The Greens' "Democracy and Participation" document under "Parliamentary Reform" it talks about legislating so that no individual may hold a seat concurrently on a local council and in State Parliament.

Mr David Shoebridge: That is Tasmania.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: That is right, but the other matters I was talking about just come under the name of The Greens, although I assume that refers to the Tasmanian Greens. The point is there is obviously a desire within The Greens to support good amendments and good governance. All I am saying is that in the name of fairness I agree with that Tasmanian bill. Members should not have dual roles at either a State or Federal level. I rest my case.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [8.35 p.m.]: The Labor Opposition will not be supporting these amendments. Our position has been clearly stated in the excellent contributions made by my colleagues who are members of Parliament and serving councillors. We also have members who were councillors and mayors and who held highly respected positions, such as my colleague the Hon. Helen Westwood who held a position at the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils [WSROC]. As we have said, let the people have their say. I understand that these amendments will include Federal members of Parliament who want to serve on local councils. A couple of names have been mentioned such as the Federal member for Gilmore, who has indicated that she will not recontest her Federal seat and will run as a mayoral candidate on Shoalhaven City Council.

I would like to know whether anyone from the Government has spoken to the Federal Liberal member for Macarthur, Russell Matheson, who currently holds a position as a councillor at Campbelltown City Council. He was first elected to the council in 1992 and he was elected as the member for Macarthur in 2010. If the member for Macarthur wants to run for Campbelltown council he will not have the opportunity to do so if this bill is passed. That means the people who elected him in his council area will not have the opportunity to vote for him because he will be restricted from running. He has been a councillor for the past 20 years. We will not support these amendments.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [8.38 p.m.]: The Government appreciates the goodwill with which the amendments have been moved and the apparent consistency with other States but I take members back to the basic principal, which is that the Government wants to ensure there is consistency between roles at different levels of government. I refer to local government and go back to the starting point which I mentioned in my speech in reply. I know that a number of members have had trouble understanding this but local government is a creature of State and not Federal government. The Government has a problem with members having dual roles because local government is determined and in every way is subject to the State Government making decisions about what is in the best interests of the community and the State as a whole. There is an inherent conflict of interest in having members of a State government who are members also of local government as the State Parliament makes decisions about all aspects of local government—from dismissal of councils through to terms and all the other provisions that relate to councillors.

As the Hon. Paul Green stated earlier, this Government is about fairness and about ensuring that the community is happy with its representation when dealing with local issues—an extremely important part of a 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10461

system of government. I know that Mr David Shoebridge makes an incredible contribution in Woollahra. He often supports applications for multimillion developments on the waterfront. Mr David Shoebridge makes that personal contribution. All councillors who have become members of Parliament make that important contribution. The distinction is that they are working either as part of the State Parliament or at the local level. I take my hat off to all those who work at the local level because it is exceptionally important. In our country we have a complex Federal system where the States have some powers, the Federal Government has other powers and the State has conduct of local government.

Mr David Shoebridge: This is the most embarrassing argument you have ever made, Greg.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is fundamentally what it is all about.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: What about the FAGS?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I suggest that The Greens—

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: If you were a councillor you would know what a FAG is.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you were from The Greens you would know that a FAG was a financial assistance grant.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Does anyone know what the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is on about?

[Interruption]

Obviously he has not spoken to his Tasmanian colleagues who have been pushing the ban on dual representation, and the hypocrisy of it all. I do not need to go through these matters in detail as the arguments have already been made. Unfortunately, whilst I appreciate the positive basis on which the amendments were moved, the Government will not support them.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [8.43 p.m.]: Of all the arguments that the Minister has ever made that would have to be the most specious one I have heard. In the mind of the Minister somehow or other there are conflicts between being a State member of Parliament and a local councillor. But the Minister somehow managed to jump over that and say that there is no conflict in between being a Federal member of Parliament with a far bigger electorate—and some might say weightier responsibilities—and a local councillor. What a diseased line of thought the Minister put forward. What a diseased line of thought we got from the Minister.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: It is very difficult to follow the self-righteous arguments of Mr David Shoebridge, but I think he implied that my mind was diseased which I find offensive. I ask Mr David Shoebridge to withdraw that imputation. It is quite extraordinary that he thinks members of the upper House who are responsible to the whole State have less responsibility than local councillors.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To the point of order: I wish to be very clear. I said "diseased line of thought". I was attacking the argument, not the man, and the argument is a diseased line of thought. It was a description of the illogical argument of the Minister, not of the Minister himself.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You do yourself no credit. Withdraw it.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): The Minister has requested that Mr David Shoebridge withdraw what I thought Mr David Shoebridge said, that is, he referred to the Minister's diseased mind.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Let me be very clear: I referred to a diseased line of thought. If there is some infelicity of language then I withdraw absolutely but I thought I clearly referred to a diseased line of thought.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Thank you, I think.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Through what I might describe as a questionable train of thought that the Minister developed in the course of opposing this amendment, somehow or other the Minister said there is no conflict between being a Federal member of Parliament and a local councillor. But there is some irremediable conflict between being a State member of Parliament and a councillor— 10462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is your position?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Greens are very clear: we do not support any restrictions of this nature on people being able to stand for local council. They may have a different view about this in a different party in Tasmania.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members will cease interjecting. Members will listen to the member with the call in silence.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: I accept that Mr David Shoebridge is having difficulty making his argument. I join the Chair in asking members to be silent to give him an opportunity to make some sort of argument that makes any sense at all.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Minister's argument has no merit and obviously is a political convenience. If his so-called principled argument is taken to a Federal level it will have an impact on certain Coalition members. The amendment that has been moved, which is not supported by the Government, demonstrates that the Government's position has never been a principled argument about serving at different tiers of government. The Premier said that this is all about serving at different tiers of government. If someone serves at one tier he or she cannot serve at another tier. The Premier never made the specious distinction that has been made by the Minister that it is only about local and State governments with no connection at all with the Commonwealth Government. The Minister's argument is specious and shallow and utterly without merit. I think the Hon. Robert Brown said that if it was good for the goose it was good for the gander.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Are you the goose or a gander?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I do not know whether the Minister is describing himself as a goose but he might well be. The argument that the Minister put forward in this Chamber is more worthy of a fowl than a Minister. The Government shows its narrow political nature in opposing this amendment. It wants to stop Clover Moore from running for State Parliament. They do not want to get rid of some mock conflict about holding office at different levels of government. This is about a narrow set of politics and the entire debate does neither the Minister nor the Government credit.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [8.50 p.m.]: I challenge the Minister's statement that there is no potential conflict of interest for Federal members of Parliament who also hold a position in local government. In this House very recently when debating a bill we demonstrated that the body politic is alive and well in local government in this State. Despite any argument, the balance of opinion was that the body politic would not prevent Federal funding of local government. Therefore, Federal funding flowing to local government with a mix of Federal members of Parliament being local councillors does not hold water. There is a potential conflict of interest.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [8.51 p.m.]: I oppose the amendments and echo the comments—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Hang on, I oppose the amendments.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Sorry, I support the amendments.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: No, you oppose them.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Madam Chair, I am finding it hard to continue my contribution while being heckled.

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: It is no wonder that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is having trouble making himself understood, given the wall of noise and the aggressive interjections from Government members. Madam Chair, you have ruled repeatedly about constant interjections from Government members designed to disrupt the train of thought of speakers from the Opposition and the crossbenches. Something must be done.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: It is no wonder that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is confused. His leader said he opposed everything that the Minister said but the Minister took the same stance that he took. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10463

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: This demonstrates the Government's hypocrisy in introducing this legislation. It has failed to recognise the obvious conflict that may arise when someone at the Federal level oversees grant funding and is involved—

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Tell us about the assistance grants.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That demonstrates the Government's hypocrisy in this regard. My friend and colleague Mr David Shoebridge made that point very clearly.

Question—That Shooters and Fishers Party amendments Nos 1 to 7 [C2012-056] be agreed to— put and resolved in the negative.

Shooters and Fishers Party amendments Nos 1 to 7 [C2012-056] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [8.56 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2012-059:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2]. Insert at the end of line 34:

Or

(c) it is the first ordinary council election held after the commencement of this subsection (in which case the person may hold that civic office for the balance of the person's term of office as a member of that Parliament).

This amendment provides that if a member of either this place or the other place was not aware before he or she was elected that any restraint would be imposed on that member's capacity to serve at the local government level throughout this term that member should not be impacted by this legislation. Therefore, a member having been elected at a general election to serve in this Parliament will not be subject to the provisions of this legislation. That will avoid the necessity to hold a by-election, and particularly in the electorate of Sydney. This amendment could save the taxpayers of New South Wales $500,000 because Clover Moore's resignation will be avoided.

Clover Moore went to the people of Sydney in March last year offering herself as a candidate for the State electorate of Sydney. She did not know and the people who voted for her did not know because the Government did not tell them that it intended to prohibit her standing as a local council candidate, nor did it tell them that it intended to introduce enabling legislation halfway through her term as a member of this Parliament. It is therefore unprincipled to impose this condition midway through a term of Parliament. This amendment provides that that prohibition will not come into effect in respect of Clover Moore or any other member of this Parliament who is a local councillor. No member understood that those restrictions would apply to this term of Parliament.

It would be a different scenario if a member wished to serve another term in local government. In that case members and their constituents would know that the restriction would apply and the member would have to choose which office he or she wished to hold. No-one knew in March last year that this restriction would be imposed on members of this Parliament, including the people voting for Clover Moore and Clover Moore herself. It is deeply unfair; indeed, it is unprincipled and undemocratic to impose this restriction midway through a parliamentary term. It is equally troubling that if, as has been widely reported, Clover Moore resigns from Parliament to run as a local councillor, the taxpayers of New South Wales—not the Liberal Party or The Nationals but the taxpayers of New South Wales—will be required to pay the cost of this political play by the Government. Surely a majority of members of this House recognise that it is totally inappropriate for taxpayers to fund this political frolic on the part of the Government when it did not tell the people of New South Wales or Clover Moore about its intention to introduce this legislation during the election campaign. The Government should have a scintilla of respect for the voters of this State, for the members of this House and for democracy. I urge members to support this amendment.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [8.59 p.m.]: The Labor Opposition does not support this amendment because on principle it does not support the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. This bill is bad for democracy and it is against democracy. The Government did not take this policy to the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The Hon. Sophie Cotsis is currently engaging in second reading debate. Comments made during the Committee stage should be directly and precisely relevant to the amendments that are being dealt with. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis should not engage in a discourse on the merits or otherwise of the bill in toto; she should be directed to address this amendment. 10464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Sophie Cotsis is explaining why the Opposition is opposed to the amendment and the bill. There is no point of order.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I listened to The Greens' argument for moving this amendment and understand that it has something to do with the member for Sydney who indicated publicly that she will seek to be re-elected as Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney. She said that if she was successful and this bill was passed she would have to resign from her position as the member for Sydney which would trigger a by-election. It is for the people of Sydney to decide who will be their new member. The Government, which does not own that decision, will have to tell the people of Sydney why it triggered a by-election to get rid of a particular member. The Opposition does not support the amendment.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.02 p.m.]: The purpose of this amendment is to avoid a by-election. It is true that The Greens or Opposition members could gain some political advantage by attacking the Government in the course of a by-election. It may be against the political interests of The Greens to see this amendment succeed. If it succeeds we will not be able to run a political attack on the Government in the course of a by-election about the gross waste of funds and its restraint on democracy. I do not put this amendment forward as advancing the political interests of The Greens. In fact, if I were to look at the electoral advantage to The Greens in the cold, hard light of day, I would prefer to see this amendment defeated.

But this is about a principled position. A member stood for election to this House not knowing that this restraint would be imposed upon her and the people voted for that member not knowing that this restraint would be imposed upon them. This is not about making the Government own a rash and undemocratic decision; it is about trying to limit the damage from a rash and undemocratic proposal. Even if this amendment is successful, The Greens will not support the bill on its third reading. We do not pretend that this amendment will save the bill; it will marginally improve it and limit the damage that it does to democracy. Even if the amendment is successful all it will do is ameliorate some of the pain; it will not remove the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the bill.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [9.04 p.m.]: If The Greens are taking a principled position on this amendment they should have supported the earlier amendments that would have made it fair for both Federal and local members of Parliament.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.04 p.m.]: Something bad has happened to the logic glands in this room. First, we hear from Opposition members that they did not like the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012. The Greens agree with Opposition members—this bad bill should be rejected. The Greens voted against the second reading and we will vote against the third reading of the bill. This is a bad bill but we have an opportunity to make it slightly less bad. Opposition members are saying that because the bill is bad they will not do anything to make is slightly less bad, which runs counter to any commonly held understanding of how this Chamber works. At the second reading stage we decide whether or not we like the bill in principle. If there are amendments we try to improve the bill in Committee. However, some amendments, for example, those moved by the Shooters and Fishers Party would only have made it worse. We can also vote against the bill at the third reading stage. However, in Committee we can try to improve the bill.

Mr Shoebridge's amendment will give members an opportunity to improve the bill and it will dispel the argument put forward by Opposition members that this is a bad bill. It makes no sense. Members of the Shooters and Fishers Party said that The Greens should not support this bill because they did not support the earlier amendments. The Shooters and Fishers amendments would have made the bill worse but this amendment will make it better. There is a logical difference. We went against the amendments of the Shooters and Fishers Party because they would have made the legislation more restrictive. This amendment will make the legislation less restrictive. This amendment and the previous amendments test the real motivation behind this legislation. The previous amendments clearly focused on the aspirations of Joanna Gash to become the mayor of the municipality of Shoalhaven.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Dr John Kaye has moved from debating the substantive amendment and is talking about an amendment that has already been dealt with. He should be asked to return to The Greens amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: At the point at which the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps jumped to his feet, I was referring to this amendment and I was contrasting it with the amendments moved earlier by the Shooters and Fishers Party. I know that that is a subtle concept for an historian but I was contrasting this amendment with those other amendments. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10465

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

Dr JOHN KAYE: This amendment will test whether or not this legislation is about getting Clover Moore. This legislation was motivated by the Government's war on Clover Moore and the City of Sydney. We can see it in what the Minister for Roads and Ports has been doing in his war on cycleways. We have seen it across the board in planning and in energy. I do not agree with everything that Clover Moore does.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: What don't you agree with?

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Minister interjected and asked me a question. I seek leave to respond to that question.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The member does not have my leave to answer interjections. Interjections and questions by way of interjection are disorderly.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Out of respect for the Chair I will not answer the Minister's question but I will explain why I do not agree with everything that Clover Moore does. For example, earlier today we debated legislation relating to the public sector and its regulation—to what I know as the unattached list but what the Coalition refers to as the disposable list. In the lower House Clover Moore voted with the Government on that legislation but The Greens voted against it. This is one of the many points of departure, both at the State and local government level, between The Greens and Clover Moore. But we do not believe in using legislation to go after somebody which is what this legislation is about. Mr Shoebridge's amendment will at least ameliorate some of the damage that will be done by this legislation. It is clear that this bill is about driving Clover Moore out of the City of Sydney or out of the lower House. Members should be honest and change the long title of the bill to the "Get Clover bill".

The Hon. Helen Westwood: I said that and a point of order was taken.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I apologise to those I am copying, but the long title of the bill should be changed.

The Hon. Walt Secord: That is plagiarising, Dr John Kaye.

Dr JOHN KAYE: There we go. I commend The Greens amendment No. 1 to the Committee because it ameliorates at least some of the problems. I urge Labor Party members to reconsider their position and to support the amendment, which will make the legislation slightly better. Members should do what they are supposed to do as legislators: Vote to make legislation better at every opportunity, rather than play the absurd game of saying, "We will make the legislation as bad as possible in order to put the maximum amount of blame on to the government." The Greens are giving members the opportunity to rise to the challenge and to support the amendment.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [9.10 p.m.]: This bill has been around for some time and, according to the piece of paper in my hand, this amendment surfaced at 6.27 p.m. tonight. As I understand the amendment, a member elected at the last State election who decides to run for local council would be entitled to continue on as a member of Parliament after the council elections. Mr David Shoebridge indicated that no member of Parliament understood that this would apply for this term. My question to Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is: Do either of you intend to run again for council and to take advantage of this amendment?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.11 p.m.]: I repeat what I said before—the Minister probably did not hear last time because of the baying interjections from those sitting behind him. I have no intention of running for local council again. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has indicated that he has no intention of running for local council again. The Hon. Jan Barham has publicly indicated that she has no intention of running for local council again. I do not think that Dr John Kaye wants to run for Waverley Council. I do not think Jamie Parker has any intention of running for Leichhardt Municipal Council again. But they are all fine councils and my colleagues would be an adornment if they chose to run for election.

For the benefit of the Minister I will explain the impact of this amendment. The Government has had a copy of the amendment for some 2½ hours. The Minister has had the capable assistance of his ministerial staff. 10466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

I am sure the very capable advisors of the responsible Minister sitting in the President's Gallery have been able to assist. I will try to draw a diagram for the Minister at the end of my explanation of this fairly simple amendment if he still does not quite get it. Proposed subsection (7) of section 275 of the bill states:

(7) Despite anything to the contrary in this Chapter, a member of the Parliament of New South Wales is not disqualified because of subsection (1) (a)— the new disqualification provision being imposed—

from being nominated for election or being elected to a civic office. If elected, the person is disqualified from holding that civic office unless:—

Two exceptions—paragraphs (a) and (b)—have been put in by the Government. This amendment adds a third exception:

(c) it is the first ordinary council election held after the commencement of this subsection— the September 2012 council election—

(in which case the person may hold that civic office for the balance of the person's term of office as a member of that Parliament).

The amendment is straightforward. There will be no impact at the first coming ordinary council election held after the commencement of this subsection. I assume this bill will be passed tonight and the next council election will be held in September.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-059] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Ms Faehrmann Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge

Tellers, Ms Barham Mr Buckingham

Noes, 32

Mr Blair Mr Green Mr Primrose Mr Borsak Mr Harwin Mr Roozendaal Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Secord Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Sharpe Ms Cotsis Mr MacDonald Mr Veitch Ms Cusack Mrs Maclaren-Jones Ms Voltz Mr Donnelly Mr Mason-Cox Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Mrs Mitchell Mr Whan Mr Foley Mr Moselmane Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Mr Gay Mr Pearce Dr Phelps

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-059] negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10467

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [9.23 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 19

Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Mitchell Mr Borsak Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps

Noes, 17

Ms Barham Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Mr Buckingham Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Ms Cotsis Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Mr Donnelly Mr Secord Tellers, Ms Faehrmann Ms Sharpe Ms Fazio Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge Ms Voltz

Pairs

Mr Ajaka Mr Foley Ms Ficarra Mr Searle

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour. 10468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 8 and 9 postponed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL 2012

Second Reading

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.34 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 relating to certain procedures and processes for conducting local government elections. Schedule 1 to the bill contains various amendments to the election procedure to apply to local council elections in September 2012. These amendments are designed to also give further effect to the Government's decision to give councils the option of conducting their own elections instead of the New South Wales Electoral Commission. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Continuous enrolment

In late 2009, amendments made to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 introduced a system of automatic enrolment for the purposes of New South Wales elections.

It is now proposed to finalise the arrangements necessary to apply this continuous enrolment regime (called SmartRoll) to the preparation of the residential rolls for local council elections.

SmartRoll enables eligible voters to be automatically placed on the council residential roll for their ward or area.

To ensure that the maintenance and preparation of the local council residential roll is consistent with the method used at the State election in March 2011, the concept of "close of rolls" is to be removed.

There will no longer be an actual cut off time for electors to get their names on the residential roll, which is currently 40 days before polling day. This will avoid the disenfranchisement of significant numbers of electors as has occurred in past election years.

This change is central to achieving uniformity of practices across the State and modernisation of enrolment practices across State and local government.

The NSW Electoral Commission will provide the residential rolls for each of the 150 councils holding elections this September.

The amendment will also enable rolls to be provided in electronic form in the future.

Provisional voting

A further proposal in this bill will allow eligible residents to enrol and cast a provisional vote in a pre-poll voting office or polling place to accommodate those who enrol or update their enrolment details on the day.

It will apply to persons seeking to vote at council elections where they were not on the roll before it was printed, or those whose enrolment details have since changed.

This proposal is ancillary to the introduction of the SmartRoll regime, and was also applied for the first time at the State election in March 2011.

These two proposals will make consistent and streamline enrolment and voting arrangements for council elections with those already established for State elections by the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act.

They do not apply in the case of the non-residential or occupiers/ratepaying lessee rolls that are prepared for council elections by the general manager of each council, or the NSW Electoral Commissioner in the case of the City of Sydney Council.

The term "provisional voting" is used in place of the current "declaration voting" to mirror the terminology used in the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act.

It describes those votes where the ballot papers are enclosed in an envelope bearing a printed declaration signed by the voter whose eligibility to vote can be verified prior to admitting the ballot paper to the count.

3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10469

The legislation currently permits electors to sign a declaration and cast a vote in cases where the elector states that an error has occurred. This applies where the elector's name has been omitted from the roll by mistake or an election official has inadvertently marked the elector's name off as having been issued with a ballot paper.

The bill proposes to group these existing types of votes with the new provisions enabling eligible electors to enrol or update their enrolment details and cast a provisional vote on the day.

Approved form

As each of these provisional voting categories relate to details contained on the electoral roll maintained by the Electoral Commissioner, the form to be used will no longer be that 'prescribed' by the Act but that 'approved' by the Electoral Commissioner.

The procedure for casting any one of these provisional votes will be contained in the Regulation.

Ballot Paper - Draw

The bill contains a proposal to modernise the provisions for determining the order of candidates and groups on the ballot paper by enabling the draw to be done manually or electronically to reflect current technological options.

Such a provision is in force under the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act although I note that the Electoral Commissioner used the manual draw process at the 2011 State election.

For council elections, the method to be used will be determined by the election manager for each council. In the case of council-administered elections, this will be the General Manager.

The provisions of the bill when read together with the principal Act and regulations will provide a range of checks and balances similar to the State election arrangements to ensure that residential rolls and voting processes are both up to date and accurate.

A further amendment relates to the election of Mayors by the Councillors.

This proposal has been suggested by the local government sector.

It will vary the period during which mayors are to be elected by councillors following an ordinary or first election, so that it commences from the date of the declaration of the poll or election instead of from polling day.

In the past, there have been isolated instances where, because of a delay in declaring the election result, the mayoral election could not be set down and conducted within the required period following election day, not polling day.

A minor change is therefore proposed so that the period for conducting the mayoral election will run from the declaration of the election.

Check on double voting and failure to vote

The final proposal is to streamline the process, after an election, for checking the rolls of electors for double-voting and failure to vote.

As part of its responsibility to enforce the compulsory voting provisions the New South Wales Electoral Commission has all the rolls used to mark off the names of those who have been issued with ballot papers scanned to obtain a list of those who appear not to have voted.

It is important therefore that the rolls the Electoral Commission provides to all councils are returned to it so that the scanning can take place at the same time and in a consistent fashion.

Although the Regulation provides a mechanism for this to occur, amending the provision in the Act will make the duty of the General Manager in council-administered elections clearer.

Schedule 2 to the bill contains various procedural and machinery amendments to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 consequential to the changes to be made by Schedule 1 of the bill.

One of those amendments is to clarify who in practice will be the person registering electoral material. For those councils administering their own elections the responsible person will be the Returning Officer. The Electoral Commissioner will retain responsibility for this task for all elections administered by him.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act and Regulation contained in this bill reflect the Government's ongoing commitment to improving the administration of enrolment and election procedures in New South Wales.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [9.35 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2012. The bill was presented to the Opposition yesterday, 2 April 2012. Based on information provided to the Opposition by the Minister's office—I acknowledge that the member for Auburn, the Hon. Barbara Perry, and I were briefed—the Opposition will not oppose the bill. The Opposition has been advised that this bill is necessary to make changes for the administration of the 2012 local government elections. 10470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

As members are aware, there are 152 councils in New South Wales. The elections will affect 150 councils that will hold elections in September this year. Two councils, Wollongong and Shellharbour, will not hold elections this year as their elections were held last year following a period in administration. The next elections for those councils will be in 2016, and that will bring them back into line with all other New South Wales local government areas.

The Government changed the way that local elections work by introducing the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2011, which was passed last year. The Opposition did not support a number of that bill's provisions, one of which was a provision that allows councils to organise their own elections instead of having their elections administered by the New South Wales Electoral Commission. The Labor Opposition opposed that provision at the time because—and we still believe this—the New South Wales Electoral Commission conducts the elections in a professional manner. To put it simply, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I understand that approximately 15 councils have taken up the option of running their own local government elections in September this year. I understand that in 2008 a number of rural and regional councils, particularly rural councils, had a number of issues regarding the cost of running their elections and advocated to the Government that their issues relating the cost of elections in the local government area should be addressed.

The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled "2008 Local Government Elections" made a number of recommendations. When legislation similar to the bill before the House was debated last year I asked the Government to examine some of the joint standing committee's very good recommendations from the point of view of administering the 2012 elections. Unfortunately, the Government did not take my advice. Consequently a number of issues relating to councils running their own elections have emerged. One issue that persists is in relation to rural councils that still have an issue about costs. The bill makes further amendments to the way in which local government elections will be conducted. As understand it, it is necessary for the changes to be made for the purpose of administering the elections in September.

The bill will apply the SmartRoll regime, which was introduced at the 2011 State election, to the forthcoming council elections. The SmartRoll was implemented by the New South Wales Electoral Commission in 2009. It is intended to address eligible voters not being included on the Australian Electoral Commission's roll by delivering New South Wales a more up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive roll for forthcoming elections than can be supplied through current enrolment techniques.

The principles underlying SmartRoll are about giving people the opportunity to vote. The SmartRoll initiative has the opposite effect from the changes introduced by the Howard Government, which changed the law to close the roll on the day an election is called, thereby disenfranchising people: previously people had several days to update their details. SmartRoll was used at the 2011 State election and the Opposition believes that as a principle there should be as much consistency as possible in the conduct of elections at different levels of government. The Government has advised the Opposition that SmartRoll will be made available to those councils conducting their own councils at no cost. I acknowledge that and will hold the Government to account on that matter. Accordingly, if there is no additional cost to councils, and given that SmartRoll will mean that more people can have a say about council elections, the Opposition is prepared to support this measure.

The Opposition is advised that the bill will amend pre-poll and election day voting measures to allow eligible residents to enrol and cast a provisional vote in a pre-poll or polling place. This will accommodate late enrolments and apply to persons seeking to vote at council elections where they are not on the roll or they need to update their enrolments. This provision is a logical extension of the SmartRoll reform and should result in more people getting to vote for their local representative. Again, on the basis that this provision is intended to allow more people to participate in local government elections, the Opposition is prepared to support this measure.

The Opposition has advised that the bill will allow councils to choose between electronic and manual ballot draw methods. The Opposition is advised that this option was available for the 2011 election but was not utilised. Which option is adopted by each council will depend on who is administering the election. The Opposition is advised that this would be the first time that an electronic ballot draw would be used in New South Wales. Provided that this system is subject to the same auditing and scrutiny that applies to other aspects of the conduct of elections, this initiative should not be a matter of concern. However, I place on record that the Opposition notes that this initiative may be employed by private companies local councils have contracted to run their elections for those councils self-administering their elections. Should any issues arise in regard to this or any other provisions in the bill, the Opposition will hold the Government responsible, particularly in light of the haste with which the bill has been introduced. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10471

The Opposition is advised that the bill will enable the use of an approved form to be used for declaration voting rather than a prescribed form. In practice, the Opposition is advised that this would mean that councils administering their own elections could design and print their own declaration voting forms provided they conform to regulatory requirements. This would mean they would not have to purchase declaration voting forms from the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner. Again, this may be an unobjectionable measure, but it would not be necessary if the O'Farrell Government had left the administration of council elections with the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner.

Finally, the bill will change the requirements for the election of mayors by councillors. Currently councils where mayors are elected by councillors are required to elect new mayors within three weeks of the election day for the election of councillors. The bill will change this so that the election of a mayor will be required to take place within three weeks of the election result being declared. This change will provide flexibility where a close election result requires a recount or the declaration of councillors is otherwise delayed. The Opposition is prepared to support this measure.

Also, I suggest that the Government look at the recommendations in the 2010 report of the inquiry into 2008 local council elections by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Some very good recommendations were made. I suggest that the Government look at page 71 of the report, which refers to Braille voting initiatives and measures to ensure that people who are vision impaired have the opportunity to vote. It also recommends providing disability access for polling places. I suggest that the Government read the report and recommendations because a number of concerns about access on polling day for peoples with disabilities were brought to the attention of the committee. This is an important matter, which I hope the Government considers.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Tell Gary Gray.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: You are in government. I am making a suggestion that the Government look again at the report, which contains some very good recommendations that it should consider to ensure people with disabilities have the same access to polling booths and to vote as everybody else in local council elections.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Well, wouldn't it be nice if Federal Labor thought that way too.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Well, this is how we think. This is the fifth bill affecting local government that the Government has introduced since it came to office. The previous bills were the Local Government Amendment Bill 2011, the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2011, the Local Government Amendment (Members of Parliament) Bill 2012, which unfortunately was just passed by the House, and the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. Many of the provisions in this bill relate to the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2011. I ask the Government to explain why the changes proposed in this bill could not have been anticipated at the time of the 2011 bill and why we must consider these actions with such haste now. As I have indicated, the Opposition will support the bill. However, if any issues arise from local government elections this year the Opposition will hold the Government responsible. I conclude by thanking the House for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.47 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens to indicate our support for the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2012. The bill does a number of things but it has three principal objectives. The first is to provide that the system of continuous automatic enrolment of electors on the rolls for State parliamentary elections extends to enable persons to be enrolled on the roll of residential electors for a local government election during the period leading up to the polling day for the election, that is, it extends the iVote-SmartRoll principles from State Government to local government. Secondly, it allows people who are otherwise eligible to enrol as residential electors for local government elections to enrol and cast a provisional vote at an election on polling day provided that they have a drivers licence or some other photo identity card. It also makes a number of other modest amendments to the Local Government Act.

I turn to deal first with the iVote amendments. The iVote initiative has been very successful. It was put in place by the previous Government and was a positive initiative. The review by the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which I was grateful to receive from the Minister's staff today, shows just how successful the SmartRoll initiative was in the 2011 State election. The report states at page 86:

Through the SmartRoll initiative, 42,172 additional electors were placed on the NSW roll for the NSW March election than if the NSWEC had used the Federal roll.

10472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

That is, because of the iVote initiative, more than 42,000 people were able to vote at the State election who otherwise would not have been able to.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Pretty good, isn't it?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is pretty good. When we then look at those who enrolled, the Electoral Commission says:

It can be seen that for the March 2011 NSW State Election a few of the electors placed on the roll by the SmartRoll process were re-enrolments (2.4%). The majority involved updating the enrolment address (52.6%) followed closely by new enrolments (45.0%).

It is clear that the iVote process captures young new voters who are being put on the electoral roll for the first time and it also captures people who are changing their residential address and updating their information on the roll. It has a substantial enfranchising role, particularly for young voters in New South Wales. It is a positive initiative which The Greens support. We commend the Government for rolling out the initiative to council elections. I commend the New South Wales Electoral Commission for its work and for the targets it has set for the iVote system. I will trespass on members' time briefly to read again from the New South Wales Electoral Commission's report. It says at page 87:

Post-election, the SmartRoll system continues to operate and locate eligible and unenrolled electors. The NSWEC is currently enrolling 6,000-7,000 electors via SmartRoll each week and aims to capture at least 95% of all eligible first-time voters as well as assisting the 500,000 electors who move house each year and whose enrolment details need updating.

It is a fantastic system, which has been flying under the radar. The Electoral Commission is enrolling 6,000 to 7,000 electors every week using this iVote system.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It is excellent.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is an excellent system and it is working as it was intended. It is good to see an initiative from Government designed to enfranchise more people and one that is working as it was intended. The report goes on:

The goal is to reach steady State automatic enrolment levels at the conclusion of the next State election in 2015 when it is estimated that two million electors will have had the benefit of SmartRoll. While it is possible to increase the number of electors SmartRolled each week, NSWEC is focusing on accuracy of data and building confidence in the system.

It has been estimated that the number of eligible electors unenrolled in NSW is approximately 400,000 to 450,000. Realistically it will take a full, four year election cycle to identify and enrol this group.

The Greens commend the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the previous Government and this Government for putting in place and administering the SmartRoll system. I acknowledge the hard work of the Electoral Commission in implementing this initiative. If the Electoral Commission is given adequate resources to enrol an additional 400,000 to 450,000 people who currently are not on the role in New South Wales, it will be a genuine feather in the cap of the Electoral Commission. The Government should give it the resources it requires in this area. Extending this system to local government is a positive step and is genuinely commended by The Greens. The amendments to provisional voting also will allow a number of people to vote on the day of the election. Again, broadening the franchise and allowing more people to vote is fully supported by The Greens.

The bill includes a number of miscellaneous amendments. An amendment to section 290 of the Local Government Act makes it clear that the election of a mayor by councillors after a council election occur three weeks following the declaration of the election of all councillors. Currently, the Local Government Act provides that a mayoral election must take place within three weeks of the holding of the local council election. That has produced a practical problem at a number of councils where the votes were tight or there may have been a re-vote or a contest. It can often take the better part of three weeks from election to the declaration of the polls.

A number of councils then have to go through complicated negotiations—some might call it shenanigans—to decide who will be mayor in literally 24 hours or less because they did not know the final make-up of the council until the declaration. It makes sense that the election of the mayor takes place three weeks from declaration, not three weeks from the date of the election. Effectively for most councils, where the results are clear, that will mean three weeks from the election. But where contests occur and the declaration is delayed, providing councillors, particularly new councillors, three weeks to work out who will be mayor is a sensible amendment and one that The Greens support. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10473

The other amendments are of a relatively mechanical nature. One amendment relates to checking the rolls of electors for double voting. That amendment makes practical administrative sense. A further provision makes amendments to the Local Government Act and Regulation to allow for approved methods of the random selection of ballot papers. That is relevant when a large number of people are on the ballot paper. The current manual process is laborious and can produce mistakes. I am pleased that the regulations will provide for approved electronic means. It will not be determined by some sort of Xbox game but there will be specifically approved means put in place by the regulations. If that makes it easier for returning officers dealing with the onerous task of collecting ballot papers and it is a rigorous and genuinely random process, The Greens again support that provision. The Greens commend the Government for this bill.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. It is a pleasure to have unanimous support for the bill. It is a pleasant contrast to the previous bill before the House. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [9.57 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 makes amendments to three State taxation Acts: the Duties Act 1997, the Land Tax Management Act 1956 and the Payroll Tax Act 2007. The primary purpose of the bill is to provide, extend and clarify various tax concessions and exemptions under those Acts. It is a matter of some urgency to deal with these provisions so that they can be implemented in the current and next financial years. I will deal first with the amendments to the Duties Act.

The main proposal is to extend and simplify the extension of duty for the restructuring of corporate groups. Corporate groups may seek to change the structure of the group or change the holding of assets within the group for a variety of reasons, including to align business operations that are relatively lengthy, to improve the balance sheet of a subsidiary seeking finance, to respond to structural changes by a foreign parent, to remove expensive antiquated structures in complex groups and to merge business operations and legal entities following a takeover.

In many cases the duty payable on these transactions would be prohibitive, requiring corporate groups to continue with a structure that is less than optimal. The exemption therefore removes an impediment to the efficient conduct of business operating in New South Wales. The current exemption is limited by a number of requirements intended to act as revenue protection measures. The need for those measures has largely evaporated since the introduction of landholder duty in New South Wales, which ensures that interests in land acquired by the group, or sold out of the group, will be liable to duty. The abolition of duty on shares and other marketable securities, which takes effect on 1 July 2012, further reduces the need for these limitations on the exemption. 10474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The House continued to sit.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The new provisions therefore do not contain any requirements for the members of the groups to have been associated for a specified period before the transaction, or to remain associated after the transaction. The provisions also extend the definition of a corporate group to include stapled entities, which are companies and unit trusts whose securities are "stapled" and traded as a single security. A new exemption from landholder duty is also provided for corporate consolidations, which is the interposing of a new parent company or unit trust between an existing company or unit trust and its shareholders. The current provisions rely on guidelines approved by the Treasurer. The new exemption will be detailed in full in the Act, providing more certainty for taxpayers.

The new provisions have been developed following consultation by the Office of State Revenue over a considerable period. The end result is, to a large extent, consistent with a model proposed by the Property Council of Australia. Most elements of the scheme are substantially the same as schemes operating in most other States. Indeed, these amendments are the sort of common amendments that are usually made once a year to update the revenue provisions. The new provisions will reduce costs for businesses in complying with the requirements for exemption, but within a framework that protects the revenue from duty avoidance practices.

The bill contains a new duties concession for transfers that are partially in conformity with agreements. The Duties Act currently provides that double duty is not paid on the purchase of property comprising two dutiable transactions, being an agreement to transfer dutiable property and the subsequent transfer of that property. However, that provision effectively operates on an all-or-nothing basis, so that a transfer partially in conformity with the agreement will be liable to full double duty. The new provision allows a proportionate concession to the extent that the transfer is in conformity with the agreement.

The bill extends the duties exemption for a transfer of the family home between a husband and wife or de facto partners. Again, the provision currently operates on an all-or-nothing basis where the exemption might not apply if the land is used for purposes other than as the couple's principal place of residence. The extended concession will allow a proportionate exemption for the couple's home in cases where the property is also used for business purposes, such as a combined shop and dwelling or a farming property. The bill extends the duties exemption for property transfers as a consequence of the breakdown of a marriage or de facto relationship. Transfers of superannuation interests for the purpose of providing a retirement benefit to a party to the relationship will now be eligible for the exemption. The bill also extends the duties exemption for transfer of primary production land between family members to allow transfer to a broader group of family members of the owner and the owner's spouse—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That is for the National Party.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, it is for the Hon. Mick Veitch and his family.

Dr John Kaye: The property owning Veitches?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Farming property owners, yes.

Mr David Shoebridge: The huge shearing wealth.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Shearing property owners. It is a very fair thing. Families make long-term investments in properties that have delivered wealth to the whole community.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: There are no rich shearers.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Greens do not like the Hon. Amanda Fazio, do they? The bill extends the definition of "related person" for the purpose of other concessions to include various relationships that arise because of marriage or a de facto relationship. The bill clarifies the duties concessions for transfers of property to self-managed superannuation funds to allow the concession to apply in respect of a fund that the Commonwealth has not yet confirmed is a complying superannuation fund. The amendment also allows the chief commissioner to reassess the liability to duty where the fund was not a complying superannuation fund as at the date of the transfer. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10475

The bill includes two anti-avoidance measures for duties. The first is a clarification of the concession for transfers of property out of a deceased estate. The proposed amendment will ensure that the same duty is payable on similar transactions regardless of whether property is transferred to a beneficiary of the estate or the beneficiary makes a transmission application. The second is for landholder duty, which applies to the acquisition of a significant interest in a company or unit trust scheme that holds land valued at $2 million or more. Duty is imposed at the same rate as applies to a direct transfer of land.

I must emphasise that these enhancements and amendments relate to the existing revenue laws, which were introduced under the previous Labor Government, and this is a very normal update of these sorts of provisions. No landholder duty is payable if the entity's total land value is below $2 million. Cases have been identified where duty is avoided by selling some of the land of a company or trust prior to the sale of the landholding entity to the purchaser, which reduces the entity's land value below the $2 million threshold. The bill addresses this avoidance by effectively aggregating the acquisition of the landholder and direct land transfers that have occurred in the previous 12 months. A credit is provided for duty paid on the direct transfer to prevent double duty.

The final duties provision in the bill gives the Minister for Finance and Services authority to grant exemptions from duty in respect of government initiatives relating to the Sydney desalination plant, which of course was an election issue. The Government announced last year that we are refinancing the desalination plant to free up essential funds for other much needed infrastructure projects in New South Wales. It is common practice to exempt transactions relating to government-owned commercial entities from State taxes to maximise the financial return to the Government. This approach has been adopted for the refinancing of the desalination plant.

The form of exemption, which operates by order of the Minister with the concurrence of the Treasurer, is consistent with the exemptions granted in special purpose legislation to facilitate previous transactions such as those under the previous Labor Government, including the sale of NSW Lotteries and of WSN Environmental Solutions. This form of exemption is necessary to provide flexibility in the design of the commercial transactions to maximise the benefit to the New South Wales taxpayer and to minimise the cost and delay that is associated with commercial parties trying to understand and come to grips with the tax provisions.

The bill also contains two minor amendments relating to land tax. The first amendment confirms the land tax threshold entitlement for complying self-managed superannuation funds. The second amendment extends the concessional treatment to special disability trusts under the Commonwealth Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to bring it in line with those currently available to the special disability trusts under the Commonwealth Social Security Act 1991. The concession exempts land from land tax if it is used and occupied as the principal place of residence of the beneficiary of such a trust. The concessions are provided because these trusts are established for the care and accommodation needs of persons with disabilities, usually under the control of family members.

Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Payroll Tax Act. A payroll tax exemption applies to wages paid to an employee while on maternity leave for up to 14 weeks' pay. Full-time employees can choose to pro rata their maximum entitlement to maternity leave over more than 14 weeks. For example, the exemption will apply when an employee takes 28 weeks' maternity leave at half their full-time salary. It was intended that the same pro rata entitlement would apply to part-time employees, and this amendment will clarify the legislation. All other States and Territories have agreed to these amendments to ensure payroll tax harmonisation is maintained. In summary, the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 will ensure that State tax concessions and exemptions apply fairly and equitably to taxpayers in circumstances where anomalies in the legislation might otherwise impose an unintended liability to tax. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [10.09 p.m.]: I indicate from the outset that the Opposition and the crossbench members have had only a rushed examination of the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. In fact, during the last division in this House I had to ask the Leader of the Government for a copy of the bill because one had not been provided. I am now told that we are trying to negotiate, discuss and work through the implications of a foreshadowed amendment from The Greens. The complexities of this important bill require significant consideration. The objects of the bill are:

(a) to amend the Duties Act 1997:

(i) to limit a duty concession relating to transfers to self managed superannuation funds, and

(ii) to limit a duty concession relating to deceased estates, and

10476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

(iii) to establish a duty concession for transfers that are made in partial conformity with agreements that have already been charged with duty, and

(iv) to extend existing duty concessions relating to transfers between married couples and de facto partners and transfers following the break-up of marriages and de facto relationships, and

(v) to provide for further circumstances in which the acquisition of an interest in a private unit trust scheme or private company will be chargeable with duty, and

(vi) to establish a new exemption for corporate reconstruction and corporate consolidation transactions, and

(vii) to provide for further circumstances in which a transfer of business property between family members is exempt from duty, and

(viii) to provide for a duty exemption in respect of any Government initiative relating to the Sydney Desalination Plant, and

(ix) to make other minor and consequential amendments,

(b) to amend the Land Tax Management Act 1956:

(i) to ensure that the tax free threshold can be claimed in respect of land held by self managed superannuation funds that are complying superannuation funds under Commonwealth legislation, and

(ii) to enable a special disability trust under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 of the Commonwealth to be treated as a concessional trust for land tax purposes,

(c) to amend the Payroll Tax Act 2007 to clarify an exemption from payroll tax for wages paid or payable in respect of maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave.

In light of those objects it is obvious that the bill requires consideration. No-one in the House would disagree that some elements of the bill are worthwhile. I refer to the Treasurer's agreement in principle speech in the other House when he spoke about concession exemptions from land tax as it relates to trusts established for the care and accommodation needs of persons with disabilities, which usually falls under the control of family members. A quick reading of this bill clearly highlights a fair degree of merit in that provision. I would be surprised if anyone in this Chamber disagrees with the amendment relating to payroll tax exemptions for wages paid to an employee while on maternity leave for up to 14 weeks. However, other items in the bill require further negotiation—I dare say that some of those negotiations are taking place as I speak. It is not unusual for a bill to be introduced in this manner. It happened when we were in government and the then Opposition said that it needed time to consider the issues.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: No, you did not.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: The then Coalition Opposition, now the Government, said that time was needed to consider these matters. Now that the Coalition is in government, I am certain it will follow the same process. However, the Opposition, in good faith, will support that process in the case of this bill. Nevertheless, having said that, a number of Opposition members have questions about the bill. I would be surprised if someone is not working out questions to be asked as I speak. I suggest that the issue raised in The Greens amendment, which has only just been drafted and is being examined, will be the basis of further debate. I look forward to further contributions from members. Although the Opposition has concerns about the bill, I have no doubt that during the Committee stage those concerns will be addressed when amendments are moved and there is further discussion. No doubt the Minister for Finance and Services will address questions about the bill. At this stage, I indicate that the Opposition will support the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.16 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, which amends the Duties Act, the Land Tax Management Act and the Payroll Tax Act in a number of ways, some of which are quite complex and technical, but all of which are designed to remove inefficiencies from the tax system. There is nothing wrong with removing inefficiencies from the tax system provided it does not cause a loss of revenue or create opportunities for individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes due. I ask the Minister in his reply to address the issue of whether these measures are revenue neutral compared with existing practices, or whether they entail a loss of revenue to the State. The main purposes of the bill are to extend and simplify the exemptions from duty for restructuring corporate groups. Of course, that instantly rings alarm bells for The Greens. Corporate groups often restructure specifically to lower their tax burden to avoid paying their fair share of the costs of running the State.

A number of the amendments are quite technical in nature and require detailed experience to understand their operation. Some address antiquated structures in complex groups, which tend to be extensive 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10477

and wasteful—that is, nobody really gains and the company ends up paying more than it should without an appreciable gain for State revenue. Obviously, we look for the most efficient taxes. The bill also contains a new duties concession for transfers that are partially in conformity with agreements—that is, where an agreement has been made and is changed or the parties have changed but the transfer is still within the agreement. The amendment effectively stops double duty on property purchases comprising two dutiable transactions, being agreement to transfer dutiable property and the subsequent transfer of that property. However, the provision effectively operates on an all-or-nothing basis. A transfer partially in conformity with the agreement will be liable for the full double duty. The new provision allows for a proportionate concession to the extent that the transfer is in conformity with the agreement.

The one clause of the bill about which we have grave concerns relates to the desalination plant and the exemption from duty that can be granted by the Minister for Finance and Services, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, in respect of any government initiative relating to the Sydney Desalination Plant. That exemption can be granted before or after a liability for duty arises and has effect according to its terms. That is to say, the transfer of the Sydney Desalination Plant and, as I understand it now, the pipeline associated with it—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: It always was.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Minister's interjects that it has always been the pipeline as well. Will the Minister explain why during the election campaign the Coalition spoke about a transfer revenue benefit of between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, and now a transfer benefit of $2 billion is being talked about? The pipeline is worth about $700 million. The plant is worth about $1.3 billion. During the election campaign there was a reasonable understanding that the Government was planning to privatise—or grant a 99-year lease over, which is understood by the average person and by me to be privatisation—the plant and not the pipeline that connects it. The Greens strongly oppose the privatisation of the plant for reasons that we have outlined previously. When the Coalition was in opposition it agreed with The Greens that the plant was not necessary.

The decision to proceed with the plant was made in November 2006 in the lead-up to the 2007 election. It was a bad decision that was not in conformity with the then operative 2006 Metropolitan Water Plan that said construction of the plant should not be commenced until dam levels fell to below 30 per cent. What made matters worse was that the contract was signed in June or July 2007, by which time Sydney Water's catchments were approaching a level of 50 per cent. Following the Pasha Bulker event and the big storms of mid 2007 the dams began to fill and have continued to do ever since, to the point of overflowing—demonstrating that Sydney did not need a desalination plant then and certainly does not need one now. Privatising the plant locks it in for 99 years. Sensible analysis dictates that one should shut down the plant, sell off the membranes—and make some money by doing so—and mothball the plant until there is another drought sometime in the next 10 or 15 years. The most likely scenario is that Sydney will have adequate water supplies for the next 15 years.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Ask Flannery.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. John Ajaka, has joined the climate change denier brigade. It seems that sitting close to the Government Whip causes the intellectual infection to be transmitted.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: And the Hon. Trevor Khan.

Dr JOHN KAYE: In response to the interjection, the Hon. Trevor Khan has always flirted with the non-science side of his party and of his Coalition partners. Returning to the bill, we strongly oppose privatising the desalination plant. The issue before the House with respect to schedule 1 [26] is exempting the duty on what will be a $2-billion transfer. The duty on a $2-billion transfer at 5½ per cent is $110 million. I do not claim that it means the State will be $110 million worse off. That is not true. At least part of that $110 million—the Government maintains all of it—will come back to the State in an increased purchase price.

The argument is that in a competitive market, where competitive bids are being made, the assessment of the value of the plant will be determined by its net benefit to the owner, which will include the revenue from operating the plant but not, if this provision is passed, the cost of the duty. It will also not include the cost of working out whether the duty can be avoided. That is fine in a perfectly competitive market. The problem, as members might have noticed, is that the world's financial markets are not particularly healthy. The credit markets in Europe are looking particularly sick. The United States of America has not recovered, and there is some possibility of a double-dip recession. Around the world the number of bidders who will be actively bidding and who will be able to raise the capital for this purchase— 10478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I have had a message from North Korea.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They're going to take it out of your salary.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: His salary is North Korea's GDP.

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, I will not even go there. The Greens are concerned that some of that $110 million will disappear in profit for the purchaser because, in the absence of a competitive market, there will not be competitive pressure to drive up the bid price to the level at which the full $110 million is not subtracted from the value of the plant. We are concerned that this will cost the State; the risks will end up being a giveaway to the potential purchasers of the plant. We recognise that these kinds of concessions were in place for Labor's privatisations of the Waste Services Network and also NSW Lotteries.

The Greens opposed those privatisations vehemently. Both privatisations occurred in a global environment where the markets were more buoyant. Europe was not in a tailspin at the time. There were certainly problems in the Mediterranean countries but the Euro was stronger and it was widely believed that states had the capacity to bail out the banks that were in trouble and keep their economies going. That degree of confidence in the global economic market simply does not exist anymore. The Australian dollar is stronger now than it was then, which works against purchasers. It makes it more expensive for an overseas purchaser, which means that the competitive pressures to recover all the $110 million will not be there.

I foreshadow that The Greens will move an amendment to the legislation in Committee to delete schedule 1 [26] to the bill—that is, the exemption; the capacity of the Minister for Finance and Services, with the concurrence of his good and close friend the Treasurer, to grant an exemption from this duty. We do think it is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales to run the risk of losing $50 million, $60 million, $70 million or maybe all the $110 million in the absence of a robust, thick market bidding for the desalination plant. In fact, we do not think it is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales to privatise the desalination plant in the first place.

With respect to the other components of the bill, we have some concerns about moves to enshrine in legislation the avoidance mechanisms that have been used in the past. We are accepting that some people have not been paying tax and we are saying that, rather than trying to pursue them, track them down and get the tax out of them, we will just make it easier for them. That being said, The Greens strongly support some mechanisms in the bill, particularly the one relating to payroll tax. It is a fair and reasonable mechanism that allows people some flexibility in the way payroll tax is paid in respect of 14 weeks' maternity leave. That makes sense.

We should be doing everything we can to facilitate maternity leave, and hopefully also paternity leave at some stage. The Greens do not necessarily oppose the legislation, although we have some concerns about it. However, we strongly oppose the section that grants a stamp duty exemption to the Sydney Desalination Plant. The Greens will be moving an amendment tomorrow but I will not explain that again in the Committee stage. Those members who need a refresher course on what I have said—I note that the Hon. Niall Blair might be one of them—are welcome to come to the gym with me early in the morning and we can talk about it then.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [10.30 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Hon. Mick Veitch expressing concern about the short notice that Opposition members have been given of the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which is being rushed through this Chamber. I note the earlier interjections of the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who said that when the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was in opposition they always received short notice of bills that were to be introduced. A common theme of this Government is that when someone has done a bad thing that justifies its own bad behaviour. There is no justification for doing something like that. As a mother I tell my children that just because someone else has done something does not mean they should follow suit.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am glad I stayed up for this one.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: It is good, is it not? On 8 March the Government sent this bill in draft format to the Tax Institute. The Tax Institute has had a considerable amount of time to go through this bill section by section. Some of the sections with which the Tax Institute had problems, for example, proposed section 222, appear to have been removed from the bill. It is difficult on short notice to work out the complexities in this bill based on submissions from the Tax Institute. The Minister might be able to inform us who received copies of the draft bill and who was allowed to see the drafts and to make comments, as that might 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10479

help us to understand what sections have been left in the bill and what sections have been removed. It might explain matters if Opposition members are provided with the submissions that were sent to the Government. This fairly complex bill deals with duties and tax implications and sections have been taken in and sections have been taken out.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Sections taken in and shaken all about.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: It is interesting that Government members purport to be interested in the way in which businesses and the economy are run but they are making light of a complicated bill that is aimed at businesses and corporations. This bill is aimed at corporate restructuring, how that occurs, the structure of head companies, sub-companies, parent companies and shelf companies.

[Interruption]

I know it is difficult for the Hon. Duncan Gay to follow this legislation but it is aimed at corporate restructuring.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are arguing this. The bill is pretty simple.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: If the Minister thinks that bills dealing with duties on restructuring are simple I will be interested to hear his response to the complex arguments put forward by others relating to this bill. One of the considerations that the Tax Institute raised related to properties and how they were used. I have not had a chance to go through the bill in detail. The Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra, the Hon. Greg Pearce, is well versed in this area as he was a corporate lawyer in a former life. The Minister would know better than most in this Chamber.

The Hon. Walt Secord: That is a misrepresentation.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The Minister, who is better versed on corporate issues than he would be on industrial relations issues, would be able to enlighten us on these proposed legislative changes. One of the Opposition's concerns relates to residency and how its use has changed. Concerns have been expressed about small businesses that work out of homes such as doctors' surgeries, tax accountants, and houses that have had home offices added. Would they be captured by these sole residency provisions? Will the Minister inform us whether the legislation has changed? Other sections will be removed, for example, proposed section 222, which was in the original draft bill. That section contained provisions relating to the interaction between the Personal Property Securities Act and the mortgage duty provisions. I ask the Minister to enlighten us on those provisions.

I do not agree with other observations that were made by the Tax Institute. The Tax Institute said that the 90 per cent securities provisions in section 273E (2) were too restrictive and that a 75 per cent test for ownership of securities would be sufficient to constitute a group. The Tax Institute may or may not have reasons for raising that issue. However, Opposition members did not have sufficient time to go through the bill to determine whether or not that is a reasonable argument. Another issue that was raised with which I do not agree is that the current draft does not allow for the interposition of a head company and sub-company even if both are clean skins, or for one, two or more sister companies with identical shareholdings to be owned by those companies.

The Tax Institute suggests that subsection 273D (2) should be expanded to require the head company to be either a cleanskin corporation, as currently drafted, or a company that has identical proportionate shareholding to the affected corporation. The mere fact that the cleanskin company holds security in a corporation that does not hold dutiable property should not preclude the availability of an exemption. The Tax Institute suggested that if a cleanskin corporation held non-dutiable property directly an exemption would be available, as is the case under section 273D (2). I disagree.

The fact that a float or a pre-float could be restructured should not exclude the payment or transfer of dutiable property. It would be good to look further into that matter and the arguments relating to global corporate organisations that obtain a permitted tax benefit under laws in overseas jurisdictions. A number of issues are raised in this complicated bill, which should not be treated lightly by members. There was no way of going through all the sections in the time that was available to members in the lower House or to members in this Chamber. The Opposition has no option other than to support this bill because it is difficult to be critical of a bill without having had sufficient time to read it. 10480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [10.37 p.m.], in reply: I thank all those members who participated in debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I thank the Hon. Mick Veitch for indicating that the Opposition generally would support the bill subject to having a look at the proposed Greens amendment. The Government is in the same position. As all members received this amendment only a few minutes ago it is sensible for them to have a look at it. I refer to The Greens amendment and state that I have an email dated 28 March in which the ABC asked my office to respond to The Greens comments, which appear to be reflected in its proposed amendment, which was not drafted at the time. The Greens were able to talk to the ABC but they forgot to mention their proposed amendment to the Government.

I know Dr John Kaye has a great interest in this area of utilities. As has been said, this sort of legislation, which is highly technical, is something that comes up regularly as the commercial world tries to get the best result it can out of tax laws and as governments try to produce revenue laws that protect their revenue and at the same time are fair and reflect changes to the way in which communities operate. It is difficult and complex and almost as a matter of course there are limited timeframes in which to examine these things. This is not the opportunity to debate the long-term lease of the desalination plant, which I understood always included the desalination plant, and that included the pipeline. It has no use other than supplying water to the desalination plant. Dr John Kaye has his views about its value. We are involved in a competitive process and a number of bidders are looking at the plant. The process was thoroughly endorsed as part of the Government's mandate. This legislation is not about delivering a private set of policy outcomes. It is designed to free up funding to use for much-needed infrastructure. I hope we can get through that process.

I will take a moment to address Dr John Kaye's concerns because he said that he will not repeat his arguments tomorrow. He has argued both sides. From the Government's point of view there is an advantage in not having bidders in a very complex transaction spending their time working out how to get around or reduce stamp duty on the amount they are prepared to pay—whether it be the direct payment for the lease, stamp duty, employee payments, legal fees or whatever—because it will be a gross figure. We do not want leakage of that money to examining how they can reduce stamp duty.

I sympathise with the comments made by the Hon. Lynda Voltz. My understanding is that the Government adopted pretty much the same approach that the Labor Government adopted for 16 years. If members opposite do not like the way this Government is conducting itself in consulting with community members and giving them the opportunity to participate, perhaps they should have thought about that 10 years ago or 16 years ago. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Committee set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

TRIBUTE TO JEAN LETAILLE, OAM

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.44 p.m.]: This evening I wish to pay tribute to Jean Letaille, OAM, the former mayor of the village of Bullecourt in northern France who was central to the renewal of Australia's remembrance of the awful First and Second battles of Bullecourt in April and May 1917, and who has passed away at the age of 83. Jean Letaille and his late wife, Denise, along with their friends Claude and Collette Durand of the neighbouring village of Hendecourt, lobbied the French and the Australian governments to do more to honour the fallen in that blood-soaked rural area. The First and Second Bullecourt battles were two of the bloodiest battles fought on the Western Front. More than 10,000 Australians were killed, wounded or taken prisoner in that April and May. First Bullecourt was such an ill-conceived debacle—or, rather, massacre— that it was written up in military manuals dealing with how not to plan and execute a war operation. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10481

Over a 30-year period, Monsieur Letaille and local farmers collected an extraordinary array of battlefield items that lay in and emerged from the fields around the village. In 1995 he turned the collection into a largely self-funded war museum in a barn and stable at his home in Bullecourt. Before that, when he was the mayor, he created a small museum in the town hall to display the items. There were weapons, machinery and other war relics left behind by Australian, British and German soldiers. Monsieur Letaille was also instrumental in ensuring that Anzac Day was an important day in the village calendar. Various Anzac services are held on the Western Front each year and the services at the Australian National Memorial at Villers-Brettoneux are timed so that pilgrims can then travel to the service at Bullecourt on the same day. An estimated 2,500 people attended the 2008 Bullecourt Anzac service and the village has a population of 150.

Another project that Jean Letaille and his friends were associated with was the installation of a small cross of remembrance to commemorate the missing Australian soldiers from the two battles of Bullecourt. Each year the French and Australian flags are raised there and the missing are remembered. The work of Jean and his wife was recognised in 1997 when they were appointed honorary members of the Order of Australia. Last year, Jean donated his unique collection and part of his property to the local community to allow for the redevelopment of the original museum. The completed Jean and Denise Letaille Museum—Bullecourt 1917 forms part of the Australian Remembrance Trail along the Western Front and it will be officially opened on Anzac Day this year. It will be a poignant event because Monsieur Letaille will not be there.

Thousands of pilgrims visiting the Western Front battlefields have for years visited the little museum, which is a sobering experience. On the ninetieth anniversary of First Bullecourt I was in the village and met Monsieur Letaille, who showed me round the museum. There are several memories of that visit that stand out. The first was his warm welcome to yet another Australian. He had a great affection for Australians and he wanted me to stay on in the village to be part of the forthcoming Anzac Day service at which the ninetieth anniversary of the battle—in which my grandfather fought as a member of the Australian Imperial Force [AIF] 48th Battalion—would be officially commemorated. Unfortunately, I had to return to Australia for parliamentary sittings. Monsieur Letaille proudly pointed to a letter pinned to the museum wall. It was a letter of condolence to him on the death of his wife from Prime Minister John Howard.

On half of one wall hung a collection of implements that would have been used by medics to sever the limbs of injured soldiers. There was also a remarkable collection of all manner of spades and shovels that were a reminder that digging trenches and soldiers out of heavy mud was part and parcel of life on the Western Front. Any Australian who visits the village immediately will be struck by the number of Australian flags flying there. Bullecourt was inside the Hindenburg line when the first disastrous Battle of Bullecourt was fought on 11 April 1917. The British and Australian attack at the village came two days after the Canadians seized Vimy Ridge, which was just to the north, from the Germans. The Australian attack was fraught with miscommunication from the British command and the 48th battalion was isolated inside behind the Hindenburg wires. The Australians eventually fought their way out after all the allies had left. Charles Bean wrote:

So, a full hour after every other battalion had left the trenches the 48th came out – under heavy rifle and machine gun fire, but with proud deliberation and studied nonchalance, at walking pace, picking their way through the broken wire … carefully helping the walking wounded, and with their officers bringing up the rear. Wherever Australians fought, that characteristic gait was noted by friend and enemy but never did it furnish such a spectacle as here. For ten minutes the attention of half the battlefield was held while, leisurely as a crowd leaving its daily work, the 48th drew clear.

The Minister for Veterans Affairs said that Australia appreciates the deep respect the Latailles have shown to Australia in remembering its service women and men who fought to defend French communities during the First World War. May Jean and Denise rest in peace in the knowledge that their memory will live on in this lasting tribute—the Jean and Denise Letaille Museum—Bullecourt. I endorse that sentiment.

PALLIATIVE CARE

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [10.49 p.m.]: On 10 August last year members of the other place debated palliative care. It was an important debate and I recommend that members read it in Hansard. The Premier was very clear in what he said. He explained that the Minister for Health was undertaking an analysis of demand for palliative care services across New South Wales to ensure that the Government was providing adequate services for those who needed them. The Minister for Health in her contribution to the debate said that she placed great emphasis on the provision of palliative care services to people with advanced diseases or terminal illnesses.

Further, she committed her department over the following 12 months to map out the current palliative care services against the population demand for such services. The Minister undertook to examine the potential 10482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

use of palliative care population planning tools used in other jurisdictions to assist in future service planning. There would also be an examination of the training and resources made available to support volunteers. The Minister went on to say that strategies from those plans and the scoping work will be incorporated into local health district palliative care service plans; furthermore, they will be incorporated into the service agreements with local health district and affiliated health organisations.

We are almost eight months down the road since these positive and encouraging statements were made, and a fair question to ask is: What progress has the Government made? To be perfectly frank, it is very hard to judge. I and many others, both inside and outside the Parliament, are eagerly waiting to receive a progress report on what has been achieved since August last year. I can assure both the Premier and the Minister for Health that the undertakings they gave last year have created expectations that must be fulfilled. No doubt work is currently underway to develop the 2012-13 State budget and forward estimates; so it is critically important that serious consideration be given to boosting funding, staffing and infrastructure for palliative care services across New South Wales. Other States and Territories are stepping up to the plate. For example, last year Victoria committed an additional $34.4 million to palliative care in its State budget. New South Wales should follow Victoria's lead and make a serious additional dollar commitment to palliative care in the forthcoming New South Wales budget. It can be done; it just requires the political will to act.

In the meantime I have initiated on the Central Coast a petition calling on the Government to give specific attention to this part of the State, where palliative care services are particularly thin on the ground. I find it very disappointing that current State members of Parliament Mr Chris Hartcher, member for Terrigal, Mr Chris Spence, member for The Entrance, Mr Chris Holstein, member for Gosford, and Mr Darren Webber, member for Wyong, all seem to be missing in action when it comes to advocating for this important issue, which impacts thousands of people on the Central Coast. Those members should hang their collective heads in shame. The needs are so great, yet the will to address the problem does not exist. That is very disappointing, and the good people of the Central Coast rightly feel badly neglected. It is my hope that many thousands of signatures can be gathered in the weeks and months ahead. Copies of the petition are available from my office. I encourage Central Coast residents to take up the challenge and help me to persuade the O'Farrell Government to make palliative care a number one priority, not just for the electorates of Terrigal, The Entrance, Gosford and Wyong, but for the whole of New South Wales.

FREE-RANGE EGG PRODUCTION

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.53 p.m.]: Australia is in the middle of an egg war. As large industrial producers are increasingly threatened by the spectacular growth in the demand for food that is produced in a way that respects the rights of animals, they repeatedly respond by attempting to grossly mislead ethical consumers. The most recent example is research funded, and indeed facilitated, by the Australian Egg Corporation that purports to show that free-range hens are not necessarily less stressed than those that live in cages or barns. Dr Jeff Dowling from the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Sydney measured the concentrations of the stress marker hormone corticosterone in the albumen of eggs collected from the three main production systems. The findings were published in a report titled "Non-invasive assessment of stress in commercial housing systems", published in late March 2012.

At first glance Dr Dowling's work suggests that consumers paying more to avoid participating in the cruelty of caged laying hens are having little or no impact on animal welfare gains. These findings are extraordinarily convenient to the Egg Corporation and the three largest industrial egg producers who dominate its board, each of whom runs large-scale battery hen operations. Both the membership of its board and the Egg Corporation's history of attempting to weaken free-range egg standards are clear evidence that the commercial interests of these caged-hen industrial producers are being pursued ruthlessly. The truth is a collateral victim in the rush to secure the dollars of ethical consumers for the balance sheets of Farm Pride, Pace and Sunny Queen.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Dr Dowling's findings are also highly contestable. His report, but not his media statements, contains the remarkable admission that all five free-range, four conventional-cage and three barn-laid producers were handpicked and presented to the researcher by the Egg Corporation. This is the same industry mouthpiece that is trying to change outdoor stocking densities in the definition of free range from 1,500 to 20,000 per hectare. It is the same organisation whose Egg Corp Assured products allow hens to be kept at 40,000 per hectare, or four chickens per square metre. By this one action, Dr Dowling compromised the integrity of his work to the point where it is now nothing more than propaganda. Scholarship requires some attempt at independence from the funding agencies. By allowing an industry advocacy organisation to make such a fundamental decision about his research, Dr Dowling effectively cashed in his reputation. Of course the Egg Corporation would choose farms that suited its agenda. 3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10483

Dr Dowling omitted to report the stocking densities for any of the 12 producers tested. He left open the possibility that outdoor stocking densities for the free-range farms could have been as high as the indoor stocking densities for the caged birds. Regardless of the desire of the Egg Corporation to assert otherwise, hen welfare and quality of life are intrinsically linked to stocking densities. Crowded hens, whether caged, housed in barns or given access to free range, are prevented from their natural behaviours including pecking, foraging, dust bathing, raising their young and flapping their wings. It speaks to the compromised nature of this research that these data were excluded from the final report.

The study, like much of the propaganda emanating from the factory egg industry and their paid researchers, relies entirely on the correlation between concentrations of corticosterone and stress. Melina Tensen from the RSPCA echoed international refereed research when she told the ABC's World Today program on 23 March 2012 that corticosterone is a poor indicator of overall hen welfare. She explained that corticosterone reflects a level of excitement, either positive or negative. Her concerns were mirrored in the findings of the LayWel research project funded by the European Research Programme. The LayWel project studies the welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. The 2004-2005 report titled "Physiology and Stress Indicators" states:

Various environmental conditions are also known to up or down regulate corticosterone concentrations and for example, increased concentrations in corticosteroids can also be associated with experiences that are pleasurable such as sex and food anticipation.

Other research, the LayWel report, also found that long-term stress may result in a decrease in corticosterone, resulting in a false reading of stress levels. Its report "Physiology and Stress Indicators" states that:

Chronic stress or repeated acute stresses induce long-term changes in the regulation of the HPA axis resulting in hypersensitivity, then to a progressive decrease in adrenal capacity.

The very basis of this research is highly questionable. The Egg Corporation got what it paid for: an academic who was prepared to violate the basic standards of scholarship to create results that would foster uncertainty in the minds of free-range egg producers. The university should examine the standards it expects of its researchers; and the Egg Corporation should be understood for what it is—an organisation that is prepared to corrupt the truth and undermine the integrity of research to prop up the profits of the three large industrial producers who dominate its board.

NUMERALLA DIGGERS MEMORIAL HALL

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.58 p.m.]: I want to talk tonight about the Numeralla Diggers Memorial Hall, which had its reopening a couple of weeks ago. I had the great pleasure of attending the event. The hall was first opened in 1922. It was built after the First World War and, as the name suggests, was part of a war memorial for the local area. It is well used in the community. I was very pleased when I was the local member to be able to help Numeralla Diggers get two grants from the State Government, one of $50,000 under the Country Halls program and one of $7,500. Those, along with other grants, have been critical in helping with the work of completely reroofing the hall, undertaking some structural work, and polishing the magnificent wooden floors.

It was great to see so many members of the community at Numeralla celebrating the reopening of the hall; I would estimate about 150 people, which is fantastic for a small community. The hall is used regularly during the Numeralla Folk Festival, which has been running since 1974, and many other activities of Numeralla and District Activities Incorporated, the main operators of the hall. Bluegrass events are held regularly in the hall, which is also the venue for fishing club meetings, and so on. I congratulate the community on their efforts in getting the hall rebuilt. Bruce English was the person who had spoken with me most; but the committee, including Mark, Steve and Ken, worked very hard on behalf of the community and played a strong role in the reopening of the hall.

Halls like this are important for small towns and Numeralla is a small town. It is vital in those small communities to have community facilities that can operate as a social centre. As a Country Labor member in this place, that is one of the things that I have always felt was important. Communities in small towns need investment in facilities, such as country halls, to retain their populations and to ensure people are not attracted to the bigger centres. That is why the former Government had a Country Halls program. Despite questions on notice, I cannot find out whether this Government intends to continue the Country Halls Program, but country communities around New South Wales would appreciate its continuation. 10484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

The maximum grant to the hall was $50,000 and it has been money well spent for the local community. Many other halls around New South Wales also received grants to meet the strong demand for country halls around New South Wales. Small country towns need investment in facilities that form part of the social infrastructure. The building of tennis courts is an important area. Numeralla also secured grants from the former State Government to improve its tennis courts, as did places like Bredbo and Jerangle. I was pleased to see people using those courts when I attended the opening of the Diggers Memorial hall.

When I entered the hall I was surprised to see amongst the historical items on the wall a letter from my father that was written in 1975 when he was the member for Eden-Monaro. It was auspiciously dated 10 November 1975. There was another letter written a few weeks later saying, "I am sorry, I am no longer the local member and I cannot pursue this issue." However, the people of Numeralla kept pursuing the issue, which was to have a German machine gun returned. It was presented to the hall as part of the memorial collection and is now held by the Australian War Memorial. They are still trying to have it returned even after all these years. I wish them luck in that process. I acknowledge Agnes Murphy who celebrated her wedding in the Numeralla hall in the 1930s. She was given the honour of cutting the ribbon to reopen the hall.

It was a great pleasure to visit Numeralla again. As a local member I have previously assisted the Numeralla community to get a number of grants. I was pleased to be part of the celebration with the local community at the reopening of the hall. I look forward to seeing the results of the investment that we have made in other halls around the Monaro electorate over the past few years and I hope that this Government will continue the Country Halls program. I also hope that my future questions on notice on this issue are not simply met with the response I received from the Minister for Primary Industries: "I am no longer the Minister responsible". The community was disappointed that the local member did not reply to their invitation to attend this event but I had great pleasure in being there.

GOOD FRIDAY

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.03 p.m.]: I speak about the significance of Good Friday and why Christians commemorate this day. Reflecting on Easter and the Good Friday sacrifice of our Lord, makes us ask: What is God's love like? What does true love demand? True love is not superficial, it is not lip-service; love demands action and love makes demands. True love is never sacrifice free. In John 4 9-11 St John describes God's love and our expected response:

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

That is very encouraging. The prophet Isaiah provides some insight into why it was necessary that Jesus should suffer on our behalf in Isaiah 53:10-12:

The Lord says.

It was my will that he should suffer; his death was a sacrifice to bring forgiveness. And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life, and through him my purpose will succeed. After a life of suffering, he will again have joy; he will know that he did not suffer in vain. My devoted servant, with whom I am pleased, will bear the punishment of many and for his sake I will forgive them. And so I will give him a place of honour, a place among the great and powerful. He willingly gave his life and shared the fate of evil men. He took the place of many sinners and prayed that they might be forgiven.

According to Luke 24:25-27, after His resurrection, Jesus explained to his disciples:

He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

3 April 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10485

Our Heavenly Father gave His only Son to us, because of who He is. His love for creation and for all humanity was clearly shown in that action of self-giving. In my Christmas adjournment speech I said that, "We give because God gave first." The celebration of Christmas and Easter are both connected to the love of God and His sacrificial giving. We have free will to choose to love—as God asks of us—or to do things our own way. The Bible tells us that with the help of God's grace, because we are made in God's image, we are capable of great acts of love. In fact, our Father's sacrifice of His only Son was prefigured by the actions of the patriarch Abraham when he did not hesitate to offer his son Isaac to the Lord.

Fortunately, the Lord intervened and did not allow the sacrifice of Isaac to be completed and consequently the world has been blessed with the Jewish people who came through Isaac and his son Jacob. When I look at my own children—as most of us do—I catch a glimpse of the faith and love that Abraham had for God and what it may have meant for him to give up his son. In the light of God's self-giving love, it makes me realise my own limitations and that all of us still have a long way to go to grow in our love for God. On the night before he died, Our Lord gave us a final commandment—to love one another. But He inserted a c1ause— He told us to do it in the way He loved us. As recorded in John 13:34, He said:

And now I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

That is our call—to love selflessly, to die to ourselves and to live for others. Good Friday reminds us of how much God loves us, and how we are called to love each other. That is why we commemorate Good Friday. Happy Easter.

TRIBUTE TO DENIS BUCKNELL

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.08 p.m.]: I speak on the passing of the late Denis Bucknell, a long-time resident of Tamworth and a man of great humour and energy who worked tirelessly for his community. Denis passed away on 16 March. He is survived by his wife Beverly. He is the father of Tim, Sam, deceased, Paul, Nick and Jo. He is the grandfather to Rohan, Courtney, Chloe, Olivia, Elijah, Madi-Mei, Summer and Charlie. All can be justifiably proud of their husband, father and grandfather. I have known Denis for some years and we often met and had a coffee and chatted about matters relevant to Tamworth. I will turn to those issues shortly. What I was not aware of was some of his other interests. In an article published on 2 April 2012 in the Northern Daily Leader, I read:

He had a longstanding relationship with country rugby union and cricket.

His love of rugby union developed from the age of 10 but it was his true dedication and contribution over the years that saw him become a life member of the Central North and Country New South Wales Referees Associations.

Friend and fellow Country New South Wales Referees Association life member Keith Hole said he had known Denis for many years during his long-standing commitment to the sport.

Mr Hole said:

I first got to know Denis in the early '80s, when I was a referee at country level and Denis was on the referee board which he has been since, I think, the early '70s. He was on it until the early to mid '90s and, when he announced his retirement from the board, we made him a life member.

Mr Bucknell had also played representative football at various stages throughout his playing career. The early 1970s saw him hang up his boots and step into more of a mentoring role as a referee and coach. Mr Hole said:

He was very well-known and was widely respected and valued for his knowledge and dedication to the sport.

The article goes on:

Mr Bucknell's love and devotion to his wife, Beverly, saw him take on the role as her full time carer more than 15 years ago when he discovered she had kidney failure. This led him to become a member of the New England Carer Support Service, where he became an advocate for carers within the community and a champion for renal dialysis patients in remote and regional areas.

He was also associated with Kidney Health Australia and his dedication to advocating kidney health saw him become one of the organisation's "angels" in 2010 recognising their extraordinary contribution to the kidney community.

It was his interest in issues relating to health that brought him and me together quite regularly to have coffee. He was a constant and committed advocate for the redevelopment of Tamworth Referral Hospital. Prior to the last general election he was regularly in touch with me to make sure that I was pressing the case within the Coalition 10486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3 April 2012

for the redevelopment of the hospital. I must emphasise, however, that as a community champion he was prepared to speak to all comers. He had the ear of the former member for Tamworth, Peter Draper, and I have no doubt that Peter would join with me in acknowledging Denis's quiet persistence.

In addition, he was a committed advocate for an improvement to the Isolated Patients Transport and Accommodation Assistance Scheme [IPTAAS]. He saw that under the former Government the scheme had been allowed to languish and he pressed repeatedly for improvements to it. In this role he met more than once with the then shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner. I have no doubt that his efforts played a key role in seeing the improvements to the scheme that have now been implemented. One improvement was ensuring that dialysis patients could create a cumulative weekly total of travel of 200 kilometres or more for renal dialysis. For example, a farmer from Gunnedah who travelled three times a week to Tamworth was not eligible for each individual trip, but three visits a week cumulatively now meets the Isolated Patients Transport and Accommodation Assistance Scheme criteria. Denis was instrumental in that change.

As I have indicated, Denis's further commitment was to Kidney Health. Denis regularly spoke to me about the particular problems faced by kidney dialysis patients across the New England north-west. Once again, I believe that Denis's work helped shape opinions within the new Government. We have lost a true champion of regional New South Wales. Vale and farewell Denis Bucknell.

HOUR OF POWER

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [11.13 p.m.]: Tonight I celebrate a momentous day. Last Saturday at 8.30 p.m. people who believe in civilisation gathered around the planet to celebrate the Hour of Power. While hippy, mung bean-eating, pot-smoking types sat around in unlit rooms pretending that they were Jesus and could save the world, people who believe in civilisation, advancement and human endeavour set about to try to use as much electricity and other carbon dioxide producing products as possible, and it was a great success. All around the world arc lights were lit, large bonfires were burnt and even the smallest clothes irons turned on helped to create a sense of achievement and international pride. Indeed, even in our own State this was reported:

Sydney father of three James Morrow enjoyed some family bonding time: "The boys were more excited about staying up for the Hour of Power than they were for Santa".

And why would they not be? It represents human achievement. In closing, I thank the person who started it all: Tim Blair of the Daily Telegraph. I congratulate him on starting a worldwide movement that celebrates human achievement. Well done, Tim Blair.

[Time for debate expired.]

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.14 p.m. until Wednesday 4 April 2012 at 9.30 a.m.

______