31 May 2023 - Legislative Council

Australia / New South Wales / Hansard

Legislative Council

2023-05-31

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 2

learning area for the children at Carroll Public School.

(2) That this House recognises the invaluable contributions made by the committee members, event organisers, sponsors and all

individuals who worked diligently to make the Sequins and Sneakers Ball a memorable and successful event.

(3) That this House congratulates the staff and parents for their continued commitment to the students at Carroll Public School.

Motion agreed to.

GUNNEDAH EISTEDDFOD

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (10:04): On behalf of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Gunnedah Eisteddfod was held from Monday 15 May 2023 to Saturday 27 May 2023;

(b) eisteddfods have become an integral part of the artistic and cultural landscape in regional New South Wales;

(c) local eisteddfods provide a platform for aspiring artists, musicians, dancers, and performers of all ages to showcase

their talent, foster their passion, and gain valuable experience; and

(d) many schools and early childhood education services also participate in local eisteddfods, giving students a great

opportunity to be involved in the performing arts.

(2) That this House congratulates all participants in the Gunnedah Eisteddfod in 2023.

(3) That this House acknowledges the incredible efforts of the Gunnedah Eisteddfod committee and convenors, including Meryl

Hennessy, Marg Amos, Leonie Harley, Margaret Kersley, Lyn Pengilly, Lizzy Bell, Tahlia Morrisey, Trish Studdy and Judy

McGowan, and all of the volunteers and sponsors who generously give their time and support to ensure the success of this

wonderful event.

Motion agreed to.

TAFE NSW EXCELLENCE AWARDS

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (10:04): I move:

(1) That this House acknowledges that TAFE NSW is an incredibly valuable asset and an important part of the fabric of

communities right across New South Wales.

(2) That this House acknowledges the significant contributions TAFE NSW students make in their communities, providing

important skills that are vital for their local economy.

(3) That this House congratulates the finalists and award winners of the TAFE NSW Excellence Awards held on 22 May at their

Ryde campus, and notes the incredible contributions of all students there in organising and hosting the event.

(4) That this House congratulates Leila de Young, winner of the TAFE NSW Region Student of the Year Award.

Motion agreed to.

TRIBUTE TO DR JUDY MESSER

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (10:05): I move:

(1) That this House notes with sadness the passing, on 12 May 2023, of prolific environmentalist and sociologist, Dr Judy

Messer.

(2) That this House acknowledges the outstanding contribution that Dr Messer made to the protection of the environment,

including:

(a) co-founding the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society in 1970 in response to the threat of a large area of

Lane Cove bushland being cleared for development;

(b) her involvement in many other environmental campaigns for the protection of the New South Wales environment

including the Jervis Bay Coalition, the Coalition for Urban Transport Sanity, and convincing Bob Carr, when he

was planning Minister, to create the then State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 Bushland in Urban Areas in

1986;

the NCC helped provoke a change in community and political attitudes to issues such as logging, the protection of

wilderness areas and urban bushland;

(d) her role as the sole environmental voice on the board of Sydney Water, as a non-executive director from 1988-2002

and her many other advisory roles on committees including the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council

Community Advisory Committee, NSW State Wetland Action Group, Menindee Lakes Advisory Committee,

Barwon-Darling River Management Committee, the Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee, Rural Fire

Service Advisory Council, and the Aboriginal ownership legislation working group; and

(e) her active participation at international meetings of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the

World Parks Congress and many other international forums focused on conservation.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 3

(3) That this House conveys its deepest condolences to Dr Judy Messer's husband, Michael; sister, Wendy; children Jane, David

and Jacob; and all her family, friends and colleagues.

Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (10:05): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) 28 April 2023 was the International Day of Mourning;

(b) Unions NSW and SafeWork NSW held an International Day of Mourning service at Reflection Park in Darling

Harbour; and

conditions.

(2) That this House commits to:

(a) improving workplace health and safety in New South Wales; and

(b) eliminating the number of people losing their lives and reducing the number of people being injured due to

workplace incidents or work-related conditions.

(3) That this House gives its condolences to those impacted by workplace incidents, injuries or work-related conditions.

Motion agreed to.

TRIBUTE TO DAVID JACKSON, AM, KC

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (10:06): I move:

(1) That this House notes with sadness that:

(a) David Jackson, AM, KC, passed away on 14 May 2023;

(b) he was a much admired and deeply respected elder statesman of the Australian bar, and a founding member of New

Chambers; and

(2) That this House notes that:

(a) the Chief Justice described Mr Jackson as "a giant of the Australian bar … hugely respected for his consummate

professionalism, integrity and legal acumen", and also observed that David Jackson was not only a great advocate,

he was generous with his time, helping younger members of the bar, and on many occasions appeared pro bono or

gave advice pro bono; and

(b) he is survived by his wife, Monica, his three daughters and four grandchildren.

(3) That this House notes the great contribution to the law made by David Jackson and expresses its sympathy to his family and

friends.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

FIRST HOME BUYER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023

First Reading

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion

by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: According to standing order, I table a statement of public interest.

Statement of public interest tabled.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

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

of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Motion agreed to.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 4

Documents

PARLIAMENTARY INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS OFFICER

Reports

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE: According to resolution of the House of 22 March 2022, as

amended on 8 June 2022, I table the following reports:

(1) Report of the Independent Complaints Officer of the New South Wales Parliament to the Legislative Council Privileges

Committee and Legislative Assembly Parliamentary Privileges and Ethics Committee, for the period 1 September 2022 to

30 November 2022.

(2) Report of the Independent Complaints Officer of the New South Wales Parliament to the Legislative Council Privileges

Committee and Legislative Assembly Parliamentary Privileges and Ethics Committee, for the period 1 December 2022 to

28 February 2023.

Business of the House

SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS: HARD ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (10:15): I move:

That Standing Order 34 relating to the hard adjournment at 10.00 p.m. be suspended for Thursday 1 June 2023 only.

The Government is seeking to lift the hard adjournment in order to finalise the First Home Buyer Legislation

Amendment Bill 2023 in this House tomorrow. It is not something that we intend to do very often, but I seek the

support of the House on this occasion.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (10:16): This is an astonishing admission of a failure to have a

legislative agenda. Three weeks into this new Government, we have had a filibuster from the Government in

debate on a statute law revision bill and a revenue bill, and an hour-and-a-half contribution to debate on the

address-in-reply to the Lieutenant-Governor's speech. Three weeks in, the Government comes to this House to lift

the hard adjournment because it cannot handle its legislative agenda. The hard adjournment is an agreement

between all members in this Chamber to ensure that a proper work health and safety environment is in place for

people who work in Parliament. The Government cannot organise its agenda so as to make sure that it can be

covered in the sitting hours as prescribed by this House.

There was no suggestion of any filibuster in the other place, which passed the bill last night after three

hours of debate. In those circumstances, the indication would be that this bill would proceed just as normally as

any other bill. For the Government to say that it must lift the hard adjournment because it wants to pass this piece

of legislation in this place tomorrow underpins the argument that it has lost control, or has no control, of its

legislative agenda. It has lost control of its legislative agenda. There is no indication from the Opposition that

there is anything untoward in respect of the manner in which debate on the bill will be conducted in this House.

The last two occasions when we moved to suspend the hard adjournment were in relation to the abortion

law reform bill, moved after four days of debate, and the electricity reform bill. Members would remember there

was significant debate, and the former Government had been informed that the best part of over 100 amendments

were to be moved. The Government seeks to remove the hard adjournment even though there are no reams of

amendments to be moved and despite the fact that there were three hours of debate in the other place. It has said,

"We must get rid of the hard adjournment." It is not as though there are to be long and protracted speaking times

in debate on the bill. It was conducted in the normal process in the other place. The Government has offered no

possible reason as to why the hard adjournment should be suspended on this occasion. It has not said, "This bill

will not be debated within the ordinary procedures of this House."

In fact, similar to the manner in which the Government is treating members of this House, in the other

House last night an unprecedented situation occurred and Opposition members were gagged from contributing to

debate on a bill. The last time that occurred in either House was when a motion was moved that the Hon. Adam

Searle no longer be heard in this place in debate on a workers compensation bill. If the Government is serious

about suspending the hard adjournment, it must do better than to say, "We just want to get it passed." It must

explain why we need to get rid of the hard adjournment. It cannot be suspended simply because the Government

wants to get the bill passed by a particular day. That is not good enough. Government members should explain

that there has been an abuse of process or some other reason that demands the removal of the hard adjournment.

The standing orders of this House were amended because of the absolute priority we gave to the work health and

safety of the people working in this environment.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: Oh bullshit. You were forced to do it by the crossbench.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 5

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: In those circumstances, I am sure the crossbench would not support

removing the hard adjournment. But members in this place fought hard to make that amendment to the standing

orders. Because of the manner in which that standing order was adopted, we ought to be very loathe to suspend

the hard adjournment in circumstances where there is no proper rationale. Quite frankly, Government members

are arrogant to come to this place and say that they just want the hard adjournment to be removed. In fact, they

were arrogant just this morning in moving a motion without notice or discussion with members on this side of the

House that proposed that the House sit this Friday. No Government member came and asked whether that would

be an issue for members of the House. They just came to the House and said, "We are going to sit on Friday," and

moved a motion to that effect. The arrogance of a government to act like that is breathtaking.

Generally, courtesy is shown in the way we conduct the affairs of this House. That courtesy appears to

have gone out the window. It demonstrates how Labor members will act in government. They will behave

arrogantly. They do not have a legislative agenda and they do not know how to handle the bills they bring to this

House. Government members ought to get their act together for the purposes of making sure that they conduct

their affairs in a manner that complies with the standing orders. I ask all members to reject this arrogant motion

to remove the hard adjournment for tomorrow evening.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (10:24): One Nation opposes the motion, although not with the same

political partisanship and harshness of the Leader of the Opposition. We recognise that there is a new Government.

It is fair to say there are many more quality people on the frontbench of the Government in this Chamber than in

the other place. No member in this place is going quite as poorly as Mr Stephen Kamper in question time in the

other place—one could not. But for all the quality people here, and that includes four or five Ministers, none has

ministerial experience. There have been hiccups in the management of Government business. The fair approach

is to cut them some slack and give the new team a chance to sort that out. It is true that as a Government they have

many more reviews than legislation, probably on a ratio of 20:1, but that is still no excuse.

The fact is that in the past two days three items of Government business have been debated for the purpose

of filibustering. I thought the filibuster last night from the Hon. John Graham, having dabbled in that fine art

myself some time ago, was absolutely outstanding. When he got onto Fabian it served the dual purpose of covering

a Labor think tank and his Music portfolio. He showed amazing skills in what was a very entertaining filibuster,

but that is where it ends. As much as I love Wes and Greg, we have reached our quota on their filibusters in this

place. It is the parliamentary equivalent of going to the dentist or watching Statler and Waldorf on the Muppets,

but not as funny. We have had enough of that.

Three filibusters in just two Government business days tells the tale. It could have been managed better

and more effectively. One of the problems with getting rid of the hard adjournment is that it flies in the face of

the Labor Party rhetoric about family-friendly hours in this place, which was a feature in the last term of

Parliament. We have the hard adjournment at 10.00 p.m. for family-friendly reasons. Of course, the other problem

is that there was no assessment or briefing for the crossbench on when we may finish. The Nationals are geared

up for their amendments to the water bill. That will take a lot of time tomorrow. Then we will get onto the pet

subject of the very fine Treasurer: Getting rid of consumer choice in New South Wales and imposing his own

approach. That will be a big debate. I am sure the Coalition members who love the old Perrottet legislation will

be lining up to defend that.

So will we finish at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock on Friday morning? These debates can be open-ended.

My friend and old mate the Leader of the Opposition, who lectured us about work health and safety, was the

architect of the all-night sitting on the energy bills. A very senior Government member was heard to say of me

and the Hon. Rod Roberts at about 4.30 a.m., "Perhaps they'll just drop dead on the floor of Parliament and that

will be the end of the debate." At various times we felt like doing that. It would have been a mercy for you in

particular, Mr President, but not for the rest of us. But to hear a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition about

work health and safety is a bit rich. The would-be assassin has turned into nurse and doctor. The poacher has

become the gamekeeper with all of these rules.

On balance, it is better to adhere to our rules about the hard adjournment. If the Government has a problem

in scheduling its legislation, perhaps its members can learn from the mistakes of the past couple of days. I do not

see the point of getting rid of a rule that has been embraced around the Chamber. At a minimum, if the motion

were to pass, it would be helpful for the Government to provide a cut-off time. Will we finish at midnight, in

recognition of family-friendly hours, or will debate drag on into the early hours of the morning—in which case

we will all be rushing to the hospital next door?

The PRESIDENT: I remind honourable members that the appropriate way to seek the call in this Chamber

is to stand in one's place and say in a loud and stentorian voice, "Mr President." That will allow members to be

heard.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 6

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (10:28): I respect the contributions to debate from the

Leader of the Opposition and the leader of One Nation. I welcome the undertaking that was given by the Leader

of the Opposition. There was no intention to play funny business. To be fair to him, when the bill was debated in

the previous session of Parliament members did behave with a manner of decorum that allowed the previous

Government to have its legislation treated fairly, on its merit and without any filibustering from the Opposition.

It is pleasing that the Opposition will engage in the same spirit during tomorrow's likely debate. That is helpful.

With regard to the First Home Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, the Government wants to make

sure that every member has adequate time to express their view on the bill, which is their right. Members also

have to be mindful that the legislation is an important change for hundreds of thousands of first home buyers and

potential first home buyers. The point of allowing the Parliament to deliberate in favour or against the bill

tomorrow is so that hundreds of thousands of people know the rules and can make informed decisions over the

next three, six, nine or 12 months. That is a serious matter, particularly because so many people participating in

the first home buyer market are having conversations with their financers and lenders right now, deciding what is

possible for them to bid, when they want to bid or whether they can bid. Giving them as much time as possible

for the transition to take place is important. That is why when the Government says it would like the Parliament

to come to its view on the bill this week, that is to provide that base level of understanding for people to make

decisions.

When it comes to the actual transitions, should the Parliament reject the bill, it is important that we respect

Revenue NSW's role in the matter and allow them to adapt. Should the Parliament consent to the bill, then we

should also do that. When I was the shadow Treasurer in the previous Parliament, I was very mindful to the

previous Government's required implementation time around market transition and public service transition to a

new system. To be fair to the Government at the time, we facilitated a good debate. It was respectful to both sides.

Both sides were able to express their views, but the Executive Government knew that Parliament would make a

decision and they could act. Labor is seeking much the same this week.

In respect of some of the commentary around whether Labor is according to parliamentary norms or

breaching them, I point out the Government is following standard parliamentary procedure in both places on this

bill. It introduced the bill in the other place last week; second read it; left it on the table for five days, which is the

convention; allowed the shadow Cabinet to do its deliberation and reach a view; and allowed them to go to their

party room, much the same as we did with the crossbench and the Government so that all parties could take a

genuine view on the issue and allow all party processes. The Government did not declare urgency on the bill to

facilitate that respect to all sides. The five-day period came to an end yesterday. The bill was introduced to the

other place. The other place deliberated on it. The bill was passed and is now in this House for our decision. There

is no breach in that respect.

As for removing tomorrow night's hard adjournment—I take the point of the Leader of One Nation about

our intention—the Government submits itself to the will of the House. The House can debate the bill for as long

as it wants. Our view is that every member who wishes to speak in the debate should have the right to speak. The

Government will facilitate as much time as possible for that in the second reading stage and committee stage. That

is sensible. We are not suggesting that we would want to traverse anyone's right to speak on the bill. Therefore,

we think the balance is right in simply allowing the House to have as much time as possible to deliberate. The

alternative is that we may well need to be sitting on Friday, but to be fair, that motion may or may not be moved

tomorrow. In terms of how long we sit, I welcome the opportunity to have dialogue with all sides of the House so

we can facilitate that and be mindful of it.

In conclusion, I have made attempts to contact the Opposition and request an opportunity to have dialogue

with them about what their intentions are. There is no compulsion on the Opposition to participate in that dialogue

with the Government. That is fine; I am not offended. We remain open. I will contact the shadow Treasurer and

Leader of the Opposition in this place to see if he wishes to work out precisely how the debate will take place

tomorrow. The Government's intention is to get the debate done in a manner respectful to every member's right to

have their say but also respectful to the hundreds of thousands of first home buyers who would like to know the

outcome of the Parliament's deliberations. I look forward to having conversations with the Leader of the

Opposition. I am sure between the two of us we can work out an arrangement that makes sure every member has

comfort about how long the House will sit tomorrow. On behalf of the Government, I undertake that it will

facilitate time to respect family-friendly hours as best as possible.

We take workplace health and safety requirements of staff very seriously when it comes to our hard

working. We honour and respect them. The motion is before the House because we understand that if the House

decides to break the hard adjournment, it should do so actively, after deliberation and after a debate like the one

we are having now. With that, I welcome the undertaking from the Opposition to have this debate in good spirit.

I am happy to have further conversations, but I think it is important that the House resolve to continue to sit so we

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 7

can acquit the matter either way: for or against the legislation. We should reach a decision this week so that first

home buyers know the outcome of the decision and can plan accordingly. The Opposition will argue forcefully

for their position, as is their right, and we want to make sure they have the time to do it. We also think it is

important the market has reasonable time and notice to either adapt to a change or not.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (10:35): I contribute briefly to the debate on the motion, which The Greens support.

I reflect on the reasons for that. Removing the hard adjournment is not something we do lightly. We agree with

the hard adjournment whenever we can. I am pleased to hear that the reason for the motion is to pass an important

bill which if delayed would leave insufficient time for the market to understand the change or for Revenue to get

up to speed with the change. In the circumstances where we know the bill is going to pass because we have the

numbers to pass it—

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: We?

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: We, the people in favour of the bill, have the numbers to pass the bill.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: We, the Greens-Labor coalition.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: You really love the idea of there being a Greens-Labor coalition. The Greens have

no interest in a Greens-Labor coalition. We are voting in favour of what—

The Hon. Mark Latham: Table the agreement.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Table your agreement.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: We are in support of the motion because we believe the people of New South

Wales need the certainty around what is going to happen in the property market. That is why we support it, but

I am pleased to hear that it is not going to be a problem anyway because the Opposition, the Coalition-One Nation

coalition, is telling us that they are not going to filibuster. Finally, I note the Leader of the Opposition noted the

very long abortion reform debate we had, which took five days. We ran some statistics at the time and found that

320,000 words over five days were spoken by men in this place, with only 90,000 words spoken by women. Of

all the words spoken over those five days, 80 per cent were from men. We need to reflect on the brief debate on

this motion because although women now make up 50 per cent of members in this place, we still seem to have a

problem where men talk a great deal. Maybe they could reflect on that and business would get done quicker.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (10:38): I always intended to briefly contribute to the debate on this

motion. Government members have not been in this place for very long. I have only been in the House for 12 years.

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones and I are probably two of the longest serving in the Opposition. The reason I

say that is I remember when we were first in government in 2011, when I was newly elected, we would sit very

late, routinely for hours and hours until 3.00 a.m. or 4.00 a.m., and still be back at 10.00 a.m. Unlike many

members opposite, we have lived through that. It was a really challenging time. I know some Government

members have been in Parliament longer than me, and I respect that, but I think all members would agree that that

was not the most functional way for a workplace to operate.

The reason the hard adjournment was introduced over the past few years, initially at midnight and then

forward to 10 o'clock, was to recognise that we do important work in Parliament and good workplace settings

should be in place for that. I agree with the comments the Leader of the Opposition made on the curious nature of

why now, a mere few weeks into government, suddenly the hard adjournment needs to go. There has been no

indication, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that Opposition members will filibuster. Debate on the bill in the

lower House, which the Treasurer is most interested in and spoke about in his contribution, went for three hours.

So it did not last very long. There is no indication that debate in this House will be the same. I take his point about

the bill making a significant change for people to make decisions about purchasing a home and Revenue NSW,

but the Government should make that its first order of business for tomorrow. It can be debated first and then we

can move on to the water bill. If we do not finish that by 10 o'clock, that is fine. The Government has no intention

to privatise water. That bill has already passed the lower House. Opposition members have things they want to

say on behalf of regional New South Wales, but that bill can wait until the next sitting period. There is no need to

move a motion today to pre-empt something that there is no indication will ever happen.

The last point I will make, as others have already raised it, relates to the family-friendly argument. I was

the first upper House member in many years to have children. A lot has changed in the 12 years since I was

elected, and that has been really great, but it was hard at the beginning when some of the measures we have now

were not in place. If we are going to stand by family-friendly hours, our actions should match our words. We

should say that 10 o'clock gives enough time for people to get home. I note the interjections from members

opposite about sitting on Friday. If we do, we do. We should be respectful of working mums whose children are

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 8

outside Sydney. The logistics that need to be juggled to sit on a Friday are not insignificant to mothers like me if

plans have been made for the sitting week to finish on Thursday night. The Greens should be respectful of that,

as they are part of a coalition with Labor. It is not always easy to make things work when, all of a sudden, a

spanner is thrown into the works for no good, justified or anticipated reason. It makes life more challenging for

working mums who do not live in Sydney. The motion should not be passed. We should have a normal

parliamentary sitting day tomorrow, be respectful in the debate and get on with it.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (10:42): I will be charted by Ms Abigail Boyd and keep my comments

brief. One of the arguments for passing the First Home Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is to give buyers

certainty in the market. That certainty will be provided by the Act's commencement date of 1 July. Regardless of

whether Parliament deals with the bill this week, the Act has a commencement date. The regulations for the

Property Tax (First Home Buyer Choice) Bill, introduced at the back end of last year by the former Government,

had transitional provisions attached to it. Before the mechanisms to deliver it were implemented, provisions were

put in place so that people could be afforded the benefits of the bill. If the bill passes, the First Home Buyer

Legislation Amendment Bill, with its commencement date on 1 July, will provide a very clear direction that gives

buyers in the market certainty, regardless of what the Treasury needs to do behind the scenes to enact the

legislation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (10:43): The reason the motion is on the Notice Paper is so that

members could have this debate in the House. I note the somewhat frustrated tone of the Opposition, particularly

the Hon. Damien Tudehope. Government members are trying to be very up-front and honest about the business

we wish to conduct, which is why this motion is before the House. I hope that we do not sit past the hard

adjournment tomorrow night, but we have to work through a very key issue relating to the Government's agenda.

I note the well-articulated words of the Treasurer about why the timing of this debate is important.

I also note the comments of members relating to the way the Government runs business of the House. I will

make a couple of points. First, we are at the beginning of an entirely new government, which has happened only

three times since World War II. It is not a frequent event. The Government is working through its legislative

agenda. It has only been a couple of weeks, not a couple of months. The Government has many more bills coming.

As most members know, I will try to move them around in an open and transparent way to keep the House up to

date with what is happening. I apologise if the Leader of the Opposition feels that he has been blindsided by the

motion. It was put on the Notice Paper yesterday, which is why we are debating it today. The Government does

not want to sit on Friday. All of us have family and work to do, but we must deal with the Government's business

of the day.

The second point I will make—and there has been a bit of talk about what happened in the other place

relating to bills and other things—is that strange things occurred downstairs yesterday, including for the first time

ever the splitting of The Nationals from the Liberal Party in a vote on the floor of Parliament. It was very

interesting. The Government is very clear about the mandate it has for the First Home Buyer Legislation

Amendment Bill, the timing of which is important. It is not my intention to suspend the hard adjournment again

anytime soon. I ask for the indulgence of the House on this.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: You gag down there and extend up here.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If the Hon. Natalie Ward wants to talk about gagging, let's talk about The

Nationals, who actually asked—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: No, let's explain.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: The motion before the House relates to suspending the hard

adjournment for tomorrow. If the Leader of the Government wants to sledge The Nationals, I suggest she does so

by—

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: You don't want me to talk about it, do you, Wes? You raised it. It is part

of the motion.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Let's have that debate then. Do it properly. Bring it on.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If you don't want to talk about it, that's up to you.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I know The Nationals are very sensitive about this. Let us understand how

extraordinary it is. When was the last time The Nationals voted against the Liberal Party on a key bill? When was

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 9

the last time its members tried to filibuster a bill that they had asked the Government to work with them on? If the

Opposition really wants to get into it, we can do that. Enough time has been taken up on the motion. The

Government has gone through the appropriate process and put it on notice. That is why we are debating it now,

so that members can decide whether they support the suspension of the hard adjournment. As I said, it is not

intended to occur very often, but I will always be transparent about that. I will have more discussions with the

Leader of the Opposition on this matter in the future. I commend the motion and ask for the indulgence of the

House.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 21

Noes ................... 17

Majority .............. 4

AYES

Banasiak Faehrmann Mookhey

Borsak Graham Moriarty

Boyd Higginson Murphy (teller)

Buttigieg Hurst Nanva (teller)

Cohn Jackson Primrose

D'Adam Kaine Sharpe

Donnelly Lawrence Suvaal

NOES

Carter Martin Roberts

Fang (teller) Merton Ruddick

Farraway Mihailuk Taylor

Latham Mitchell Tudehope

MacDonald Munro Ward

Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)

PAIRS

Houssos Farlow

Motion agreed to.

Motions

ASSET PRIVATISATION

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (10:56): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) as part of the Labor Party election platform the now-Government promised to "halt the privatisation of State assets";

(b) prior to the State election, in the last term of Parliament, members of the now-Government called the sale of public

land a privatisation;

privately owned developers; and

(d) the definition of privatisation, according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is "to change the status of (land, industries,

services, etc.) from that of state to private ownership".

(2) That this House calls on the Government to come clean with the people of New South Wales and admit Labor's plan to sell

public land is a privatisation of public assets.

After ruling out any further privatisation during the election campaign, engaging in a blatantly false campaign on

Sydney Water, the new Labor Government could not wait two months before backflipping on its election pledges

and is now looking to sell public land to private entities. The motion before the House is not particularly

controversial. It is a simple statement of the facts—the truth. It simply lays out the Government's election pledge

to halt the privatisation of State assets; the direction of the Premier to his Ministers to find land to sell to private

developers; and the definition of "privatisation", which fits perfectly with the Premier's direction. Every single

time, without fail, Labor says one thing before the election only to do something different when it comes to

government.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 10

Reflecting on a copy of Labor's Fresh Start Plan, it is a grand total of 14 pages, most of which are just

pictures of the Premier in various settings, and, I acknowledge, pictures of the Hon. John Graham, the Leader of

the Government in this House; the Hon. Rose Jackson; and the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who is one of my favourites.

I am just sticking to members of this House. Of the 14 pages, there are 15 mentions that Labor is against

privatisation. In the final week of the campaign Premier Chris Minns promised 18 times on his Facebook page

that he would end privatisation. He promised to do so at least once a day and then, for good measure, eight times

in the last 36 hours of the campaign. Government members may wish to disagree with me—against their best

interests, of course—but how can they disagree with the trusty Macquarie Dictionary definition of privatisation?

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: We're Oxford people!

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: As stated in the motion, the definition of "privatise" is:

1. to change the status of (land, industries, services, etc.) from that of state to private ownership.

I hear those opposite say they are Oxford Dictionary people. They snub their noses at the good old Australian

dictionary. However, I will go to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which also defines "privatise" as:

… to change from public to private control or ownership …

As the House would know, the Premier has directed all of his Ministers to find surplus land to audit for it to be

considered for rezoning and developing into residential housing. In the last Parliament the now Government's

Cabinet Ministers decried the occurrence of similar auditing of public land for residential purposes, claiming that

the Labor Opposition was appalled. I turn to my good friend the Hon. John Graham. He was outraged about an

index of land assets, which provided a menu for property developers across the State and showed a long record of

privatisation. Somehow, right now, that same thing is not privatisation to Labor. That is interesting logic.

I turn to my other good friend the Treasurer. He believed that the previous Government's addiction to land

sales would only get worse and that it proved an addiction to privatisation. Labor itself wants to engage in land

sales to private developers after this audit. I turn to the member for Blacktown in the other place, who believes it

was a disgrace that the previous Government wanted to sell off so much. But the present Government is adopting

the same policy for surplus government land. Those comments prove the hypocritical nature of senior Minns

Government members. They oppose land asset sales in Opposition and then rely on them in Government. They

decry land asset sales as privatisation in Opposition and then pretend that selling public land to private developers

is not privatisation in Government, all after their deceptive election campaign on privatisation to come into office

in the first place.

The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions.

Visitors

VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome in the public gallery student leaders from high schools across New South

Wales who are attending the Secondary Schools Student Leadership Program conducted by Parliamentary

Education and Engagement. You are all very welcome to observe question time in the Legislative Council today.

Questions Without Notice

COAL ROYALTIES

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11:00): My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources.

Given the actions of the Queensland Labor Government in increasing coal royalties and calls from her junior

coalition partner The Greens to implement the same approach in New South Wales, will she rule out a similar

increase in royalties for coal, petroleum or other minerals in New South Wales in the 2023-24 budget?

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: My point of order relates to whether the question is calling

for a statement of policy. I understand the way in which it has been phrased but its substantial effect is to require

the Minister to take a policy position, which is not in keeping with the standing orders. I understand that

phraseology matters a lot, but I take the point of order because it is important that the House receives a ruling on

this.

The Hon. Wes Fang: What's the point of order?

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I am sorry if the Deputy Opposition Whip did not hear my point of order.

I will say it again for his sake. My point of order is to do with whether or not the question is calling for a policy

statement from the Minister, which is not in accordance—

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 11

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Wes Fang to order for the first time. Yesterday I made my view

about question time clear, and that stands.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: The question does not debate policy. It was fairly

specific. In view of the calls that have been made and what has occurred in Queensland, is the Minister prepared

to rule out royalty increases in New South Wales?

The PRESIDENT: I am advised that there is no prohibition in the new standing orders of a discussion of

Government policy. The question is in order.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)

(11:02): As noted by the Leader of the Opposition, I have been absent from the proceedings of Parliament this

morning. I was speaking at a critical minerals conference in Sydney for investors from across the country. The

speaker before me was the Queensland Minister for Resources. I note the question from the Leader of the

Opposition about the position of the Queensland Government's initiative to increase royalties on coal companies.

As the Queensland Minister explained to me when I met with him yesterday, that kicks in when the higher prices

for coal come into place.

The Treasurer and I, in my former capacity as the shadow Minister for Natural Resources, took a bipartisan

approach to the election. When we returned to Parliament in December to vote for the coal caps legislation, the

Government, then Minister Toole and the now shadow Minister for Natural Resources all supported that

legislation, which remains in place until 2023-24. We stand by our election commitments and take them seriously.

ENERGY PRICES

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (11:04): My question is addressed to the Minister for Energy. Will the

Minister update the House on the impacts that privatisation has had on electricity bills for New South Wales

households and businesses?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:05): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his

ongoing interest in all things energy related. The Government understands that New South Wales businesses and

households are facing serious challenges with their electricity bills. The recent determination from the Australian

Energy Regulator indicated that there will be price increases of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent for households

and small businesses this year. Without Federal and State government intervention, that could have been almost

double, based on previous projections.

Around 70 per cent of the New South Wales electricity supply comes from coal-fired power stations, many

of which rely on coal supplied by mines that also sell on the international market. The price of coal has reached

unprecedented levels for a range of reasons, including the serious issue of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as

I outlined to the House yesterday. Building more coal- and gas-fired power stations will do nothing to protect

New South Wales households and businesses from unprecedented international prices. That is one reason we are

so committed to getting more renewable energy in the grid to drive down prices over time. That has been made

infinitely harder by the former Government's obsession with privatising New South Wales electricity assets.

Coalition members on the other side of the Chamber gave away control of some of the companies that are

most critical to achieving an orderly transition of our energy sector. Their obsession has made every single part

of it more difficult. Those companies are beholden to private shareholders and not public interest. Let us look at

the record. Eraring Power Station was sold for just $50 million in 2013. Liddell and Bayswater power stations

were sold in 2014. Vales Point Power Station was sold for $1 million in 2015, only to be reportedly resold in 2022

for $200 million. Transgrid was privatised in 2015 just before it became critical to overhaul our transmission

system—such a great decision! Ausgrid was partially privatised in 2016. Endeavour Energy was partially

privatised in 2017. As a result, New South Wales customers are paying more for privatised network businesses,

and we have fewer levers to do the work that must be done.

We must remember that the budget crisis that we are dealing with has also made this harder. We are facing

at least $180 billion of debt left by the former Government, and we have recently discovered $7 billion in hidden

costs. We are doing everything we can from the interventions of the Federal and State governments. Important

energy rebates are also coming, which will be available for households and small businesses. The people of New

South Wales need to ensure they get those rebates if they are eligible. More importantly, members opposite need

to understand that they have made this harder and more expensive, and that is on them.

TOXIC WEEDS

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (11:08): My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, and

Minister for Western New South Wales. Will the Minister inform the House and the farmers in western New

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 12

South Wales whose stock and livelihood are under threat from Hudson pear whether the New South Wales

Government is committed to the full rollout of the $2.6 million control program announced in December 2022?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:08): I thank the member for her question. It is a great question.

We made biosecurity a key platform of our election commitments. It is a key priority for me as the Minister and

it is a key priority for this Government. Biosecurity is an important issue. Farmers across New South Wales,

including across western New South Wales, face biosecurity threats.

The Hon. Sam Farraway: Saved by the notes.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I don't need the notes. The National Party does not seem to be interested

in hearing the answer to the question that it just asked—which is pretty typical for these kinds of proceedings—

but the people in western New South Wales are listening to the answer. I will be visiting them next week. I am

sure the National Party will have plenty of questions about my movements, the dinners I go to and who I meet

with. I am happy to disclose all of that once I return from my travels. Next week I am heading to western New

South Wales and I will be meeting with farmers.

The Hon. Sam Farraway: Making the trip.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I have made several trips to western New South Wales since I have been

Minister. The National Party is well aware of that because it likes to track my movements every day, which is

really exciting for me. I am going to western New South Wales next week and I will be speaking to farmers about

exactly this issue. Biosecurity is a key priority for me as the Minister. That is why we have said that we need a

biosecurity commission and an independent biosecurity commissioner. The National Party did not deal with this.

The previous Government refused to deal with this. The previous Government put no money into defeating weeds,

particularly this weed in western New South Wales.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: I have been listening closely to the Minister's answer. I asked

her a very specific question in relation to the $2.6 million control program that was funded last year and whether

the Government would continue with that program, specifically for hudson pear. I would like an answer to my

question.

The PRESIDENT: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is right. The scope of the question was quite

limited. The Minister was being relevant, but I now instruct her to be directly relevant to the limited scope of the

question.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: We committed money to deal with biosecurity, particularly weeds,

during the election campaign. That will be factored into the budget that we are currently considering. As I have

said, the previous Government did not put money into defeating the issue.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: We did. The $2.6 million. Are you going to spend it?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: Certainly not enough of it. It is not even going to scratch the surface.

[Opposition members interjected.]

The PRESIDENT: The House will come to order.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: It gives me no joy at all to witness the demise of the once-great political

party that was the National Party in New South Wales.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The Minister has a habit of going way off track when she is

under pressure. I am not interested in a history lesson about the National Party. I have been a member for many

years and I do not need it. What I do need is an answer to my question about a $2.6 million program that was

funded by the previous Government. Will the Government continue it: yes or no?

The PRESIDENT: The Minister has the call.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: It was the party of Leon Punch, Wal Murray, Duncan Gay and Ian

Armstrong. The once-great National Party is now just the Barilaro rump. It is just team Barilaro.

The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Point of order: I refer directly to the point of order made by the Deputy Leader

of the Opposition less than one minute ago. It is obvious that there are prepared lines, but we need the question

answered.

The PRESIDENT: And, in fact, that is my previous ruling.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 13

The Hon. Mark Latham: To the point of order: The capacity of the Minister to be relevant is relative to

the interjections and the wall of noise that she faces every time she tries to provide the answer. Sometimes the

noise is so loud and distracting that the Minister engages in responding to it. It is hard for a Minister to be relevant

unless the National Party is silent.

The PRESIDENT: It is difficult for me to determine whether the Minister is being relevant unless I can

hear what the Minister is saying. In future I will be far less likely to listen to points of order about direct relevance

if I cannot hear the Minister. That having been said, the Hon. Bronnie Taylor was correct in her implication that

direct relevance was not there. I encourage the Minister to be directly relevant to the specific scope of the question.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I note the sensitivities of the Barilaro brigade across from me. I take

weeds very seriously. This Government takes weeds seriously. That is why I will meet with farmers in western

New South Wales next week. I will report back to the House upon my return in the next sitting period.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (11:14): I ask a supplementary question. In her response, the Minister

said that she takes weeds very seriously. I would like her to elucidate on that point and confirm that the

$2.6 million control program that was funded last year will continue.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a supplementary question. That is merely a repetition of the original

question.

FIREARMS LICENCES

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (11:14): My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture,

representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism. Is the Minister aware of the increasing number of

applications by the Commissioner of NSW Police Force under section 59 of the Administrative Decisions Review

Act and section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to withhold evidence from firearms licence

applicants in cases brought before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal? Tribunal members have

acknowledged that making an order under section 64 effectively results in a denial of procedural fairness. What

is the Minister going to do to ensure legal licensed shooters get a fair hearing and natural justice?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:15): I thank the member for his question. As it is directed to

the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism—who resides in the other House—I will take it on notice. I will

speak to the Minister and get a proper answer. I will bring it back to the House in due course.

STOCKTON BEACH

The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Emily Suvaal. I congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech last

night.

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (11:16): Thank you, Mr President. My question without notice is directed

to the Minister for Regional New South Wales. Will the Minister provide an update on the status of the Stockton

Beach Taskforce and its role in addressing sand erosion at Stockton Beach.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:16): I thank the honourable member for her question and her

local and ongoing interest in the matter. I acknowledge the importance of the issue for the long-suffering

community of Stockton. Stockton Beach is affected by significant coastal erosion. That erosion has not been

properly managed; the former Government did not resolve the issue. The Stockton Beach Taskforce was

established in 2020, but it met infrequently. It was chaired by the then Deputy Premier and was responsible for

solutions for coastal erosion issues on Stockton Beach. The task force has been hindered in its efforts by the

inaction of the previous Government. Our Government inherited a project that has been stuck in the too-hard

basket for too long, but we are now taking decisive action.

Unlike my predecessors, I am committed to finding a solution for Stockton Beach—a solution where acute

coastal erosion is finally resolved. I have now directed my department to lead the Stockton Beach project to find

a lasting solution. I have asked the department to work closely with the Stockton Beach Taskforce to provide local

advice and offer a community perspective on the urgent repair works. As part of the new agreement, NSW Public

Works will be retained as a project manager for the restoration works. It has already progressed necessary

environmental approvals; worked with the Port of Newcastle to understand and finalise dredging boundaries,

approvals and licenses; undertaken market soundings and prepared tenders for initial dredging works. That work

is vital to the Department of Planning and Environment's rollout of the New South Wales Government's

$21 billion election commitment to fix Stockton Beach.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 14

The renewal project is finally gaining momentum after years of neglect under those opposite. They had

two Deputy Premiers. Deputy Premier Barilaro was responsible for this, but was not able to make any progress.

It was then handed over to the most recent Deputy Premier, Mr Toole, who was also unable to make any progress.

The community of Stockton and the community across the region are beyond frustrated with the lack of action.

I will take action by chairing the task force, making sure that action is taken for the beach and rectifying the issues

facing that community.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (11:18): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance. The

PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC] scandal unfolding in the Federal Parliament has seen the Federal Minister for

Finance issue a standdown directive to implicated PwC staff and issue new advice to Government officials that

they must consider past behaviour and ethical conduct of an organisation when tendering for Government

contracts, widely interpreted as a de facto ban on future contracts being awarded to PwC. This morning the

Reserve Bank of Australia has also announced a ban on new contracts being awarded to PwC. Will the Minister

for Finance follow the lead of her Federal counterpart and direct all agencies to consider past ethical and

confidentiality breaches when awarding new consultancy contracts, remove PwC from the prequalified

Performance and Management Services Scheme and conduct an audit of current ongoing contracts to determine

the exposure of the New South Wales Government to potentially untrustworthy consulting agencies and partners?

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)

(11:20): I thank the honourable member for her question on this important issue. At the outset, I pay tribute to

our Federal Senate counterparts, particularly the Labor Senator for New South Wales, Deborah O'Neill. As

members of the upper House we often toil away for long periods on very important and significant issues which

can take some time to make it to the front pages. This one has had a huge lead time. I pay tribute to the huge

amount of work that has been done at a Federal level through the Senate over many years and many inquiries.

The member may not be aware but I answered a question on this specific issue in the House last week.

There was an article in the Australian Financial Review last week that I believe said that the work that New South

Wales and I were doing with Revenue NSW was a first mover advantage. We were the first State to see this

scandal unfolding at a Federal level and took action. The Government is appalled at the breach of trust that has

been shown in this particular arrangement. We think that confidentiality agreements are fundamentally important

to the way that we work. There is an important distinction that I made last week in the House and I will make

again, that at a State Government level we particularly engage with peak organisations when we consult on tax

measures. That means that we engage with The Tax Institute or the Property Council of Australia. We have

confidentiality agreements with the individuals involved but we engage with them in their stakeholder capacity,

rather than a private company.

The member's question particularly referenced whether the Government would consider banning PwC.

Even the Federal Finance Minister has said that would be legally difficult. I have reviewed the Federal

Government's updated procurement guidelines that were released last Friday and that is certainly part of the

considerations of the legislation that I hope to bring to the House, in addition to multimillion-dollar fines to

individuals, corporations and organisations who engage in behaviour that breaches those kind of confidential

agreements. The Government takes very seriously the security and the data that we hold on behalf of the people

of New South Wales and we will prosecute those who breach that important confidence.

HEALTH SERVICES UNION INDUSTRIAL ACTION

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (11:23): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health.

What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that mental health patients receiving service at Westmead Hospital,

including pregnant women and new mothers in the new Mother and Baby Unit, are not adversely impacted by the

industrial action being taken today by the Health Services Union?

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (11:23): I thank the

honourable member for her question. I am extremely concerned, as the entire Government is, to make sure that

anyone who receives any form of health services in our State is able to do so with full access to the best quality

care that they can get from our paramedics, nurses and doctors at every facility. I understand that there is an

ongoing dispute about some matters that obviously fall outside my portfolio. Regarding the areas within my

portfolio, I am meeting with the Health Services Union [HSU] today to discuss a range of matters in relation to

how we can work together to ensure that they as health professionals and me as the Minister for Mental Health

have an open and collaborative relationship.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 15

There are issues with paramedics and their experience supporting people who are having mental illness

episodes. We want to make sure that individuals who have mental crisis moments are well supported by our

paramedics. We also want to make sure that our paramedics who are supporting people, who are often

experiencing real difficulty, are trained to de-escalate the situation. That is an issue. There are a range of issues

around allied health professionals working in hospitals with people who are suffering mental illness. I will be

talking to the HSU about all those matters to ensure that if they have concerns about the paramedics or the allied

health workers working in our hospitals or ambulances that they represent and that they know the New South

Wales Government is open to hear from them about the support that they need. I am also making clear to them

that as they do their work, of course we have expectations about the full provision of quality service from our

health workers every hour of every day, whether it is in an ambulance or hospital.

As has been said many times before, the Government is interested in dialogue. We are interested in talking,

whether it is with representatives of the union movement or other stakeholders. We will sit down and talk. We

will not always agree and there will be disputes and disagreements but we will sit down and talk. That is exactly

what I am doing with the HSU today to ensure that if there are any issues about the work that they are doing or

the work that I am doing we are providing the best quality mental health in the State and we are working together

on that. I am looking forward to that conversation. There will probably be disagreements and there will probably

be some collaboration, but that is the way to do good government and that is the way to do good policy.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (11:26): I thank the Minister for her previous answer and ask a

supplementary question. What plans of further industrial action by the Health Services Union is the Minister aware

of and what steps are being taken to protect the wellbeing of mental health patients in New South Wales to bring

an end to what is the second year of the strike?

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (11:26): I have absolutely

no idea what further plans for industrial action the Health Services Union [HSU] has. Maybe they will lay them

out for me when I meet with them. I would not expect them to. I will show them the respect that they deserve as

the representatives of thousands of people who work on the front line in our health sector. I am pleased to be

meeting with them but I have absolutely no idea what their plans are. To be honest, that is not my focus. My focus

is how does the Government ensure that every day, every hour we provide the best quality health facilities, in

particular in the mental health area, to people who require our services. I am very focused on that outcome.

I meet with absolutely everyone who is keen to discuss that. I am meeting with the nurses and midwives

next week to have a similar conversation. I want to make sure that we de-escalate conflict. The way to do that is

to talk, not to throw barbs through the media and use inflammatory language about the role of unions who

represent thousands of people working on the front line. It is not about taking petty pot shots. Grown up

government is about sitting down, having open dialogue and working through issues, not pretending we are going

to agree every day but showing the respect of turning up and having the conversation.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: Point of order: Is the Minister actually saying expressly to the House that

members on this side are taking petty pot shots by asking questions and making comments? I ask that the Minister

withdraw that.

The Hon. Rose Jackson: I was saying that's how you ran government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Unfortunately, I could not hear what the Minister was saying because of the

barrage of interjections from the Opposition.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: No, Mr President. What the Minister said was we were taking petty pot shots

and were immature and I ask that she withdraw that.

The PRESIDENT: If there is a point of order I do not uphold it because I could not hear what the Minister

was saying. The point is, I ask members on all sides of the Chamber not to interject because it is unparliamentary

and against the standing orders.

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: For the purpose of clarification, I was not suggesting that asking legitimate

questions about how our mental health services operate is taking petty pot shots. I was suggesting that is how

those opposite ran government. I was suggesting that they would throw around terms like "union thugs" when

talking about nurses, paramedics and people who clean our hospitals. That is not the kind of language that I use.

I sit down and talk respectfully. It is not about agreeing every time; it is about having the conversation. That is

exactly what I am doing today. That is exactly what I am going to keep doing and what all members of the

Government are going to keep doing.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 16

STATE DEBT

The Hon. BOB NANVA (11:29): My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the

Treasurer advise the House about the risk that $128.7 billion in debt this year, or $187.5 billion in debt in 2026,

poses to the New South Wales budget?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:29): I thank the honourable member for his question.

He is quite right to point out that the Government inherited $128 billion in gross debt upon coming to office,

which is the most debt that any incoming government has inherited in the history of New South Wales. What is

really interesting is that the debt is not building up as the result of a pandemic, because $60 billion of it is due to

be borrowed in the next three years. The member is quite right in pointing out that in just a few years we will be

borrowing $187 billion in gross debt from our children and our grandchildren—some of whom are present in the

public gallery. Hello!

I am pretty determined to get to the bottom of what exactly the debt is being used for, because debt has its

place in public sector balance management. Debt that expands our productive capacity is good. But I am looking

forward to digging deeper into what exactly it is we are borrowing from our children and our grandchildren and

how we are spending it, and I look forward to providing further updates to the House in due season. I can inform

the member about the risk that New South Wales will be soon paying more in interest than it does to fund the

entire NSW Police Force. By 2026 the State will be paying its bondholders $6.8 billion in interest. That is the

equivalent of 15 per cent of every dollar we raise in direct taxation. Every cent we are spending paying our

creditors is a cent we are not investing in our kids' education, in health care for our citizens—

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: That's where it has gone, you goose.

The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition just referred to the Treasurer

as a goose. I suggest that he withdraw that comment. It is absolutely unparliamentary. It is not an appropriate way

to refer to a Minister of the Crown.

The PRESIDENT: I make two points on that matter. First, the Treasurer did not seem to find the comment

unduly offensive—I note the extraordinarily large smile on his face. Secondly, on the list of the many offensive

terms I have heard in this place, "goose" is right down the bottom.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: To be frank, Mr President, I have been called worse by my own side!

We need to stabilise the debt levels of this State. That is a hard challenge for the Government. We are going to be

up-front, calm and methodical, but it starts with telling the truth about the situation we inherited. That side of the

House privatised our assets and blew the budgets on major infrastructure projects, then ran up the debt on our

credit cards, which means we have a big challenge ahead of us to stabilise our position. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the next speaker, I note my previous comment that the way for a member

to seek the call is to stand in their place and say "Mr President" rather than to walk to the lectern. I also reflect on

the Treasurer's jaunty hello to those in the public gallery. I welcome to the Parliament those student leaders from

high schools across New South Wales who are attending the Secondary Schools Student Leadership Program

conducted by the Parliamentary Education Unit.

POLICE TASER USE

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (11:34): My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, in her capacity

representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism. There have been incredibly concerning media reports

that the TASER X26Ps currently in use by police, which have an integrated camera, are being replaced with

TASER 7s, which do not have an integrated camera. I understand that the previous model of taser has been

discontinued. But why, when the accountability of New South Wales police is in the spotlight, was a model of

taser that does not have an in-built camera chosen to replace the old model? How much will it cost New South

Wales residents for police to acquire the new, inadequate TASER 7s and develop a holster activation device to

ensure that body-worn video is activated when tasers are deployed?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:35): I thank the member for her very detailed question. I do

represent the police Minister in this House but, given the detailed nature of the question, I want to get a proper

answer from the Minister. I will undertake to do so and bring it back to the Chamber.

ENMORE PARK

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (11:35): My question is directed to the Minister for

Homelessness. What steps is the Minister taking to help those currently living in Enmore Park in what has been

dubbed a "working homeless tent city"?

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 17

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (11:35): I thank the

honourable member for the question. I welcome the student leaders to the Chamber. It does not seem like that

long ago—although, sadly, it was—that I was a high school student leader from Newtown High School of the

Performing Arts sitting in the public gallery. I hope those students aspire to a career in public office and one day

can be answering questions in the Chamber.

The issue of the increasing number of people living in tent cities, sleeping in cars and sleeping in caravans

is incredibly concerning. We are seeing an increase in homelessness right now and it is being driven by the housing

crisis, the rental crisis and the inaction of the previous Government to take the steps necessary to stem the

completely unsustainable levels of rent increases and decreases in social housing. So what have I done about it?

I have already frozen the sale of public housing. We were haemorrhaging public housing at an incredibly rapid

rate. A lot of the people who are experiencing homelessness right now, living in tents and living in cars—

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: I take a point of order regarding relevance. I asked

specifically about the people and families living in tents in Enmore Park. What is the Minister doing to assist those

people?

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: For the member opposite not to understand that there is a relationship

between declining levels of public housing and increasing homelessness is perhaps part of the reason the situation

has become so bad. The reality is that for many of the people who are currently experiencing homelessness, like

those people living in Enmore Park, the long-term housing solution is public housing. That is the solution they

need. The idea that those people are going to successfully transition into the private rental market at this point,

considering the crisis in that market, is unrealistic and unreasonable. We need more public housing to solve

homelessness, so I have frozen the sale of public housing. I have taken steps to initiate "Homes NSW", a single,

centralised agency, to put social housing at the heart of our Government. I have extended specialist homelessness

services contracts by two years to provide continuity and security for the very organisations that do assertive

outreach in places like Enmore Park to connect those people with the crisis accommodation and transitional

housing that they need.

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: I asked specifically what the Minister is doing to

assist those people in tents. If the Minister has done nothing or is unaware of what her department has done,

I suggest she takes the question on notice.

The PRESIDENT: The Minister is being directly relevant. I call the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones to

order for the first time.

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: These are the specific steps that I have taken to assist people who are

currently homeless. I have extended the funding contracts for the non-government specialist homelessness service

providers that conduct assertive outreaches in places like Enmore Park and across our city and regions. I have

suspended the rental seeker diary for people accessing temporary accommodation. When someone becomes

homeless, calls Link2home and moves into temporary accommodation, one reason for that accommodation

failing—and people ending up living in tents and cars—is because of things like the punitive and cruel rental

seeker diary, which the previous Government kept in place for 10 years. I have taken a range of specific and direct

actions to try to alleviate the homelessness situation that was created as the direct result of the previous

Government's inaction. [Time expired.]

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (11:39): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister

assure the House that no children or young people are living in those tents?

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (11:39): I will take on

notice the details of the people who are living in that situation. Obviously, there are privacy concerns relating to

the people who are experiencing homelessness right now. I do not intend to provide a detailed run-down of the

individual family circumstances of every person experiencing homelessness in New South Wales. That is not

appropriate in an open and public chamber like this Parliament. If the member is genuinely concerned, I will

happily brief her, privately and confidentially.

Everyone living in that situation is a real person, and they do not need their personal circumstances dragged

through this Chamber as some kind of petty political pointscoring. They are desperate people who have often been

subjected to no-grounds evictions from private rentals. We are getting rid of that. They have been living in rentals

where they cannot pay the increased rents, and we are doing something about that. As a result of those

circumstances, they have ended up homeless. It is tragic and heartbreaking. It is unacceptable that thousands more

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 18

people—including children, women leaving domestic violence and older women—are experiencing homelessness

in this State. It is tragic, and it is unacceptable. I have outlined the range of actions that I have taken in the eight

weeks that I have been the Minister. But I will not allow those real human beings to be dragged through this

Chamber as some kind of political-pointscoring football by those opposite.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: Point of order: The Minister is making a reflection on another member in this

place. I ask that she withdraw those comments framing a serious question in this Chamber as petty political

pointscoring and denigrating the member's question. The member has been elected to this place and is entitled to

ask a question. She has an obligation to hold this Government to account and is doing her job. I ask that the

Minister withdraw that derisory comment and confine her comments to answering the question.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: There is absolutely no point of order. If we had to

withdraw every single time we talked about petty pointscoring, we would spend a lot of time withdrawing and not

dealing with substantive matters.

The PRESIDENT: I do not uphold the point of order. As I have stated a number of times since taking the

chair, all members are required to be respectful of each other. I ask members to bear that in mind. The Minister

may continue in the remaining seconds.

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I have finished my answer.

LIGHTNING RIDGE AND WHITE CLIFFS OPAL MINING

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (11:42): My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural

Resources. Will the Minister update the House on the small-scale titles validation program in Lightning Ridge

and White Cliffs?

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)

(11:43): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his ongoing interest in and advocacy on this

important issue. The question pertains to the opal mining validation program that I announced last week, which

has occurred directly because of legislative reform undertaken by the former resources Minister, the member for

Lane Cove, in 2015.

The matter concerns small-scale titles claims issued to opal miners which have been found to have been

invalid for eight years. That has created high tension and distress in the communities of Lightning Ridge and

White Cliffs ahead of the peak opal mining season. A review by the Mining, Exploration and Geoscience division

of the Department of Regional NSW uncovered more than 3,000 mineral claims affecting 827 opal miners at

Lightning Ridge and 31 in White Cliffs. Dozens of landholders across the regions are also affected. This is just

one part of the previous Government's legacy.

It speaks volumes about the carelessness and laziness of the previous Government, which has dudded

miners and landholders alike. Members opposite are understandably angry and upset about the issue, but I ask for

calm as mining officials work through reissuing those licences. Representatives of the mining division of Regional

NSW are currently on the ground, consulting and working with miners and landholders. They have issued a range

of communications to inform those communities of next steps. They held face-to-face meetings with landholders

on Monday and with about 600 miners on Tuesday. Engagement with miners' associations and landholders is

ongoing. It is a mammoth undertaking by the department. I will visit Lightning Ridge next week. I am incredulous

at the neglect of the previous Government, particularly of the people of regional New South Wales, the very

citizens that the National Party pretends to represent. We are striving to make it right.

[Opposition members interjected.]

I note the interjections of those opposite and would be interested to know about what representations the

Hon. Bronnie Taylor made—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I bring the Minister back to the question at hand.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: In that regard, I thank the member for Barwon and his team. They

have been steadfast and effective in assisting those communities. I also thank the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, who is

based in Dubbo, for his advice and his efforts, particularly in reaching out to the community on the ground.

Understandably, there is great distress among the miners and more broadly across the community because of the

importance of opal mining to those parts of the State. Next week the honourable member will visit Lightning

Ridge with me and the member for Barwon.

Again I say sorry to the communities of Lightning Ridge and White Cliffs for the disruption that has

occurred. My focus and our department's focus remains on getting miners back onto their leases as soon as

possible. We will clean up this mess that we have been left with. We will work closely with the community. We

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 19

will ensure that we get the miners back onto their leases as soon as possible and that a review of opal mining and

small-scale titles occurs.

NATIONAL WOMEN'S RUGBY LEAGUE

Dr AMANDA COHN (11:46): My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for

Sport. Since 2022, Queensland Rugby League has provided equal remuneration for all players representing the

Queensland Maroons. Meanwhile, in New South Wales women representing the Sky Blues are paid less than half

the earnings of their male counterparts. That deliberate pay discrepancy would not be acceptable in any other

sector. The 2022 Rugby League World Cup provided equal payment to all its elite sportspeople, including women

and wheelchair players. Will the New South Wales Government use its influence with New South Wales Rugby

League to close the gender pay gap so that I can barrack for New South Wales next year?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:47): I thank Dr Cohn for her question. Like many

members of the House, we are looking forward—

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Is that a maroon tie?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: No. I take offence at that. I will be called a goose and a gander, but I

will not be called a Maroons supporter under any scenario in this House. I demand that that be withdrawn.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: So you're not a cane toad.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: You are not a cane toad; you might be a goose.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I am not definitely not a cane toad. As I was saying, all members look

forward to Dr Cohn's inaugural speech tonight. I cannot help but observe her scarf right now, which goes to the

point she is making. The member has asked me this question in my capacity as representing the Minister for Sport,

so I will take it on notice. But she raises a good point. For a long time inequity related to gender has existed in the

way in which professional sportspeople have been treated. That requires addressing by all major and minor

sporting codes.

I understand that Dr Amanda Cohn and Ms Abigail Boyd have campaigned on this for a long time. We are

well and truly alive to the fact that progress needs to be made, and I will provide a formal response as to whether

we intend to engage with the NRL on this issue. I can say the Government uses every part of its influence to

encourage the equal treatment of all people at work. We have to reverse the effects of gender inequity, especially

on pay and remuneration, for sportspeople, public servants and private sector workers. It is pleasing that it is a

key part of the Federal Government's reforms to the Fair Work Act. It is pleasing that, in women's sports

especially, organising and unionising has been leading to change. That is a good thing. We take this issue very

seriously. Progress needs to be made. I will come back to the House with a far more detailed and specific answer.

TAXI INDUSTRY

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (11:50): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, representing

the Minister for Transport. Under the Minister's proposed crackdown on rogue taxi drivers, how many times will

a driver be allowed to unlawfully engage passengers by overcharging or leaving vulnerable people on the street

by denying them carriage before their taxi licence is taken away? Is it twice, three times or 10 times?

The Hon. Mark Latham: Put me onto it. Direct action!

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Ask the expert on taxi drivers over here. He has the remedy on how to deal

with that problem.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,

Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (11:50): I acknowledge the interjections of the Hon. Mark Latham and the Hon. Damien Tudehope. I thank the honourable

member for her question. I congratulate her on her reappointment to the role of shadow Minister. I expressed my

disappointment to the House that she had been reappointed, given the good work she has been doing. I had hoped

she had been moved to another portfolio but that has not happened.

This question is directed to the Minister for Transport, so I will take some of the details of the question on

notice. It deals with the very serious problem of taxi drivers who are not turning the meter on and doing the right

thing as they move around our city. It is an important time to deal with it as we are about to welcome thousands

of visitors to our city for the FIFA Women's World Cup. We do not want them flying into Sydney Airport then

having their first experience being their worst experience of feeling as if they are being taken for a ride.

The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: That was a pun!

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 20

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: There are more where that came from. There is an hour and 10 minutes to

come. If the House would like to test me on that, Mr President, I ask that you pause the clock. But it is a serious

issue. I have been pleased to see the Minister for Transport on the front foot tackling this issue for the passengers

and the tourists, but most of all for the good taxi drivers. Most of the hardworking men and women who move

people around our city are doing the right thing. The few people doing the wrong thing are damaging the reputation

of the good people, as well as our city's reputation around the world. This is a serious issue and I am glad that the

member raised it. I do not support the proposition that the Hon. Mark Latham put that one should take direct

action. That sometimes happens but it should not. It is important that the Government takes a strong stand on this

matter. The member has asked about specific details, so I will obtain an answer from the Minister and return it to

the House.

JOHN OLSEN

The Hon. SARAH KAINE (11:53): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Arts.

Will the Minister advise the House on how the State bid farewell to one of the country's greatest painters, John

Olsen, on Monday?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,

Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (11:53): In the South

Building of the Art Gallery of NSW, across the Domain, hangs the masterpiece Five Bells. It was painted in 1963

in a house in Watsons Bay, not far from the edge of Sydney Harbour by a young dad. Each morning that painter

would play with his children in the rock pools of those eastern suburbs coves, talking with them about life, its

creatures and the universe beyond, before heading back to work. The painting's core theme, as John Olsen

recounted in 1999, is "the seed-burst, the life-burst, the sea-harbour, the source of life". He drew from Kenneth

Slessor's poem of the same name with surprising joy. He said, "I wanted to show the harbour as a movement …

I am in the sea-harbour, and the sea-harbour is in me."

Olsen was an artist who not only coloured in our nation's forms but redefined the contours that they were

allowed to take. His spirit was as brave as his line was playful. In 1963, when Olsen's salute to Slessor's Five Bells

was painted, the roof shells of the Opera House had barely begun to rise at Bennelong Point. A decade later, the

mural was included in what would become Australia's preeminent cultural landmark and an architectural icon of

global significance. On Monday this week the Art Gallery of NSW, the very site where Olsen had won two Wynne

prizes, a Sulman Prize and an Archibald Prize—where he had been so ubiquitous in life, where he had angrily

protested and boisterously revelled—served as the fitting venue for a State memorial, bestowed upon him jointly

by a grateful nation and a proud State.

On Friday evening last week the thirteenth Vivid began. The lights went on and Olsen's life's work and

enduring vision transformed the very harbour that had given his spirit such inspiration. In life John Olsen

beautifully depicted the Australian landscape and, on his passing, our harbour landscape depicted Olsen. I cannot

think of a more fitting tribute to this amazing artist. I am sure the hundreds of thousands of people who flocked

to the opening of Vivid agreed. It has been a record year. Attendance is up 4 per cent already on last year.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (11:56): My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change, Minister

for Energy, and Minister for the Environment. Bodies like the Australian Energy Regulator understand that, as

part of their commitment to net zero by 2050, governments must replace natural gas, a fossil fuel, with

low-emissions technology. For example, the Victorian Government has recently modelled a 50 per cent reduction

in gas use by 2030 to help achieve its net zero target. Will the Minister commit to modelling at least a 50 per cent

reduction in gas use by 2030 and the associated savings for households and businesses in New South Wales as

part of development of the gas decarbonisation road map that the Labor Party committed to before the election?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:57): I thank the honourable member for her question and her

ongoing interest in this matter. The short answer is that we are working on all those matters, including what is

sometimes known as electrification and sometimes talked about as gas decarbonisation. The issue is that, under

the current modelling and the net zero figures obtained from the previous Government, the models tell us that

around 1.5 million households will need to convert their gas appliances to appliances that use other forms of

energy by 2050. It is a big task and there is a lot of work to be done.

I acknowledge the incredible work done by people like Professor Saul Griffith. I recommend reading his

book Electrify, which breaks down the incredibly complex decisions that households need to make and how

government and others can assist them so we can make the transition as quickly as possible. We will address that

and part of it will happen as a result of the establishment of our net zero commission. I expect that the net zero

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 21

commission legislation will come to the Parliament by the end the year. The whole role of the commission is to

outline the work that needs to occur across all sectors to ensure that we get to net zero.

We cannot just say that we are going to get to net zero and wish that it will happen. It will take a lot of

planning and work. It took several decades for Parliament to reach this level of agreement on the need for action

on climate change. Labor will legislate its net zero commitments and targets. We must move beyond individual

Ministers and governments and provide the people of New South Wales with a commitment and a plan on how

we are going to get to net zero. The net zero commission will do that work. It will be independent; it will provide

information to the Parliament annually; and it will produce the five-year plans. Essential to that system will be its

work helping households move away from gas. But we must continue to make the point that the transition will be

bumpy. We must keep an eye on social justice and equity, as there are households that simply cannot afford to

make the transition. We must work to avoid a situation in which households are left behind in deserts, reliant on

fossil fuels, without proper support. I thank the member for her question. I look forward to further updating the

House as we continue down the path to net zero.

The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice.

Supplementary Questions for Written Answers

ENMORE PARK

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (12:00): I direct my supplementary question for written

answer to the Minister for Homelessness. Will the Minister advise the House on when the outreach team she

referred to in her answer visited the Enmore Park tent city, and what action was taken to assist those people living

in tents?

Questions Without Notice: Take Note

TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move:

That the House take note of answers to questions.

STATE DEBT

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:00): I take note of the answer given by the Treasurer to a question

on the State's level of debt. His answer would give the people of this State no comfort in his ability to manage the

economy. It is acknowledged that the State has significant debt in connection with a variety of issues that have

arisen. But prior to the COVID pandemic the former Government was running budget surpluses and was debt

free. Surely the Treasurer does not take the view that the former Government should not have borrowed money

to ensure that small businesses throughout the State could survive the pandemic. If one compares this State's

performance and level of borrowing with other States, the former Government ensured the recovery from the

pandemic was, in many respects, the best managed of any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. The Treasurer seeks

to highlight that Labor would not have engaged in that level of expenditure, which is ridiculous.

My second point is that the Treasurer never makes the distinction between good debt and bad debt. In

crafting one's rhetoric around debt, it is important to start from the premise of whether or not to borrow money

for worthwhile outcomes. The Treasurer does not say that money borrowed for the purposes of increasing

productivity or the State's asset value is good debt. In speaking about debt, the Treasurer should start by listing

the projects of the previous Government that have improved the lives of the people of this State. He should outline

the hospitals that were either built or renovated during the term of the previous Government. He should list the

schools that were either built or renovated by the previous Government. In presiding over record levels of

unemployment, which is increasing, the Treasurer must not become the cheerleader for unemployment. He should

congratulate the former Government on borrowing money to improve the outcomes for the people of this State.

STATE DEBT

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (12:04): I take note of the answer given by the Treasurer to a question on debt

and deficit. I echo many of the same views of the Leader of the Opposition. It is important to remember that New

South Wales is the only State with a triple-A credit rating. If the debt and deficit was so bad in New South Wales

compared to all of the other Labor States—and some of them have been in power for a very long time—why have

the ratings agencies given the State triple-A credit ratings? They have done so because the Coalition did a good

job in its 12 years in power to manage the budget and the State's finances. Compare that with all of the other

States. As I mentioned, in some cases they have been held by Labor for a very long time. In particular, Labor has

been in power in Victoria for almost as long as the Coalition had been in power in New South Wales. During that

time the Victorian Labor Government clocked up a huge amount of debt in comparison to New South Wales. That

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 22

is because Labor cannot manage its finances, as is quite typical of Labor governments. Over the past 12 years the

Coalition built double the amount of infrastructure with half as much debt as Labor has achieved in Victoria.

Looking to the next four years—and the Opposition will look carefully at the new Government—the easiest

way for Labor to keep expenses under control is to have a wage cap. When in power, the previous Labor

Government did not have a wages cap. Expenses ballooned out of control to the extent that it could not build

essential infrastructure, which led to huge debt and deficit. Do not just take my word for it; take the word of Frank

Sartor. I do not quote him often, but it is a very good quote from his autobiography. He wrote:

A very significant economic rent was being paid to NSW public sector workers. This annual extra cost severely restricted the

government's capacity to fund vital infrastructure projects, such as new rail links.

It seems the new Labor Government is going to make all of the same mistakes as the previous Labor Government

by abolishing the wages cap, which will lead to huge debt and deficit and ensure that no new infrastructure projects

are ever delivered because of that huge economic rent that must be paid. My word of advice is this: The easiest

budget cut one will ever make is the stuff that one never gets into.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (12:07): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance on the

unfolding PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC] tax leak scandal, which has brought into stark light the fraught nature

of our increasing reliance on multinational consultancy firms. That relationship is allegedly grounded in trust, but

that was discarded in the selfish pursuit of private profit. In response to my question the Minister said that an

answer was provided last week, but I asked also whether she would remove PwC from the pre-qualification

scheme. Under the scheme the New South Wales Government endorses the trustworthiness of corporations that

are accredited. In light of the appalling breaches of trust that are playing out federally, it seems like a small step

to at least impose a minor additional oversight requirement before new contracts can be signed with PwC, which

is operating under a cloud of scandal. Instead, the Government has maintained PwC's pre-qualification status and

is essentially waving it through the door and into the Government coffers.

More broadly, we must reconsider our fundamental relationship with consulting agencies, which have

taken over vast swathes of core government functions in recent years. According to the Auditor-General's report

entitled NSW Government agencies' use of consultants, published on 2 March 2023, New South Wales government

agencies have disclosed $1 billion in consultant engagements over the past five years. The Auditor-General found

that New South Wales government agencies do not procure and manage consultants effectively, lack a strategic

approach to when and how consultants are used—and these engagements were not evaluated or assessed for

quality—and also that engagements were increasingly concentrated among the big four consultancy firms,

producing strategic risks. Over a billion dollars of public money has been spent on consultants in the past five

years, and what do we have to show for it? We have drained our public sector of agency, motivation and

experience, while chaining ourselves to costly private consultants. Consultants and contractors are creeping their

way into the core functions of government, infantilising and enfeebling our public sector and setting us up to

become increasingly dependent on their services in the future. We desperately need to reorient our relationship

with massive mega-profiting consultancy agencies. Over a decade of conservative rule in New South Wales and

four decades of free market ideology has infantilised our public sector and emboldened successive governments

to embark upon mass privatisation by stealth.

There has been much discourse around privatisation in the recent election, and even more in recent weeks

in the Chamber. That discourse is well overdue. Recent reports, including from the Auditor-General show that the

rot runs deep and that 12 years of conservative Liberal-Nationals Government rule has seen core functions of our

government sold off to shameless hacks. What use is a government that does not have a vision and that does not

want to lead or deliver for the people. The Liberal-Nationals Government came to see its role as the facilitator and

enabler-in-chief, the bottomless pit and financial backstop for a parasitic private sector that trades on swagger and

bravado and denigrates the value of hardworking public servants. It is not too late to turn the ship around.

ENERGY PRICES

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (12:09): I take note of the answer given to my question on the impacts

of privatisation on electricity bills. The Minister gave a very thorough answer about the effects of privatisation.

I reiterate the abject failure of the policy of Opposition members when they were in government in respect of

energy privatisation. In somewhat contradictory fashion to their philosophy of the free market, ironically the

people who back in the free market and competition transferred public monopoly wealth into private monopoly

hands by progressively selling off both ends of the market, the supply side and the generation side, including

generators like Vales Point and Eraring. The Treasurer, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, enlightened members on some

of the value for money the poor old New South Wales taxpayer got with the sale of Vales Point for $1 million.

Years later the private sector sold that asset off for $200 million. Is there a worse deal in history?

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 23

The doyens of the free market transferred monopoly assets into private hands, which has created restriction

and control. Prices have gone up, and companies like Energy Australia and Origin Energy monopolised the retail

market too. Between retail and generation, market concentration is probably of the order of 80 per cent to 90 per

cent, which means the poor old consumer is not benefiting from competition at all. They are being price gouged

from the supply and the retail sides. Meanwhile, in the middle, the previous Government also sold off the

transmission and distribution assets so that the State has no control over that either. The only way those

shareholders make money is to get rid of staff hand over fist, which is why prices have gone up and reliability has

gone down.

If the State still owned those assets, not only would we be able to control prices and prevent the exorbitant

increases; we would also be able to facilitate a more cohesive transition to the future, which is renewable energy.

Ironically, the multiplicity of small-scale generation and batteries, which are starting to come onto the market, is

actually a competitive market that the Government can foster and hold the ring for. Had those assets been in public

hands, we would have been able to make that transition much easier and controlled the prices. That abject failure,

which the Opposition continues to double down on, is unbelievable. The contrast between our approach and theirs

is stark, and our approach will be successful.

HOMELESSNESS

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (12:13): I take note of the answer to the question from the

Hon. Natasha Maclaren- Jones to the Minister for Homelessness. The question was framed with particular

reference to the situation at Enmore Park. That was interesting because it was not a question about trends or policy

issues that underpin homelessness; rather it was about a very specific situation in a very specific part of Sydney.

It is not surprising that the question was framed in that way because all the policy questions that underpin

homelessness were answered by the previous Government in a way that worsened homelessness.

The Minister very correctly and very succinctly raised those policy questions. The Minister drew the

attention of the House to social housing, the ballooning of waiting lists under the previous Government, the sell-off

of $3 billion worth of public housing and the previous Government's complete failure to address the rental crisis.

Those were real and direct answers and analysis of the policy questions underpinning homelessness in response

to a question that focused only on the situation of a particular group of people. It is normal and human to feel

sympathy for anyone who is enduring homelessness. I am sure members of the Opposition share that sympathy.

But it is harder and, on a policy level, important and challenging to grapple with the factors that drive

homelessness. The Opposition failed completely to do that when in government. Decisions by members of the

Opposition made homelessness worse, even if they can ask questions in this House as if to care about particular

individuals.

The supplementary question was not just absurd but was, in effect, to use homeless people. It was asked,

"Are children and young people living in Enmore experiencing homelessness?" The answer to that is, "It depends

on what day of the week we are talking about." Children and young people across the State experience

homelessness, and they will be in various places at various times. To opportunistically ask a question of the

Minister about whether that is occurring at any particular place shows a failure to understand and grapple with the

policy questions that cause homelessness. [Time expired.]

TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (12:16): I thank all members for their contribution to the

take-note debate. I will work through the issues that arose. The shadow Treasurer made remarks about the State's

debt position. He does not need to take my word for it; he can take the word of Christopher Joy who said last year,

"After 12 years of Liberal leadership encompassing four Premiers and four Treasurers, New South Wales is sadly

degenerating into one of the worst-run States in Australia." That is coming from a person who used to lead the

Menzies Research Centre. That is not coming from a source of the left but from the right.

With regard to the shadow Treasurer's point about good debt versus bad debt, that is a salient reminder to

all members that we should listen to the answers given in question time, because in question time I clearly said

that debt that adds to the productive capacity of the economy is good, but I am not sure that is the debt we are

adding to our balance sheet. One in three of the dollars that will see us owe $187 billion in just a few years is to

be borrowed. That is not pandemic related; it is to come. For myriad reasons that is why the former Government

committed to that spending profile. I am still digging deep into why and will have more to say about it.

The debt position has not been helped by privatisation, which was another theme of question time. Unlike

States like Queensland, we sold off a lot of our assets. As a result, we do not have big, fat dividend cheques

coming in from publicly owned power companies and other assets which we could then use to introduce further

initiatives in our health and education systems, or for that matter provide more cost-of-living relief, especially in

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 24

an energy crisis. In the take-note debate, reference was made to the State's triple-A credit rating, which is ironic

because the issue with the debt position we have inherited is that it is well outside the metrics required to keep the

State's triple-A credit rating to the extent to which we still have it. That is why we need to stabilise the State's

finances.

Factually some of the claims in the take-note debate around the triple-A credit rating were incorrect.

Western Australia is the only State that has a triple-A credit rating with all three ratings agencies and has had that

for a long time. We were downgraded in 2021 by S&P and we are effectively at AA-plus with the other ratings

agencies to the extent to which we have been assisted by the Commonwealth. That is the point. A triple-AAA

credit rating is not the be-all and end-all; it is an important signal. Equally it is a clear clarion call for why the

State needs to stabilise its debt position. I would prefer to spend the public's money making sure our kids and

grandkids get a better education. I would prefer to spend more on them and less on our creditors.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Written Answers to Supplementary Questions

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES

In reply to the Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (30 May 2023).

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer)—The Minister provided the following response:

Until the current Government was sworn in, we could not see the full extent of the budget black hole.

Our comprehensive expenditure review will identify productivity savings while ensuring we improve our essential services.

The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2.00 p.m.

Private Members' Statements

TRIBUTE TO ALLAN GORDON

The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (14:00): I pay tribute to Allan Gordon, Chief Executive Officer [CEO]

of the Hastings Co-operative for 10 years. Sadly, Allan passed away on 6 March this year. In January I had the

pleasure of meeting Allan when I travelled to Port Macquarie and Wauchope and toured the Hastings

Co-operative, a community-owned co-operative with businesses employing more than 300 locals. I was shocked

and saddened to hear of Allan's passing. Allan is remembered by those who knew him as a great man of integrity,

honesty and above all, generosity.

Throughout his long career, Allan worked at many places, including the ANZ Bank, Donovan Oates

Hannaford solicitors and his own management consulting business. He was also a long-serving board member of

the Holiday Coast Credit Union. Drawing on his experience, Allan made sure to mentor the Hastings Co-operative

team, sharing his knowledge and experiences. He was a humble and respectful man who always treated and viewed

his staff as equals. As an example, he would not introduce himself as the CEO; he preferred simply to say he

worked for the co-op, the same as any of his staff. Often described as a true gentleman who was always generous

with his time, he was always there for his community.

When floods swept through the area in 2022, at the drop of a hat Allan organised for the IGA—part of

Hastings Co-Operative—to provide water and food to evacuation points. He would always give up his time to

coach the local soccer and T-ball teams and volunteer at the Wauchope Rotary Club. Reflecting his commitment

to give back to the community, Allan organised for the co-op to provide a scholarship for students facing financial

hardship at Charles Sturt University. These are just some of the many contributions that Allan made to his

community. After a decade as CEO of the co-op, Allan was looking forward to new ways to support others. He

decided he wanted to begin teaching and had just gone through the process of becoming accredited to teach high

school business studies in order to impart his experiences and knowledge on the next generation. Unfortunately,

he never got this opportunity. I pass on my condolences to Allan's wife, Kathy, his colleagues at the co-op and

the Port Macquarie-Hastings community as a whole. I know he is greatly missed by all of them. Vale, Allan

Gordon.

RAMADAN

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (14:02): New South Wales is home to a wonderfully successful multicultural

State. We are home to people from more than 300 cultures, and between us we speak 275 languages and practise

144 religions. As a community, we set an example of harmony and respect from which the rest of the world may

learn. I am always drawn to the cultural festivities and significant events that define the lives of so many of our

neighbours, family and friends. A proudly multicultural State is one that recognises and promotes those occasions

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 25

as opportunities from which we can understand each other. In particular, I acknowledge the recent observance of

Ramadan in New South Wales. Ramadan is of utmost importance to our State's Muslim community and is the

holiest month for one of the world's great faiths. It is a time for spiritual reflection, growth and renewal,

strengthened by charitable acts and time spent with loved ones.

This year the Muslim community's characteristic joy was on full display. Ramadan Nights brought

celebrations to the people of Lakemba. A food festival in Auburn invited all of us to engage in a unique cultural

experience, and countless Iftar dinners saw homes and businesses share the goodness of fellowship during

Ramadan. I had the pleasure to co-host the fourteenth New South Wales Parliament Friendship and Dialogue Iftar

Dinner along with the Hon. Penny Sharpe, who was made the Leader of the Government only a few days

beforehand. Iftar dinners are underpinned by unity, and the breaking of bread together during Ramadan fosters

togetherness among those involved. At the event where attendees were welcoming, proud of their cultures and

keen to understand one another, I spoke of our State's strengths. I believe they represent the best parts of living in

New South Wales and I look forward to joining them once again next year to experience this joy.

I acknowledge that I was representing the former Minister for Multiculturalism, Mark Coure.

I acknowledge the keynote speaker, New South Wales Police Commissioner Karen Webb, the 2023 Australian of

the Year Local Hero and Volunteer Leader of the Year Amar Singh, and Farhan Shah & Brothers for their excellent

musical performance. I thank every leader of our many multicultural communities for building a shared peace in

our society. I also reflect on the very warming photo that was published recently on social media where Tina

Ayyad, the first Muslim woman to be elected to New South Wales Parliament, was sworn into the Parliament on

the Koran side-by-side with Ron Hoenig taking the oath on the Torah. That was an incredibly powerful message

on social media. The harmony we enjoy in New South Wales demonstrated in the observance of Ramadan is

amongst the world's best and I commend members of the House to engage as much as they can with it.

TRADE UNIONS

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:05): I know I am not alone in becoming increasingly frustrated by the inane

lines of attack by members of the Liberal-Nationals Opposition seeking to score some kind of gotcha moment by

accusing the Labor Government of being somehow captured by the trade union movement in New South Wales.

On the face of it the Coalition is trying to tell a story of there being something untoward about a situation where

a government has a consultative and collaborative relationship with the democratically elected representatives of

the workers of the State. This mindset tells us just about everything we need to know about why New South Wales

workers have seen their living conditions and working standards nosedive under more than a decade of

conservative rule. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the unholy Liberal-Nationals Coalition

fundamentally does not understand the concept of trade unionism, collectivism, solidarity and the rights of

workers.

The Coalition is seeking to make an attack line out of the prospect that the Government might find it

inappropriate to deliver a pay increase to the more than 400,000 workers employed as part of our public service.

No wonder it lost the election. As frustrating as this bad-faith and nonsense argument is, it would be easier to

swallow if it were at least somewhat grounded in reality. We get it: The Coalition hates the working class. But in

this case its ire is thoroughly misplaced. Far from being staunch defenders of the working class and radical

struggle, captured and beholden to trade union secretaries pulling their strings, the New South Wales Labor Party

has time and again proven nothing could be further from the truth. Time after time in this place we have seen the

Labor Party betray its roots and the workers of this State: Ratios for nurses and midwives—chucked out the

window as soon as they might actually be in a position to deliver; a ban on engineered stone bench tops; rejecting

anti-protest laws; and do not get me started on a public sector pay rise. How many times did we hear the New South

Wales Labor Government say that it was going to scrap the public sector wage cap? Now, given the opportunity

to remove the pay cap, the goalposts have shifted for workers once again. We should not really be all that surprised.

I have the distinct displeasure of recalling a time less than 12 months ago when Labor teamed up with the

then Coalition Government to vote down a piece of legislation that would have repealed the punishing arbitrary

and unfair public sector wage cap. That legislation would not have had any hope of success in the Legislative

Assembly—it probably would not have even been brought on for debate. Still, Labor could not bring itself to

support scrapping the cap then, even as a signal of intent. Well, message received. It is a new term of Parliament

and now is the time for NSW Labor to enthusiastically embrace the hairbrained critique of the Liberals and

Nationals in this place and proudly stand up for workers.

CHATGPT

The Hon. SARAH KAINE (14:08): Given the recent reporting of the use of artificial intelligence [AI]

in education and health, we should be giving it more consideration. The AI that we have heard most about recently

is ChatGPT. So what is ChatGPT? It is an advanced language model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep learning

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 26

techniques to understand and generate human-like text responses in natural language conversations. Trained on a

vast amount of diverse data, including books, articles and websites, ChatGPT can provide information, answer

questions, engage in discussions and assist with various tasks. It leverages its contextual understanding and

knowledge base to generate coherent and relevant responses. ChatGPT has the ability to adapt its responses based

on user input, making it a versatile tool for communication, learning and problem-solving. However, ChatGPT

raises several ethical issues that need careful consideration.

Firstly, it can generate highly persuasive or manipulative content that could be misused for spreading

misinformation or propaganda, or for scamming individuals. The model's ability to mimic human-like responses

can be exploited to deceive and manipulate unsuspecting users. Secondly, ChatGPT can perpetuate biases present

in its training data. If the underlying data contains prejudices, stereotypes or discriminatory views, the model may

inadvertently amplify and reinforce them in its responses, leading to biased or unfair outcomes. This can have

detrimental effects, particularly in sensitive domains like law, health care or hiring, where biased advice or

decisions can perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

Furthermore, the opaque nature of ChatGPT poses challenges for accountability and transparency. As a

complex deep-learning model, it is difficult to trace the specific reasons behind its responses or to verify the

accuracy and reliability of the information it provides. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential

biases, errors or hidden agendas in its output. Lastly, issues of data privacy and security arise when using

ChatGPT. Conversations with the model may involve sharing personal or sensitive information and, if adequate

safeguards are not in place, there is a risk of unauthorised access or misuse of this data.

Addressing these ethical concerns requires a comprehensive approach. It involves rigorous testing and

evaluation of the model's biases, implementing safeguards to prevent malicious use, promoting transparency

through explainability techniques and respecting user privacy by adopting robust data protection measures.

Additionally, involving diverse perspectives in the development and oversight of such systems can help mitigate

biases and ensure more responsible and inclusive artificial intelligence applications. Government officials need to

be aware of ChatGPT's potential for spreading misinformation, its susceptibility to biases in training data and the

challenges in holding it accountable. They should consider regulation, transparency and ethical use to mitigate

risks and ensure responsible deployment in public services and policymaking. I disclose that, aside from my

opening remarks, this speech was written by ChatGPT.

CAMPBELLTOWN KOALA COLONY

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (14:11): In April this year Campbelltown City Council signed off on the

second stage of Lendlease's controversial Mount Gilead Stage 2 development in south-western Sydney. The area

is home to the healthiest koala colony in the State. Councillors voted 11 to one to approve the biodiversity

certification application from Lendlease to clear more than 50 hectares of koala habitat. The certification will now

go to the Environment and Heritage Group [EHG] of the Department of Planning and Environment to be assessed

against the statutory requirements for biodiversity certifications and compliance with the recommendations of the

Office of the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer on the protection of Campbelltown koalas. That assessment then

goes to the environment Minister for her consideration. But the EHG has already made its views on the proposal

very clear. In a letter dated 19 December 2022 it said:

EHG considers that the proposal is inconsistent with advice and recommendations contained in the Office of Chief Scientist and

Engineer (OCSE) Advice on the protection of the Campbelltown Koalas and the follow up reports (OCSE Koala reports) and TAP.

Insufficient information has been provided to support the proposed zone boundaries and structure plan including the extent of the

proposed urban development zone and land proposed for certification, and the clearing of 53.5 hectares of native vegetation and

threatened species habitat which includes critically endangered and endangered ecological communities … EHG does not support

the exhibited planning proposal, including the structure plan or the Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and Strategy.

This is a big test for the new Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, who I know is very passionate

about protecting koalas. The Minister sat on the koala inquiry with me and supported the key finding that, without

urgent government intervention to protect habitat and address all other threats, the koala will become extinct in

New South Wales before 2050.

Lendlease's Mount Gilead Stage 2 development is a prime example of the habitat destruction that will drive

koalas to extinction if not stopped. The former Government tasked the chief scientist to come up with

recommendations to best protect Campbelltown's koalas from this developer onslaught. They included minimum

450-metre corridor widths, exclusion fencing and underpasses. Global construction giant Lendlease cannot even

meet these recommendations—the bare minimum—to save Sydney's koalas. Under the Threatened Species

Conservation Act, the Minister may grant biodiversity certification only if it improves or maintains biodiversity

values. Clearly, this proposal does not do that. I ask that the Minister shows that she cares, rejects the development

proposal and saves Sydney's koalas.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 27

CENTRAL COAST MARINERS

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (14:15): It is a great honour to say I am supporting the Central Coast

Mariners in the A-League grand final on Saturday. There is a big, big sound on the Central Coast. There is great

buzz and excitement, which I saw a few weeks ago just before the game at Gosford in what was a packed house—

the first one in over 10 years. The A-League grand final this Saturday is predicted to also be a full house at

CommBank Stadium in Parramatta, with a crowd of 30,000 expected to descend. I hope many will be wearing the

blue and yellow of the Central Coast Mariners for the big match against Melbourne City. Hopefully, most of the

crowd will be there to see an upset as David takes on Goliath, with our Central Coast Mariners upstaging the

might of Melbourne City—a team that has been to the grand final four times in the past four years. I am sure that

the locals in Parramatta will jump on the bandwagon for the Mariners—with the blue and gold of the Eels being

replicated in the Mariners team colours. I am hoping the Mariners win their first title since 2012. It has been a

long time between drinks for the Mariners, so the achievement will be even sweeter for the delay.

As shadow Minister for the Central Coast, I extend my best wishes to the Mariners for their quest for the

A-League title. They have had a fantastic season under Monty's leadership and have been an interesting, exciting

and high scoring team that energises its fans and the Central Coast community each and every game. Having a

grand final between the teams who came first and second in the regular season is very special indeed and reflects

that we have the two best teams on the brightest stage for soccer in Australia. It was exciting to join so many

colleagues today—particularly the member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, and the Hon Taylor Martin in this place

from the Central Coast—for the A-League grand final parliamentary reception. I hope it becomes a staple in our

calendar moving forward.

This Saturday's grand final is not just a football match; it is a celebration of the Central Coast community,

of the region and of the community's unwavering support for their beloved team over many years. As a fan of Ted

Lasso, I enjoy the Mariners decision to run with the "Believe" slogan and to pick it up through the playoffs and

make sure it is the embodiment of everything they do. I am sure that every person on the Central Coast is backing

the Mariners to bring it home on Saturday. Whilst the markets might suggest a victory from the visitors from

Melbourne, I am backing the Mariners to bring it home in an exciting 3-2 game—maybe with a bit of extra time.

But I will leave the analysis to the pundits. Saturday is an opportunity to demonstrate the strength and camaraderie

that exists among the Central Coast Mariners' faithful. Fans have witnessed the team growing from strength to

strength, overcoming obstacles and surprising their doubters at every turn. They have the opportunity to see it in

New South Wales thanks to the work of the former Coalition Government to secure the A- League grand final for

New South Wales for many years to come

ESSENTIAL WORKERS

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (14:18): It is an honour and also feels quite appropriate to give my first

official speech to the House—after my inaugural last night—and to speak about one of our essential workers in

New South Wales. I met MJ last week as part of a union delegation to this place. MJ is a United Services Union

delegate and NSW Ambulance emergency call taker. MJ is someone you never want to have to call upon. She is

one of the people at the other end of the line when you call 000. However, if you do need to call, she is exactly

the sort of person you want on the other end of the line. She is calm. You can hear the kindness and empathy in

her voice as she speaks. She is experienced in giving firm and direct instructions.

As someone who has called 000, I can tell the House that even as a trained health professional you

experience the adrenaline and stress of the situation. If it is a family member, forget it; all of your experience goes

out the door and is replaced by raw emotion and fear. MJ's job can be indescribably challenging. The roulette of

phone calls that enter the call centre concern, to use her words:

… motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, strokes, babies in too much of a hurry to be born, people who don't wake up one morning,

people who fall sustaining serious head injuries, suicides of the most horrifying and confronting scenes, patients bleeding, patients

vomiting, patients not breathing, small children with burns and scalds, those dealing with dementia and terminal illnesses, people

who desperately want to live and people who desperately want to die.

Workers like MJ are the lowest paid in the call centre. Trainees have just six weeks of training before they are on

the other end of the phone. Their role is currently classed as administrative, which does not acknowledge the true

breadth and scope of the work people like MJ do. I thank MJ for sharing her story with members in this place and

the other place, for her important role as a United Services Union delegate and for the essential work she does

every day for the people in this State. Workers like MJ are invaluable. I am proud to be part of a government that

has taken immediate and deliberate steps to engage with unions regarding fair pay and conditions, and that will

unapologetically continue to do so.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 28

NATIVE FOREST LOGGING

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (14:21): In December this year we will finally see an end to the profitless and

destructive logging of native forests in Victoria. The monumental win for forests and people who rely on forests

for air and water—all of us—was brought forward by six years. It was a sudden decision as a result of the Supreme

Court finding that State-owned logging agency VicForests had broken the law by failing to protect endangered

species facing extinction. The victory in Victoria was not an easy thing to accomplish. It took decades of work by

community groups, organisations, economists, lawyers, businesses and scientists to get the Victorian Labor

Government to announce its transition plan to end native forest logging by 2030. The successful prosecutions

brought against VicForests in the courts provided the incentive to have the necessary and important end of native

forest logging brought forward to this year.

Members know that I am 100 per cent committed to ending native forest logging in New South Wales

because I am across all of the evidence that says we must do this for the environment, for workers, for the economy

and for our grandchildren's children. We know that 90 per cent of native forests that are logged are left on the

ground, wasted or burned. We know that native forest logging loses tens of millions of dollars every year. We

know that native forest logging directly releases millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year—all

of this and more because there is a lack of vision and hope that the end of native forest logging is the beginning

of a bright new future for regional communities and workers.

Forests are valuable economically, ecologically, to human health and wellbeing, for biodiversity, for

agricultural productivity and to the planet. Beyond all of those considerations, forests are the most important,

incredible carbon-capturing tool we have. Eight days ago, on 23 May, we reached a shocking point in climate

science history. In a single day planet Earth experienced a record high sea surface temperature, record high global

air temperatures and a record low extent of global sea ice. Native forest logging in New South Wales alone emits

the same amount of carbon as 840,000 medium-sized cars, or 3.6 million tonnes of carbon every year. We need

to end logging to keep carbon stocks in native forests, just like we must do everything in our power to reduce the

amount of greenhouse gases that we are contributing to the atmosphere. New South Wales must read the writing

on the wall and join Victoria and others in ending the destruction of native forests before it is too late to turn back

the clock.

MARSHALLS CREEK BRIDGE

The Hon. WES FANG (14:24): I make some brief remarks about the infrastructure that the former

Government was delivering for the people of Wagga Wagga, which is now at risk because we have a State Labor

Government. Marshalls Creek Bridge has been a focus of media attention in the past few days. Questions have

been asked of me because I was able to announce on behalf of the Minister that work on the bridge would be

commencing in a short period of time. Late last year, when I had questions put to me about why work had not yet

started, I was happy to provide the answer to the media that the same crews that would have started work on that

bridge were being used to quickly address pothole issues on the Sturt Highway and other roads around rural and

regional New South Wales. That diversion of assets would continue until such time as we were able to deliver

those safe roads, and then we would return to the work that we had committed to for the people of Wagga Wagga.

We completed the work on the potholes. The plans for the Marshalls Creek Bridge upgrade are still on the

Transport for NSW website, but the Minister for Regional Transport and Roads has refused to provide any detail

as to when work will start and when the upgrade will happen. Committee 4 Wagga, which is well known to

members in the Wagga area, has been advocating for work on Marshalls Creek Bridge to commence soon, as has

the local member, Dr Joe McGirr. I join them in calling on the Labor Government to start work immediately on

the upgrade of Marshalls Creek Bridge and other infrastructure in the Wagga Wagga and Murray electorates and

not to take, as the chair of Committee 4 Wagga Adam Drummond says, a city-centric approach. The real fear in

rural and regional communities is that the city-centric Labor Government is abandoning them. The fact that work

on Marshalls Creek Bridge has not started and that the Government will not give an indication of when it will is

a perfect example. [Time expired.]

GREYHOUND REHOMING

The Hon. EMMA HURST (14:27): I recently had the pleasure of spending time at Greysland, the

rehoming facility run by the amazing team at Greyhound Rescue. Rehoming is not a simple task. Greyhound

Rescue takes the utmost care in pairing greyhounds with the right adoptive family based on the compatibility of

all individuals, human and animal alike. In that considered way, they find loving forever homes for hundreds of

greyhounds each year. Many greyhounds that arrive at Greyhound Rescue have been dismissed by the industry as

too hard to rehome. Greyhounds from the racing industry have often experienced limited lives. They may have

never socialised with other dogs or encountered basic things like stairs, glass doors or toys. They may not even

know how to play. Those greyhounds need to learn how to "dog".

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 29

Greyhound Rescue equips each greyhound with the skills and experiences they need to adjust to their new

lives, and it does that largely on the back of volunteer time and donations. That is why I was thrilled to work with

the former New South Wales Government to secure a one-off grant of $350,000 for Greyhound Rescue. The

funding will be used to build a new rehabilitation and rehoming centre, lovingly named the "Noodle Hub" after

the characteristically long-limbed dogs. It is where Greyhound Rescue will provide medical care for greyhounds

recovering from major injuries or surgery, prepare meals for greyhounds in care, train new volunteers, undertake

meet and greets, and process adoptions.

The investment is going to make a huge difference; however, there is so much more to be done. In order

to continue rehoming the large number of dogs coming out of the industry, Greyhound Rescue needs guaranteed,

ongoing funding to support the costs of caring for and rehabilitating those animals. Perhaps most crucially,

Greyhound Rescue needs a permanent home. It is the only non-industry organisation dedicated to greyhounds that

has onsite kennels to take in and house greyhounds for rehoming. The Government is relying on the work of

Greyhound Rescue to fill the gaps in its own rehoming programs. In turn, what Greyhound Rescue needs from

the Government is security. The Government must work with Greyhound Rescue so that it can secure a permanent

home and, in doing so, ensure that Greyhound Rescue can continue to perform its crucial role in a society that

believes greyhounds deserve a loving home.

Announcements

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPH

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I advise the House that a photographer

from NCA NewsWire will be present in the press gallery this afternoon for the taking of still photographs only.

Bills

GOVERNMENT SECTOR FINANCE AMENDMENT (GRANTS) BILL 2023

REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023

Assent

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I report receipt of messages from the

Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bills.

Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND WORKS COMMITTEE

Chair and Deputy Chair

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I inform the House that at a meeting held

this day Ms Abigail Boyd was elected as Chair and the Hon. Scott Farlow was elected as Deputy Chair of the

Public Accountability and Works Committee.

Documents

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I table the following papers:

(1) Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report for year ended 31 December 2022:

Charles Sturt University;

Macquarie University, Volumes 1 and 2;

Southern Cross University;

The University of Newcastle;

University of New England;

The University of New South Wales;

The University of Sydney;

The University of Technology Sydney, Volumes 1 and 2;

The University of Wollongong Australia; and

Western Sydney University, Volumes 1 and 2.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 30

Motions

ASSET PRIVATISATION

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (14:30): I continue my contribution to debate on this motion. It is essential

that we ensure the provision of more housing across our State. The Coalition is receptive to considering the detail

of any proposal that would address housing supply across New South Wales and looks forward to constructively

engaging with the Government moving forward, particularly when it is something like what appears to be our

formal policy. But, as comes with many Labor proposals, particularly those formed in the infancy of this

Government, there is a distinct lack of detail. Speaking about the land audit on 2GB last week, the Minister for

Housing, the Hon. Rose Jackson, could only say that the "level of detail hasn't been finalised yet".

One detail, however, is crystal clear. The party that promised to "end privatisation" had developed a policy

that, in fact, embodies the definition of privatisation. It is high time for the Government to be honest with the

people of New South Wales and to be honest with this House. Local communities deserve transparency and

honesty from their government. The assertion by Ministers that selling publicly owned land to private companies

for the purpose of development is not privatisation is, frankly, hysterical. But you will not see me laughing when

the Government breaks its election promises a mere 60 days into the job.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:31): I was sad when this motion did not come on last week because I was

excited to talk about it. I have spent the past four years in budget estimates grilling various Ministers about the

definition of privatisation. I remember an ongoing series of discussions with former Minister for Transport

Andrew Constance and the constant debate on bus privatisation and the argument that it was, in fact, a franchising

agreement. I brought out the dictionary on a few occasions to try to settle that debate. It is clear what privatisation

is. It is the transfer of ownership or control of public assets to the private sector. It is very simple.

I have heard the Government's arguments related to this so-called surplus land and the idea that it is not

privatisation. Of course, in any ordinary meaning of the word, what was true four years ago is still true today. This

is a form of privatisation. We cannot sell off public land. I do not care how much of public land it is. I do not care

if it is a tiny block of land on what used to be a rail corridor that has been disused for a while or if it is a former

TAFE site. The fact of the matter is that that is public land. If we sell it off to a private developer or a private

interest, that is a form of privatisation. It is very simple. It is quite disappointing for the Labor Government to

not—

The Hon. Wes Fang: They're like that. They'll do that to you.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Let's be honest: Maybe that is not a stretch in this circumstance. It is quite

disappointing for the Labor Government to not use plain language as the public would understand it. We are

talking about the sale of a public asset to the private sector, and that is incredibly concerning. I am sure that Labor

members in this place will make arguments about the reasons for that privatisation, but that is not what this is

about. This is about whether or not it is privatisation, and of course it is. On behalf of The Greens, I move the

following amendment to the motion:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraph (2) and inserting instead:

That this House congratulates the Coalition opposition for understanding the concept of privatisation now that they are no longer in

Government, and recognises that the sell-off of public assets including land is a form of privatisation.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (14:34): I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraphs (1) (b) to (1) (d) and inserting instead:

(b) the previous Government's privatisation of the State's ports, energy, road, public transport, health and educations assets had

a devastating effect on families by increasing the cost of living;

(c) that the previous Government sold off more than $93 billion of public assets, leaving the public's cupboard bare and resulting

in the people of New South Wales paying more for fewer and lower quality services;

(d) that at the same time, the previous Government oversaw a slide into a housing affordability crisis;

(e) in response to the housing crisis, the current Government is proposing a mandatory requirement that 30 per cent of all homes

built on surplus government land to be set aside for social, affordable and universal housing;

(f) as an important step towards addressing the housing crisis, the new Government has directed Ministers to undertake a pause

on the sale of government-owned property; and

(g) that this pause will allow time for the Government to ensure land best kept in public hands is retained for the benefit of the

people of New South Wales, and where land is surplus to public needs it is used to deliver social, affordable and universal

housing together with social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 31

On 1 May the Government issued a request to Ministers that they direct agencies within their portfolios to

immediately pause the sale of Government-owned land and property. By way of context, according to the previous

Government, every single agency in the Government had a fixed requirement to sell off a certain quantity of public

land for the highest price possible. That is important context because that is what we are interrupting; otherwise,

sell-off of public land would have continued without us ever deciding whether or not it could be used to increase

the stock of social, affordable and diverse housing use.

This pause is to allow time for the Government to examine the previous Government's policy and the

framework that governs the approval of Government-owned property for sale. The other surprising factor that

I have learnt since becoming Treasurer is that we do not seem to know where all the surplus land is. As a major

landowner—in fact, the biggest landowner—in New South Wales, you would think that we would know what we

own. We do not. It is an interesting aspect that we must establish where are all the Government land is so that we

can figure out how it can be used to promote social, affordable and diverse housing use. That is sensible, that is

adult, and that is required. It is unfortunately necessary because it did not happen in the past 12 years. That is

disappointing.

The Government's review is aligned to the Government's election commitment to strike an appropriate

balance between keeping public assets for the benefit of people of New South Wales and the use of property

declared to be surplus to deliver on Government policies including social, affordable and universal housing. To

keep this in perspective, this is how absurd the previous Government's policy was. Agencies were mandated to

find land and flog it off; at the same time, other agencies were sent out to compulsorily acquire land without ever

thinking through whether one could be used for the other. We need to show some sense and some rationality. We

should not be debating myopic definitions of privatisation when we should be focusing on the outcomes that the

people of New South Wales have sent us here to do.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (14:37): The Parliament has gone down the rabbit hole when it is duelling

dictionary definitions of what is something and what it is not. The commonsense proposition was that when Labor

promised at the election no privatisation, it was not a commitment that nothing in the ownership of the State

Government would ever be sold. Clearly, it was a reference to public utilities like power stations, water utilities

and transport corridors. That is the general meaning of a privatisation program.

The Hon. Mark Buttigieg: Opera House.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Harbour Bridge.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Harbour Bridge, Government House—all those things that we debated in

the past. A commonsense definition would say that privatisation concerns the main utilities and corridors that

might be in the ownership of the New South Wales Government. I do not think anyone thought that a spare block

of land in Campbelltown in one of the public housing estates could never be sold for the purpose of a

redevelopment project to provide more social housing—better quality of social housing—as a poverty alleviation

program. Naturally, the Opposition tried to apply the purest definition for political purposes. But the debate was

complicated by Mr Stephen Kamper's "no sale" directive, from which Minister Rose Jackson, after a moment of

confusion, said that there were exemptions. As a former mayor of Campbelltown, I am glad the President is in the

chair as he understands the importance of those projects. I will move an amendment to the motion. Now we have

duelling amendments as well as definitions. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "Government" in paragraph (2) and inserting instead:

to honour its election promises while recognising that the completion of vital public housing renewal projects, such as

Claymore and Airds, relies on the sale of public land to private housing developers for lease-back rental and private housing

ownership.

As I mentioned the other day, the purpose of the amendment is to finally finish the drawn-out, torturous

redevelopment projects at Claymore and Airds—which were much delayed by the former Government—after the

success of the Minto public housing renewal project. Basically, the Radburn scheme, which was built in the

seventies, was a complete social and economic disaster. Townhouse dwellings were built facing in, which is the

wrong way around as the properties were surrounded by open land. The quality of housing gave people the feeling

that they were an underclass, and it stayed that way.

The project at Minto was completed by the last Labor Government. The land was redeveloped and

privately-owned housing was mixed with lease-back social housing. A young person growing up in one of those

streets can think they live in a normal suburb, with a good school, to help them advance in life, rather than being

locked into substandard public housing. My amendment very clearly provides an exemption to the Kamper

directive. I have discussed it with the Minister for Housing, who thinks it is a good idea. I hope the amendment is

supported by the Chamber.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 32

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (14:41): I support the motion moved by the Hon. Scott Farlow. Of course, after

hearing the contribution from the Hon. Mark Latham, one may think this is all about semantics, but it is important

to judge the Government on the comments that were made by its members during the election campaign when

they were in Opposition. They described a range of different terms as privatisation. I understand that Government

members do not like the term asset recycling; they call it privatisation. But they also called franchising,

outsourcing and long-term leasing simply privatisation. Any time private contractors were used, Labor defined

that as privatisation. Government members would bundle up all of those different terms, which have different and

distinct definitions, into the broad, all-encompassing term "privatisation". But now that Labor is in government it

has a completely new definition. When the Coalition engaged in those acts Labor members would define it as

privatisation, yet when they do so it is defined as "selling surplus land".

Members must judge the Government on the definitions and language its members used during the election

campaign. When asked directly if selling Crown land to private developers was privatisation, the Premier

answered no. When asked the same question on 2GB, Minister Rose Jackson obfuscated and said simply that the

detail had not yet been finalised. That is what happens when we demonise all privatisation. If selling

Government-owned assets to private developers is not privatisation, then nothing is. Members cannot change the

definition of privatisation to suit their agenda. The Opposition is aware that New South Wales faces a housing

crisis, and increasing housing supply is part of the solution. But, unlike members opposite, Coalition members did

not box themselves in with their own narrow definition of privatisation during the election campaign. Furthermore,

private developers should be part of the conversation. Where appropriate, rezoning surplus public land for housing

is a proportionate response to the housing crisis.

The Opposition encourages the Government to consult further with key private sector stakeholders in the

housing industry to boost supply so that the people of New South Wales can afford to purchase a home. However,

members cannot change the definition of privatisation and expect the people of New South Wales to accept that

on face value. The Premier's directive to his Ministers reeks of hypocrisy. Maybe, heaven forbid, the Government

has had a change of heart and finally understands the benefits of privatisation.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (14:44): I contribute to debate on the motion by reflecting on my

previous role as a councillor. The Hon. Mark Latham jogged my memory. In my time as a councillor I took what

I thought was an appropriate stance against privatisation. For example, I was very happy to bring the pool back

in-house at Dubbo Regional Council. In my time on the council, local councillors and I dealt with various

proposals in respect of land. We were involved in the sale of surplus land and land swaps with the private sector.

Never at any time in those discussions did anybody in the council or community suggest that we were involved

in some form of privatisation.

We do not live our lives by dictionary definitions. Words have various meanings and usages depending on

different contexts. Frankly, I have never heard the suggestion that the sale of surplus Crown land, which is

practised by every level of government as the need arises, is a form of privatisation. The motion is an attempt to

confuse the community about what is occurring and about the meaning of privatisation. That is not surprising

from members opposite, who love the concept of asset recycling. Frankly, it is an Orwellian term used to describe

the sale of productive assets that earn revenue to build assets that do not generally earn revenue. Asset recycling

is an Orwellian term, and only last night the Hon. Chris Rath implored us to use it. He said that we should not be

talking about privatisation; we should be reverting to what he thinks is the more accurate term of asset recycling.

The former Government has form on misleading the community on the meaning of privatisation. That is

not surprising as it has form on misleading the community about its plans for privatisation. Everyone remembers

the famous words "No plans" before the 2019 election when the then Premier was questioned about her intentions

in respect of various precious State assets. She said, "We have no plans." Of course, it transpired that those were

outrageous lies. Yet members opposite seek to confuse the community again on the issue of privatisation. But I do

not think the community will be confused because it shares with us a complete understanding of the meaning of

privatisation. It does not include the sale of surplus Crown land and it never has. Frankly, I do not think there is

any confusion. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (14:47): I support the motion moved by the Hon. Scott Farlow, shadow

Minister for Planning, amongst other things. Ever since I became a member of this place I have heard members

of the Labor Party say over and over again, "Stop privatisation." I will give them credit: They were quite consistent

during the last term of Parliament. But now that they are in government, they have been quick to change their

tune. Just two months in—it is just the third sitting week, in fact—they are already looking for government assets

to flog. If the sale of government-owned assets including government-owned land to private property developers

is not privatisation then what on earth is? It is quite galling. Yesterday the Minister responsible for Housing,

Water, the North Coast and a host of other portfolios said that one should not go to an election saying one thing

and then form government after the election and do another. That is exactly the case before us.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 33

The Hon. Stephen Lawrence accused the Opposition of trying to confuse the public, but it is quite the

opposite. We are asking for consistency and honesty in that regard. The Opposition has no problem with the

Government trying to find places on which new housing can be built. That is an obvious way to improve housing

affordability, given that it is a problem for this State, as it is in other States in Australia. But we expect the

Government to be honest and call it what it is: It is privatisation. That is fine; just own up to it. Further, we expect

the Government to be up-front when the time comes about which parcels of land will be sold off so that the

community can be informed and brought along on the process. We also expect that any land that is subject to

privatisation by the Minns Labor Government is sold in an independent, transparent process.

This is very important. We all remember what happened at the end of the 16 years of government that

Labor last had. Nobody, including members opposite, wants to return to such a point. Earlier this year the Standing

Committee on State Development published its report into allegations of impropriety against the agents of the

City of Canterbury Bankstown council. The committee found that councillors on Canterbury Bankstown council,

in particular the Labor mayor, had close relationships—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: The member is straying well beyond the terms of the motion

and is not being directly relevant. I suggest that you draw him back to the leave of the motion.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The honourable member will be directly

relevant to the motion before the House.

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN: It was found that it may have influenced planning instruments and the

positioning of infrastructure.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The honourable member's time has

expired.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (14:50): I speak to the amendment of the Hon. Mark

Latham and indicate that the Government still prefers its own amendment because it corrects a flaw in the

substantive motion that the Hon. Mark Latham's amendment does not. Paragraph 1 (a) of the substantive motion

is factually wrong. The Premier has not instructed any Minister to identify land to sell to private developers but

has ordered Ministers to find surplus land and then assess how it can be used to promote the supply of social,

affordable and diverse housing. Having said that, the balance of the Hon. Mark Latham's amendment is correct.

I have visited Minto prior to and since its redevelopment, and I understand the importance of the issues that the

Hon. Mark Latham referred to as he moved his amendment. It is a good example of using canny policy to lead to

urban regeneration to deliver better outcomes for families across New South Wales. I am glad that he raised it in

the debate. Of course, the Government prefers its amendment but sees some merit in the Hon. Mark Latham's

amendment.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:51): The Greens cannot support the Hon. Mark Latham's amendment. We keep

putting up the false idea that there has to be private investment in housing in order to build more houses.

Governments used to build houses on public land. It is not done anymore but it should be. It is simply not correct

to say that surplus land "needs" to be sold off to developers in order to create housing.

The Hon. WES FANG (14:52): I address the substantive motion. I am drawn to the contribution of

Ms Abigail Boyd in which she indicated that the idea of wanting to have privately owned houses as opposed to

houses built and owned by government is somehow wrong. It is a fundamental difference in the philosophies that

we see in this Chamber. Members on this side of the House know that the asset recycling of the previous

Liberal-Nationals Government allowed more infrastructure to be built. It delivered major infrastructure that

allowed families to get around Sydney and it delivered hospitals and schools. We also did what we could to

support that great Australian dream of owning your own home.

Ms Abigail Boyd was right in saying that there are other ways to do it. We can have government-built

houses. We can have government as an overbearing, overarching entity, but in reality most people have the desire

to own their own home. So it is not a bad thing to say that we want to release more land. Members on this side of

the House just want the Government to be honest with the people. When it says it wants to look at the land that

agencies have to try to release some for housing, that is privatisation. The transfer of assets owned by the

Government to private developers is privatisation. Anybody who tries to describe it as anything else is misleading

the House and misleading the public. Members opposite need to be very careful about how they conduct this

debate because it is the mark of them to say one thing as they go into an election and say something else in

government. You cannot trust Labor. [Time expired.]

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 34

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (14:55): I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraph (2).

This debate has been self-explanatory. The statement contained in paragraph (2) is ridiculous. Clearly, selling

public land is not a mark of privatisation and nor would we acknowledge that.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (14:56): In reply: I thank Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, the

Hon. Mark Latham, the Hon. Chris Rath, the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, the Hon. Taylor Martin, the Hon. Wes Fang

and the Hon. Tara Moriarty for their contributions to the debate. It was nice to start the day with this motion.

I know many members, including Ms Abigail Boyd, hoped to get to this motion last Wednesday. We brought it

back for debate today. We have seen the Government doing gymnastics as to the definition of privatisation. The

Hon. Stephen Lawrence talked about the accusations of privatisation regarding the selling of surplus land in Dubbo

but in that instance it was not. I do not hold anything against the Hon. Stephen Lawrence because he was not in

this place before the last election, but many members in this Chamber equated the sale of public land as part of

the former Government's privatisation agenda. It did not matter whether they were surplus pieces of land, next to

railway corridors or being taken up by agencies such as the Transport Asset Holding Entity to invest in activation

around transport corridors. That was part of the former Government's privatisation agenda, according to members

opposite.

Since the Labor Party has come into government, it has recognised the reality that we need more housing

in New South Wales. The Government has outlined a target of 314,000 new homes to be built over the next five,

but in order to do that we need land to build them on. I am not against the Government's policy, nor are members

on this side. In fact, the Government's policy replicates some of the policies we employed while in government,

such as the land use register to look at pieces of property that the Government could activate rather than hold onto

and do nothing with. But we need to ensure that there is supporting infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and

transport links around new housing developments.

There are many instances where previous governments of both stripes sold off pieces of land that may have

been earmarked for something like a hospital or a school or, where I grew up, for the continuation of a road. Future

projects cost a lot more because that land had been sold off. WestConnex is an example—that land was sold off

by the Wran Government. It is important for governments to be able to take stock of their land supply. It is also

important that this Government is honest with the people of New South Wales and admits that it is privatisation.

The PRESIDENT: Firstly, I will put the amendment of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. I will then put the

amendment of the Hon. Tara Moriarty. If that is agreed to, the Hon. Mark Latham's amendment lapses and I will

put the amendment of Ms Abigail Boyd. If the Hon. Tara Moriarty's amendment is negatived, I will put the

amendment of the Hon. Mark Latham. The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey be agreed

to.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 15

Noes ................... 25

Majority .............. 10

AYES

Buttigieg Jackson Murphy (teller)

D'Adam Kaine Nanva (teller)

Donnelly Lawrence Primrose

Graham Mookhey Sharpe

Houssos Moriarty Suvaal

NOES

Banasiak Higginson Mitchell

Borsak Hurst Munro

Boyd Latham Rath (teller)

Carter MacDonald Roberts

Cohn Maclaren-Jones Ruddick

Faehrmann Martin Taylor

Fang Merton Tudehope

Farlow (teller) Mihailuk Ward

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 35

NOES

Farraway

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the amendment of the Hon. Tara Moriarty be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT: I advise that the amendment of Ms Abigail Boyd has lapsed. The question is that the

amendment of the Hon. Mark Latham be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the

bells for one minute?

Leave granted.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 17

Noes ................... 23

Majority .............. 6

AYES

Carter Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)

Fang (teller) Martin Roberts

Farlow Merton Taylor

Farraway Mihailuk Tudehope

Latham Mitchell Ward

MacDonald Munro

NOES

Banasiak Graham Moriarty

Borsak Higginson Murphy (teller)

Boyd Houssos Nanva (teller)

Buttigieg Hurst Primrose

Cohn Jackson Ruddick

D'Adam Kaine Sharpe

Donnelly Lawrence Suvaal

Faehrmann Mookhey

Motion as amended negatived.

Senate

SENATE VACANCY

The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair for the joint sitting. The business of the House will be

suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the

ringing of the bells.

[The President left the chair at 15:14.]

Joint Sitting

ELECTION OF A SENATOR

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 15:34 to elect a senator in the place of Senator

Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC, deceased.

The CLERK: I call for nominations for President of the joint sitting.

Mr CHRIS MINNS: Mr Clerk, I move:

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 36

That the Hon. Ben Franklin, President of the Legislative Council, act as President of the Joint Sitting of the two Houses of the

Legislature for the election of a senator in place of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC, deceased, and that in the event of

his absence the Hon. Greg Piper, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, act in that capacity.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I second the motion.

The CLERK: The question is that the motion of the Premier as seconded by the Leader of the Opposition

be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. Ben Franklin took the chair.

Mr CHRIS MINNS: I present proposed rules for the regulation of the proceedings of the joint sitting,

which have been printed and circulated. I move:

That the proposed rules as printed and circulated be now adopted.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I will now receive nominations with regard to a person to fill the vacant place in the

Senate caused by the death of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN: I propose Ms Maria Kovacic to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant

by the death of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC. I announce that the candidate is willing to hold

the vacant place if chosen. Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC, was at the time he was chosen by the

people of the State publicly recognised to be an endorsed candidate of the Liberal Party of Australia and publicly

presented himself to be an endorsed candidate of that party. Ms Maria Kovacic is a member of the same political

party.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT: Does any member desire to propose any other person to fill the vacancy? As no other

person has been proposed, the question is that Ms Maria Kovacic be chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered

vacant by the death of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I declare that Ms Maria Kovacic has been chosen to hold the place in the Senate

rendered vacant by the death of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC.

The PRESIDENT: I move:

That the President inform Her Excellency the Governor as soon as practicable that Ms Maria Kovacic has been chosen to hold the

place in the Senate rendered vacant by the death of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now declare the joint sitting closed.

The joint sitting closed at 15:38. [The House resumed at 16:00.]

Senate

ELECTION OF A SENATOR

The PRESIDENT: I report that at a joint sitting this day Maria Kovacic was chosen as senator in the

place of Senator Andrew James (Jim) Molan, AO, DSC, deceased. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint

sitting.

Visitors

VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the public gallery Noah Smith, the elected Premier of the 2023 YMCA

NSW Youth Parliament. I congratulate him and look forward to welcoming him and his colleagues back to the

precinct in a few months' time.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 37

Documents

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES

Production of Documents: Order

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (16:01): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on 16 September 2020, the House made an order that there be laid upon the table of the House "all correspondence,

including emails, since 1 January 2019 sent from or received by the Treasury and the Wages Policy Taskforce

regarding bargaining parameters";

(b) on 18 May 2022 the House made an order that there be laid upon the table of the House "all documents regarding

the negotiation of any enterprise agreement or award that applies to Sydney Trains or NSW Trains";

(d) in its costing request to the Parliamentary Budget Office dated 15 March 2023, the Labor Party stated that under its

ALP Wages Policy to come into effect from 1 July 2023, "While arbitration will no longer be artificially limited by

law, the budgetary effect of this policy is that existing targets as presented in the current budget will be maintained

as a baseline, and any remuneration increases beyond this will be linked to productivity improvements—done by

negotiation through an interest based bargaining framework."

(2) That under Standing Order 52 there be laid upon the table of the House within 28 days of the date of passing of this resolution

the following documents created since 25 March 2023, in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, Treasurer, the

Minister for Finance and Minister for Natural Resources, the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Work Health

and Safety, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, or NSW Industrial Relations relating to wage negotiations:

(a) all documents relating to the proposed "interest based bargaining framework";

(b) all correspondence to any union relating to any award that has expired or is due to expire within the next six months

containing an offer or proposal for consideration in a new award, or responding to a union demand or proposal for

consideration in a new award;

to an offer or proposal from the Government;

(d) all records of any meeting held between union officials and representatives of the Government about the wages

policy, bargaining parameters, and wage offers;

(e) all other documents regarding the negotiation of any enterprise agreement or award that would apply to

New South Wales public sector workers; and

(f) any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order

of the House.

The Treasurer was asked a straightforward question yesterday about whether the then 4 per cent wage rise offer

to unions included a 0.5 per cent superannuation increase, but he refused to provide that information. He

commented on the conversations that the Government is having with the trade union movement, which represents

many of our essential workers. He said:

… of course I will not traverse the options that have been discussed in various forums because that is disrespectful to the people with

whom we are talking.

It is disrespectful to this House and it frustrates the efforts of this House to hold the Executive Government to

account for its planned expenditure of public moneys. That was not the approach taken by the Treasurer and his

colleagues when they sat on this side of the House. As noted in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of the motion, the House

has previously passed motions ordering the production of papers relating to bargaining parameters. On 18 May

2022, while negotiations with the combined rail unions were in progress, the House ordered the production of all

documents regarding the negotiations of a matter that was before the Fair Work Commission. This order for papers

breaks no new ground; it simply seeks to continue the established practice of the House in ordering the production

of papers relating to bargaining parameters or, to use the language of Labor's wage policy, the interest of base

bargaining framework.

As I understand it, about 70 awards are due to expire on 1 July 2023 that need to be renegotiated. The

costing of Labor's wages policy by the Parliamentary Budget Office indicated that for every 1 per cent of a pay

rise above the existing wage cap not offset by new productivity gains, there would be an unfunded cost of

$2.6 billion over three years. We know from media reports that the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial

Relations have already made an offer of 4 per cent to the unions, possibly with an additional 0.5 per cent for

superannuation. We learned this morning from the Treasurer's answer to a supplementary question for written

answer that no offset in productivity savings was identified before the offer was made. There goes $2.6 billion in

taxpayers' money in cut services, cost-of-living measures and increased taxes.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 38

We know the unions are not happy with that offer. The Health Services Union is on strike today demanding

a total of 6.5 per cent wage rise. The Treasurer refused to provide the House with accurate information on how

much it would cost or even any modelling relating to that. He invited us to do some sort of back-of-the-envelope

calculation that he did when he was the shadow Treasurer. However, he has hundreds of boxes of documents to

assist him that the then Government produced in response to orders for papers. Our intentions for orders for papers

are far more modest. There will be no need to build a Tudehope wing to store the requested documents.

I make the point that at a time when there were serious negotiations regarding matters before the Industrial

Relations Commission about a wage freeze during the period of the previous Government, a Standing Order 52

motion was passed by this House requiring the House to produce the brief to counsel who were instructed by the

former Government. I would have thought that going into court with the opponent's brief would provide an

advantage. But this House insisted on its right to see the documents produced by the former Government about

the matters upon which it relied to prosecute that case. This motion is a modest request. If this Government

considers itself transparent, it should not object to the production of these documents going forward. I call on the

Government to show some bona fides and for the shadow Treasurer to live up to the rhetoric that he expounded

when he was in opposition.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:06): The shadow Treasurer certainly should live up

to the rhetoric that he espoused—I agree with him on that! I welcome the scrutiny from the shadow Treasurer in

this motion. I am sure it comes as no surprise that the Government considers the call for papers to be premature.

Perhaps the narrative outlined in the motion and introduced by the shadow Treasurer in his contribution is a bit

too simplistic and overlooks a couple of key events that distinguish the circumstances here than elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the Government was elected on a mandate to rebuild our public services by ensuring we retain

essential workers. We intend to do that by engaging in meaningful reform of public services in a cooperation-based

system with our public sector workforce. We are getting on with the job of doing that.

I have provided updates to the House in question time and I have provided updates to the media when

asked to do so. I look forward to continuing to provide further updates to the House and to the public as the process

progresses. Because of that, I would argue that the Government is being transparent about its intentions. I will

continue to be transparent because that is what adult governments do. I comment on the specific points made by

the shadow Treasurer when moving the motion. I recall, as the motion states, that on 16 September 2020 the

House agreed to an order to effectively produce the parameters that were used at the time to introduce the wage

freeze. I am glad that the shadow Treasurer acknowledged that his Government introduced the wage freeze. But

I recall that particular line and I am very positive that it came back as almost a nil return. To be fair, I am fairly

positive that the then industrial relations Minister's various media articles and press releases were the only

documents returned to the House.

I point out that maybe the House should be aware of that. I point out also that in respect to the issues that

distinguish this matter from where we are with Sydney Trains or NSW Trains, by any fair reckoning, the Sydney

Trains and NSW Trains dispute was intense and subject to a lot of scrutiny. It was far more progressed than where

we are now with our public sector workforce. We are having good conversations with them and we will continue

to do so. Members should not take my word for it; they say that publicly themselves. As a result, we oppose this

call for papers.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:09): One Nation supports the Standing Order 52 call for papers by the

Opposition because of what appears to be changed attitudes in the Chamber about Standing Order 52. In the last

Parliament they were being supported universally except within the Government parties. We have gone back to

the principles articulated four years ago for guiding our judgement of Standing Order 52 calls for papers. This one

fits three criteria: it is a live, clear issue, not a fishing trip, certainly clearly defined; it is worthy of transparency

and public interest; and it is a public policy issue, not a narrow, personal attack. Members may remember we

devised that because of attempts by the then Opposition to get information on the husband of the Hon. Bronnie

Taylor.

The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: And you defended him. I will never forget that.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Yes. It has guided our principles since. This call for papers fits the

principles so we support it, but with the caveat that we do not support the wages cap. One Nation has always

thought that the wages cap was a crude, counterproductive exercise. It was the only cost restraint the former

Government showed on any front. It spent on everything except inflation-type wage increases. The wages cap

carried with it the shocking paradox in the public sector that we still live with today, that there was a dead hand

on wages growth, while at the same time on the productivity front every whacky training course and political

committee, from Jim Betts book clubs and unconscious bias training, proliferated out of control.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 39

We ended up with a public sector that had a crude wages cap with no regard for productivity and, even

worse, woke agents in the public sector were diverting public servants from their real job. Many people came

forward and said, "Jim Betts has me doing all this training about this, that and the other thing. I am a bad person

because I have white skin. I have to do cultural sensitivity. I just wanted to come here and do my job." That is

what they would say. The best solution is to let public servants do their job without political content—there are

enough politics in this place—take off the wages cap and go to productivity-based bargaining. That would have

an advantage. Any work unit that can demonstrate a productivity gain gets a healthy wage increase.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Well, guess what! That's our policy.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: It is not the Opposition's policy. The policy of the Opposition was the

worst of both worlds. It was a crude, non-productive wages cap—the easiest thing to do—and its only form of

spending restraint. Everything else was out of control, with profligate spending. At the same time it smothered

the public sector with woke political courses that had nothing to do with the job at hand—the job description for

those public sector units. The former Government lost the plot in that regard. I hope that the new Government

does a lot better. On the way through, One Nation will be kind enough to support the Opposition's call for papers.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (16:12): The Greens find very interesting this Standing Order 52 call for papers.

However, it is way too premature. This Government is just beginning to unpick the Coalition's messes. We need

to give it the space to do it. Nothing that we have seen has caused us concern so far in these negotiations. We will

wait patiently for a little longer to give this new Government the chance it needs to breathe a little—sigh even—

and negotiate in good faith without the stickybeaking of an Opposition that is so concerned with scoring some

sort of strange political point. Is it a score if there is zero on one end forever? I do not know.

This is not about transparency. The calls for papers that were passed last year were very much about holding

a government to account; not trying to get involved in the policy decisions and making of a new government.

They are very different things. In the last term of Parliament the Opposition and the crossbench worked together

on an accountability and transparency agenda. The agenda was to find out information and hold the Government

to account; not try to relitigate old election issues and all the rest of it. When this new Opposition gets an actual

agenda based on policy and it wants to do the things that are right for the people of New South Wales, the

crossbench might get on board. We oppose this call for papers.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (16:15): In reply: I thank the Treasurer for articulating that he does

not intend to be part of a government that bears the label of being a transparent government. He seeks to avoid

scrutiny on the basis that bargaining is progressing and he does not necessarily want anyone to have access to that

bargaining. If he applies that standard he would have applied the same standard when documents were being

prepared relating to the bargaining parameters for negotiations with the rail union and litigation before the

Industrial Relations Commission. The standard that the Treasurer now seeks to apply suits his agenda. It does not

suit the long-established tradition, certainly over the last four years, of making sure that everything that the

Government does is open to transparency, no matter what transaction it is involved in. I was more interested in

the abject disregard for the previous Government's wages policy as articulated by the Hon. Mark Latham. He

thought it was a blunt instrument of just a wages cap. He was wrong on a number of fronts. Over the period of the

wages cap, the public sector was being paid wage increases that generally were markedly above the consumer

price index.

The Hon. Wes Fang: And every other State as well.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I thank the honourable member—and every other State. In New South

Wales the public sector was doing significantly well. In addition, the wages policy allowed for additional

payments above the wages cap—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Not budgeted for.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: —on the basis of productivity outcomes. The Treasurer says they

were not budgeted for. It is budgeted for by negotiating at the time of the enterprise agreement and by establishing

the productivity outcomes. I challenge the Treasurer to identify the productivity savings he will make in

negotiations he is entering into about wage outcomes for the public sector. I have no problem with paying public

sector workers more money but the Government should be transparent about it. Put the books on the table and

show us where the negotiations are up to. If members are to be consistent they will support this motion.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 18

Noes ................... 22

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 40

Majority .............. 4

AYES

Carter Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)

Fang (teller) Martin Roberts

Farlow Merton Ruddick

Farraway Mihailuk Taylor

Latham Mitchell Tudehope

MacDonald Munro Ward

NOES

Banasiak Graham Mookhey

Borsak Higginson Moriarty

Boyd Houssos Murphy (teller)

Buttigieg Hurst Nanva (teller)

Cohn Jackson Primrose

D'Adam Kaine Sharpe

Donnelly Lawrence Suvaal

Faehrmann

Motion negatived.

Visitors

VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into my gallery guests of Ms Sue Higginson and supporters of Kathleen

Folbigg, including Tracy Chapman, Ms Folbigg's lifelong friend; Rhanee Rego, Ms Folbigg's lawyer; Brigid

Glanville, a respected former staffer, State political reporter and supporter of Ms Folbigg; esteemed human rights

and criminal law barrister Felicity Graham; and other supporters of Ms Folbigg.

Motions

KATHLEEN FOLBIGG

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (16:27): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) in 2003, Kathleen Folbigg was convicted for the murder of three of her children and the manslaughter of her

firstborn child;

(b) Kathleen Folbigg was sentenced to 40 years in prison, which was later reduced on appeal to 30 years with a 25-year

non-parole period;

(d) earlier this month the 2022 Inquiry into the convictions of Kathleen Megan Folbigg heard from Counsel Assisting

the Inquirer and the Director of Public Prosecutions that in light of the evidence heard at the inquiry, there is

reasonable doubt in respect of Ms Folbigg's convictions, meaning she was wrongly convicted;

(e) this week marks the grim anniversary of 20 years since Ms Folbigg was sent to prison;

(f) Ms Folbigg has suffered in the hands of the State in the New South Wales prison system, having been abused and

bashed while held inside;

(g) despite the clear and consistent evidence of reasonable doubt in relation to Ms Folbigg's guilt, she is still held in a

maximum-security prison; and

(h) holding Ms Folbigg for even a day longer is a compounding of the worst of injustices.

(2) That this House acknowledges:

(a) the work of Ms Folbigg's friends and supporters who have tirelessly campaigned for her release and supported

Ms Folbigg for two decades; and

(b) the many women who struggle for justice under a system that too often fails them.

(3) That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) issue advice to the Governor to pardon Ms Folbigg immediately; and

(b) ensure Ms Folbigg is released without delay.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 41

This motion asks the House to call on the Government to do justice, and to issue advice to the Governor to pardon

Kathleen Folbigg immediately and ensure that she is released without delay. It is about acting in the face of the

gravest injustice. Kathleen Folbigg is in prison in New South Wales right now, and she should not be. The person

who has the power to change that is the Attorney General. Kathleen Folbigg was convicted after being found

guilty of charges resulting from the deaths of her four children, which occurred one at a time over 10 years when

they were all just babies. Kathleen was sentenced to imprisonment for 40 years, which was reduced on appeal to

30 years with a 25-year non-parole period. She has served 20 years of that sentence.

The legal system is about evidence. A recent inquiry demonstrated that there are natural causes of death

for each child, and Kathleen's diaries, which were used against her, are not confessions of murder. That is the

view taken by the three counsels assisting the judge. The Director of Public Prosecutions has also confirmed that

position. There is now a mountain of evidence that was not presented in the trial of Kathleen Folbigg, nor in

subsequent inquiries, that shows there is reasonable doubt as to her guilt and her conviction. I am moving this

motion because the Attorney General, as the first law officer of this State, has the power to free Kathleen Folbigg.

It is important to understand the inquiry into Kathleen Folbigg's conviction is a separate process than the one

available to the Attorney General. The Attorney General's power to do the right thing is not at all contingent on

the written document that will come at the end of an inquiry. The inquiry was ordered by the former Attorney

General, Mark Speakman, after he received a petition requesting a pardon from Kathleen's legal team. The inquiry

is Mr Speakman's inquiry; it is not Kathleen Folbigg's. She asked for a pardon and is still asking now, and this

House must join that call.

The evidence heard at the recent inquiry supports, in no uncertain terms, the position that Kathleen Folbigg

has always maintained—that she was wrongfully convicted in 2003. The Attorney General does not need to wait—

and nor should he wait—for the written document from the inquiry. It could take the inquiry days, weeks or

months to publish the final document. That is how that part of the system works. Written work cannot be rushed.

It takes time. It can take weeks and months for all sorts of legitimate reasons. In 2003 Kathleen was convicted

after a trial that relied on coincidence and tendency, and it was strongly influenced by a since-discredited

Meadow's law—a precept espoused by a controversial paediatrician, Roy Meadow, suggesting that three or more

sudden infant deaths in one family was murder until proven otherwise.

The G114R variant in the CALM2 gene, which is predicted to cause lethal cardiac arrhythmias, was found

in Ms Folbigg and her two baby daughters. In 2021 a senior paediatric neurologist concluded that Kathleen's baby

son likely died of an epileptic seizure. The death of her first baby, Caleb, was always diagnosed as sudden infant

death syndrome. He was just 19 days old, and it has been well documented that he was a very unwell baby. We

now have compelling psychiatric evidence providing much more honest, unbiased and realistic views of

Kathleen's diaries, state of mind and grief at the time. Counsel assisting the inquiry, Sophie Callan, said the

overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that Ms Folbigg was a loving and caring mother towards her children.

As the judge himself said in the inquiry, there is now a significant body of evidence to suggest reasonable

possibilities of identifiable natural causes of death that were not available at the trial.

The Government's Attorney General has the power to act now. He is the only person who is currently

keeping Kathleen in prison wrongly. When legal power is vested in someone, they exercise it. It is wrong in all

of the circumstances for the Attorney General not to exercise his power right now. Every minute he delays the

administration of justice for Kathleen, he offends the very notion of the rule of law. Kathleen is a woman, like

Lindy Chamberlain, who has been failed by the criminal justice system. We cannot undo the past 20 years for

Kathleen, but we can act here and now. I ask that all members support this motion for Kathleen, for all women

and for the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (16:32): I add my voice to advocate for the parole or pardon of Kathleen

Folbigg, a woman who has spent two decades in jail. The case of Kathleen Folbigg is one that has raised serious

doubts and concerns, and it is our duty to ensure that justice is served. We understand that, from the beginning,

Kathleen has maintained her innocence and, over the years, scientific evidence has emerged that supports her

claims. Recent research has shed new light on the genetics of her family and of her husband suggesting that there

may have been alternative explanations for the tragic deaths of her children. The initial guilty verdict was largely

based on diary entries that were interpreted as admissions of guilt. However, there were significant issues with

how this evidence was treated during the trial. The focus on these diary entries overshadowed the emerging

scientific evidence that could have provided a different perspective on the case.

In recent years extensive scientific research has been conducted revealing the presence of genetic variants

that could have contributed to the deaths of Kathleen's children. The findings suggested the possibility of natural

causes for these tragic losses. Prominent scientists and medical professionals have voiced their support for

Kathleen, stating that there is a strong presumption that her children died of natural causes. Furthermore, the trial

relied on the discredited Meadow's law, which suggests that multiple sudden infant deaths in one family are

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 42

evidence of murder. Similar cases in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, have been overturned due

to the flawed reasoning behind this law.

It is crucial to recognise that justice should not only be about punishment but should also be about truth

and fairness. Kathleen Folbigg has endured unimaginable grief and suffering as a mother who has lost her children.

She has spent two decades in maximum security prisons, largely in confinement for her own safety. I urge all in

this place to consider the growing scientific evidence and the bleedingly obvious—that Kathleen Folbigg may

have been wrongfully convicted. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said it is open for Mr Bathurst to find

reasonable doubt. This is a huge moment. No longer does this State's top prosecutor maintain that Kathleen

Folbigg is guilty. It is time for the Attorney General to act. Has he called Tom Bathurst, KC, to see when the

report will be handed down?

I think it is appropriate to draw the comparison to the Lindy Chamberlain case. The counsel assisting with

the inquiry and the Director of Public Prosecutions said there is reasonable doubt—yes, reasonable doubt. This

was Kathleen Folbigg's matinee jacket moment. Lindy was released with a pardon within a week; Kathleen

Folbigg remains in jail. Granting Kathleen her parole or a pardon would not only acknowledge the potential

miscarriage of justice but also allow her to reclaim her life and begin to heal from the immense pain she has

endured. No-one needs to be reminded that our justice system should be guided by truth, reason and compassion.

It is our duty to ensure that Kathleen Folbigg receives a fair and just outcome as soon as possible.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:35): I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

(1) In paragraph (1) (d) omit "and the Director of Public Prosecutions" and "meaning she was wrongly convicted".

(2) In paragraph (1) (e) omit "grim".

(3) In paragraph (1) (f) omit " in the hands of the State" and "having been abused and bashed while held inside".

(4) Omit paragraphs (1) (g) and (1) (h).

(5) In paragraph (2) (a) omit "the work of Ms Folbigg's friends and supporters who" and insert instead "that a group of

Ms Folbigg's friends and supporters"

(6) Omit paragraph (2) (b) and insert instead:

(b) challenges faced by women in the justice system

(7) Omit paragraph (3) and insert instead:

(3) That this House calls on the Government to act in this matter appropriately as soon as practicable.

I represent the Attorney General in this place and will therefore be representing the Government in this debate.

I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of persons associated with Kathleen Folbigg. The Government

is supportive of a constructive discussion with respect to the Kathleen Folbigg matter. The Government is willing

to support this motion in an amended form. I am advised that the following matter is incredibly serious. In 2003

Ms Folbigg was convicted of the manslaughter of her first child, Caleb, and the murders of her first three children,

Patrick, Sarah and Laura, and of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Patrick. Ms Folbigg was initially

sentenced to 40 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years. On appeal this was reduced to 30 years

with a non-parole period of 25 years. Ms Folbigg has maintained her innocence claiming the four children died

of natural causes.

The Government acknowledges that there is significant community interest in this case. Legal and

scientific discourse has been extensive and there are significant evidentiary complexities connected with this

matter. The Government is pleased with the progress of the most recent inquiry conducted by the Hon. Thomas

Bathurst, KC. In respect of the motion, I acknowledge the member who moved it and thank her for raising the

matter in this place. It is clear that the Government has an imperative to act with care and diligence in this matter

given the gravity of the circumstances.

In May 2022 the former Attorney General recommended the Governor establish a detailed inquiry process

upon which this matter could be considered. The Government is supportive of that course of action. The Folbigg

matter has been subject to extensive judicial consideration. In 2005 Ms Folbigg appealed her convictions to the

Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was dismissed. She made an application for special leave to appeal the

decision in the High Court of Australia, which was also dismissed. In 2007 Ms Folbigg was granted leave to

reopen her appeal in the court of criminal appeal and that the appeal was also dismissed.

I seek leave to speak for an additional two minutes.

Leave granted.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 43

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I thank the House. In 2007 Ms Folbigg was granted leave to reopen

her appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal and that appeal was dismissed. In February 2021 Ms Folbigg applied

to the Court of Appeal for judicial review of the findings in the first judicial inquiry regarding her case, seeking

to have the report quashed or the findings in the report declared legally flawed. The court dismissed the

application. It would not be prudent for the Attorney General to make a determination with respect to the Folbigg

case in advance of receiving advice or findings from the inquiry, given the previous extensive judicial

consideration and the breadth of technical, scientific and legal evidence being considered.

The Government amendments to the motion reflect that position. However, the Government acknowledges

that there is a need for urgency. We wish to ensure that our amendments reflect the significance of this matter and

provide assurance to all affected parties that the Government has heard and is listening to the calls for action, and

will work to make a determination on Ms Folbigg's applications as soon as is practicable. The proper

administration of justice is a central belief of the New South Wales Government. The Attorney General will ensure

that significant matters are dealt with, with proper diligence and proper consideration. We all agree that the rule

of law is the bedrock foundation of our democratic system of government and must be upheld. To do so, we need

to carefully and thoroughly consider the evidence and findings. Once received, the Attorney General and the

Government will consider them promptly.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:40): On behalf of One Nation I indicate that we will not support the

motion moved by Ms Sue Higginson. However, if the Government amendments are carried, we will support the

amended motion. In 2003 Kathleen Folbigg was convicted of the murder of three of her children and the

manslaughter of a fourth child. She was subsequently sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. Folbigg exercised her

right of appeal. The conviction stood by her sentence. It was reduced, though, to 30 years with 25 years' non-parole

period.

In 2019, following the petitioning by the legal representatives of Mrs Folbigg, His Honour Reg Blanch,

AM, KC, conducted an inquiry into the convictions. In his report, his Honour said, "the investigations of the

inquiry have produced evidence which reinforces Ms Folbigg's guilt" and that he does not have "any reasonable

doubt as to the guilt of Kathleen Megan Folbigg for the offences of which she was convicted". During the Blanch

inquiry, Folbigg was represented by senior counsel and the inquiry heard expert evidence about advances in

forensic pathology, genetics, neurology, immunology and the understanding of sudden infant death syndrome

since her trial in 2003. The inquiry heard from 16 expert witnesses. His Honour Judge Blanch, as indicated

previously, could form no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Folbigg.

Fast-forward to today and we have yet another inquiry, this time conducted by former Chief Justice Tom

Bathurst. This inquiry has heard from a number of experts. Those experts have told the inquiry that Folbigg's

daughters "may" have died as a result of a genetic mutation that "may" have caused cardiac arrhythmias—irregular

heart rhythms—and sudden, unexpected death. But the experts are divided. Dr Dominic Abrams, from the

Cardiovascular Genetics Center at Boston Children's Hospital gave evidence that "whilst a cardiac arrhythmia

related to the ... [genetic] variant cannot be definitively excluded, I believe the likelihood this was responsible for

the deaths of Sarah and Laura is low". We must remember that none of the evidence taken at the inquiry proves

Kathleen Folbigg is innocent of the charges; it merely creates a reasonable doubt.

We have a conflict between the experts, which is not unusual in law. Notwithstanding that, many people—

including Ms Higginson—are calling for the Attorney General to advise the Governor to issue a pardon under

section 76 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 or for the Governor to make a parole order under

section 160AD of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. It is fundamentally wrong for the

Parliament, via the Executive, to interfere with the judiciary. The rule of law and the separation of powers should

be maintained at all times. His Honour Tom Bathurst is a highly experienced jurist, who will produce a thorough

report. After taking into account the totality of the evidence rather than snippets reported in the media, the report

will be completed, and only then should the Attorney General take the action that may be deemed appropriate.

The law and its operation is not a play thing for members of Parliament. Only the judiciary is charged with the

responsibility of the application of the law. It should be left unfettered to do its job without interference from the

Government. The independence of the judiciary relies on it.

The Hon. EMMA HURST (16:43): On behalf of the Animal Justice Party, I speak in support of the

motion. In 2003, Kathleen Folbigg was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter as a

result of the death of her four infant children: Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura. She is currently serving a 30-year

sentence in a maximum-security prison. Despite decades of incarceration and intense public condemnation,

Kathleen Folbigg has always maintained her innocence. Since 2021, more than 150 scientists have signed a

petition calling for Ms Folbigg's release, which led to a 2022 judicial inquiry. It has been found that two of

Ms Folbigg's daughters had a variant of the CALM2 gene, which often causes life-threatening cardiac

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 44

arrhythmias, and her two boys carried a variant of a gene called BSN, which is associated with severe epilepsy

and neurodevelopmental delay. In other words, it is likely that the children died of natural causes.

Counsel assisting the inquiry and the Director of Public Prosecutions both concluded that, based on the

new evidence received, there is reasonable doubt about Kathleen Folbigg's conviction, meaning her conviction is

no longer valid. A criminal case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In light of the new evidence, that

simply has not been met. It is devastating to think that someone could lose four children and be sent to jail for

murder while innocent. No wrongfully convicted person should remain in our prisons. It is an enormous

miscarriage of justice and one that should be rectified as soon as possible. While Ms Folbigg could potentially be

pardoned or released via an inquiry process, there is significant uncertainty about how soon that can happen and

reports say that Ms Folbigg is not coping in incarceration. That is why we support the motion that calls on the

Government—more specifically, the Attorney General—to issue advice to the Governor to pardon Kathleen

Folbigg immediately. I also thank Ms Sue Higginson for bringing this important matter to the House and for her

work advocating for women who have been failed by the criminal justice system. I commend the motion to the

House.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (16:45): I speak on the motion before the House and also thank Ms Sue

Higginson for moving the motion and for her advocacy today. The legal complications and challenges of this

motion have been mentioned a lot. We have a lot of lawyers in this House, and I will leave that to them because

I do not have a law degree. I commend some people who are in the gallery today. Tracy Chapman is Kathleen's

lifelong friend and staunch advocate. What has done for her friend is admirable and courageous. I respect what

she has done and I take my hat off to her. She is an amazing human being and it has been an absolute privilege to

meet her today. Kathleen's lawyer, Rhanee Rego, is also in the gallery. She has worked for Kathleen for six years

pro bono. That means a lot. I offer my congratulations to her. It is amazing be talented enough to have a law

degree and to use that for the forces of good.

A lot has changed in 20 years not just in technology and science but also in our approach to mental health

and the treatment of women. Advances in science have allowed the legal system to understand precise natural

causes of death for the Folbigg children. The new scientific evidence is vitally important, but it is only one part

of the story. At the 2003 trial a handful of words were cherrypicked from the more than 50,000 words Kathleen

Folbigg had written in her diaries over 10 years. No expert witnesses appearing at the trial had analysed those

diaries. The recent inquiry had 10 experts, which included three independent psychiatrists and psychologists

engaged by the inquiry, to review those diaries. They all shared the view that those diaries are not confessions of

murder.

As Sophie Callan, SC, the lead counsel assisting the inquiry, said in written submissions, "the weight of

the evidence tends to suggest that Ms Folbigg was in general, a loving and caring mother towards her children".

At that inquiry, counsel assisting and the Director of Public Prosecutions both agreed that there is reasonable

doubt about Kathleen Folbigg's convictions. As a society, we have come a long way in understanding mental

health, post-traumatic stress disorder, maternal grief, trauma and depression. Those once stigmatised topics were

not discussed much two decades ago; they were certainly not discussed as openly as they are now. It is important

that we reflect on this long case and that we look at the treatment of this grieving mother. She did not cry openly;

therefore, in the public's eye, she must be guilty? But we now know that trauma affects everybody differently.

Not showing overt or public signs of grief does not mean someone does not feel the same loss as another person.

It simply means that we all grieve differently. Kathleen Folbigg was grieving for the loss of her four babies.

I seek an extension of 30 seconds.

Leave granted.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: I thank the House for its indulgence. I respect that the Attorney General

has decided to wait for the report of Tom Bathurst, KC. But I urge the Attorney General to act immediately when

he receives the report to pardon Kathleen Folbigg because every day in prison is a day too long. I give a big

shout-out to the amazing Brigid Glanville, who is here today. Her history does not need any exaggeration from

me, but her pro bono advocacy in this case should be commended.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (16:49): I speak in support of the amendment and the Government's

position on the motion. I can hardly underestimate the significance of this issue. In my opinion, it is the most

significant development in the criminal justice system in New South Wales in living memory. The horror of what

we are dealing with can scarcely be understated: the horror of the death of four children; the horror of the prospect

of the murder or manslaughter of children; the prospect of the death of four children by natural causes; and,

perhaps most importantly, in light of the concessions that have been made at the inquiry, the prospect of a person

losing four children and then being wrongly convicted of the intentional homicide of those children. It is perhaps

those horrors that make this case quite difficult to engage with on a human level, but it must be engaged with.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 45

The ancient powers that exist now, in part in statute, to parole or pardon are aspects of the prerogative of

mercy. They are important powers, and the Chamberlain case shows how crucial it is that the repository of those

powers always stand ready to exercise them. It is relevant to recall that Lindy Chamberlain was released on licence

or parole prior to the second royal commission and prior to her ultimate pardoning and acquittal. It is relevant to

note, too, that Tom Bathurst is not sitting in this inquiry as a member of the judicial arm of government. He is

sitting as a member of the administrative arm. It is relevant to note that in the inquiry Tom Bathurst had cause to

mention that these powers were independent of the powers that he exercises. It is important to reflect on the role

of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and counsel assisting.

I played the role of counsel assisting in a number of coronial inquiries. The person playing that special role

confers with the inquirer on a regular basis. They plan lines of questioning and they help to write the judgement.

Of course, the DPP plays the role of contradictor in those proceedings, in a sense, but it is the prosecutor in an

adversarial system of criminal justice. The significance of the DPP concession in that inquiry can hardly be

overstated. It would be the contradictor in any future appeal proceedings. So what can we ask of the

Attorney General? Well, we certainly cannot put undue pressure on him or prejudge those decisions that are his

to make. All I would suggest we can ask of the Attorney General is that he is ready to exercise his powers at any

time, that he does not delegate the exercise of his powers constructively to any other person, and that he stands

ready as the repository of those powers to give mercy, if mercy is warranted, upon the engagement with the issues,

facts and evidence. [Time expired.]

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (16:52): I speak on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Ms Sue Higginson

for bringing the motion before the House. I know she does so with great intent and diligence. I acknowledge the

supporters of Kathleen Folbigg in the President's gallery and their relentless, tireless devotion to their friend. I also

acknowledge the loss of those precious children. The loss of children in any circumstance is devastating. I know

that all members come to this place with genuine intent to see the right thing done. I mourn for those children, for

their mother and for their family.

I indicate that I am aware of the Government's proposed amendments to the motion. At the outset, I indicate

that the Opposition will be supportive of those amendments and, should they be successful, of the amended

motion. I put on record a couple of things, given that the matter came before the previous Government and the

previous Attorney General, who is now Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition believes in the rule of law and

the right to due process within the criminal justice system in New South Wales and across Australia. It is a

foundation of our democracy. As an inquiry is underway, I am hesitant to comment directly on the specific

components of it. As the Hon. Bronnie Taylor said, there are too many lawyers in this place as it is, so I will leave

it to them—I merely hold a practising certificate.

The Opposition is aware of the immediate coverage surrounding the inquiry. I note that the previous

Government instigated the inquiry as its members believed the case should be seen through. In May 2022, when

the then Attorney General recommended that the Governor appoint retired Chief Justice the Hon. Tom Bathurst,

AC, KC, to conduct a second inquiry into Ms Folbigg's conviction, we did so in the belief of that process coming

to a view, and that a transparent, public and fair process can provide a just resolution. I seek an extension of time.

Leave granted.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD: As the then Attorney General indicated at the time, Ms Folbigg's legal

representatives contended that the new scientific evidence was compelling. I am advised that the 2021 petition

raised new scientific material, published since the first inquiry into the convictions. We note that the new material

concerns developments in the scientific understanding—forgive my explanation—of the CALM2 genetic variant

found in Ms Folbigg and her two daughters, Sarah and Laura. The new scientific material predicts that the CALM2

genetic variant in question causes disease and that carriers of it are prone to cardiac arrhythmias, which can cause

cardiac arrest during sleep.

The new scientific material and the implications it has for Ms Folbigg's case are complex and must be

carefully and thoroughly scrutinised by appropriately qualified experts and investigated in the context of her case.

But we know that she has been unsuccessful in numerous public proceedings to date. There is a need for fairness

and transparency in that process. Against that backdrop, the then Attorney General explained that it would not be

appropriate for the Governor to grant a pardon or, for example, for the Governor or Attorney General to receive

private briefings from experts with a view to considering granting a pardon without that evidence being properly

scrutinised independently and in a public forum. At the conclusion of Mr Bathurst's inquiry, a report will be

prepared and the outcome of that will be a matter for the judicial officer—in this case, Mr Bathurst.

The Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act sets out the actions that may be taken on completion of an inquiry,

and they involve a review of conviction under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act. If the judicial officer who

conducts the inquiry finds there to be no reasonable doubt as to the convicted person's guilt, then a report will be

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 46

provided to the Governor and the Governor may then dispose of the matter by taking no further action. If the

judicial officer who conducts the inquiry finds there is reasonable doubt as to the convicted person's guilt, then

the judicial officer can refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That court, in considering a report received

by it from the inquiry, has the power to quash that conviction and grant the convicted person an acquittal. In either

case, the Governor can grant a convicted person a free pardon.

A free pardon has the effect of relieving a convicted person of the consequences of their conviction, so

they would not be required to serve any remaining time on their sentence. However, that does not mean the

conviction is quashed. If there has been an inquiry, then a convicted person who has been granted a free pardon

can apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for it to be quashed. Nonetheless, guilt, innocence and the matter of

custodial sentences are extremely serious matters. We support the view of the new Government to look at this

matter very closely and consider whether there is something it can do more urgently than that process, given

appropriate advice. In circumstances where the Government is being called on to act appropriately and as soon as

practicable, if those amendments are successful then we will absolutely support them and support the amended

motion.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (16:58): In reply: I thank the Hon. Robert Borsak in particular for his contribution.

I thank the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, the Hon. Rod Roberts, the Hon. Emma Hurst and the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. I

thank The Hon. Stephen Lawrence for that incredible insight into the role of counsel assisting an inquiry and the

role of an inquiry. I thank the Hon. Natalie Ward for her contribution. The conflation of what is happening here

astounds me. It is not a judicial inquiry that is being undertaken; it is an administrative function. It is a completely

separate process to the plea and the petition and what Kathleen Folbigg's legal team has been asking for. They are

asking for a pardon and immediate release.

The Attorney General has the power; he is the leading law officer of this State. He is the only person who

stands between justice and the gravest injustice we know of in a rule of law system—a democracy; a functioning

system. We are talking about the wrongful incarceration of a 55-year-old woman who has spent 20 years in prison

and is now going to spend more time in prison. The Attorney General has the power to look at the volume of

evidence. After reading every single word, going through every volume and looking at every transcript, it is very

difficult to sleep at night knowing that she is still in prison. I have read every single word. I am a lawyer. Every

single member in this House should support the motion unamended. The Greens will accept and work with the

fact that even though the motion will be amended, it still provides some serious leverage. We will not stop our

pleas directly to the Attorney General to do the right thing.

This State deserves an Attorney General who is willing to engage in the law and the systems before him

or her, and they should do the right thing by justice. If the Attorney General does not have a justice bone in their

body, then they should not be the Attorney General. That is the role of the first legal officer of this State. A woman

is in prison and, on the face of all the expertise, she is there in spite of a very basic fundamental legal premise.

There is reasonable doubt as to her guilt and her conviction. We are waiting for one more man to put pen to paper

to say the very things that have already been said. The Attorney General's power does not rest on that. Please

support the motion unamended.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): Ms Sue Higginson has moved a motion,

to which the Hon. Daniel Mookhey has moved an amendment. The question is the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 31

Noes ................... 8

Majority .............. 23

AYES

Buttigieg Latham Munro

Carter Lawrence Murphy

D'Adam MacDonald Nanva (teller)

Donnelly Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)

Fang Martin Roberts

Farlow Merton Sharpe

Farraway Mihailuk Suvaal

Graham Mitchell Taylor

Houssos Mookhey Tudehope

Jackson Moriarty Ward

Kaine

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 47

NOES

Banasiak Cohn Hurst

Borsak (teller) Faehrmann (teller) Ruddick

Boyd Higginson

Amendment agreed to.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question now is that the motion as

amended be agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Bills

PROPERTY SERVICES COUNCIL BILL 2023

First Reading

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion by the Hon. Mark Banasiak.

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is an honour to introduce the Property Services Council Bill 2023 to the House. This is the second occasion on

which I have introduced a bill proposing reforms to the property services industry in New South Wales. On

24 October 2019 I introduced the Real Estate Services Council Bill 2019. While I am aware that the Government

gave the industry a commitment prior to the election that it would establish a property services commissioner as

set out in the bill, it was the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party that commenced the legislative reform of the

State's biggest industry. Accordingly, it is fitting that we once again start the process. This important piece

legislation largely replicates the Real Estate Services Council Bill 2019; however, the bill now enjoys the benefit

of the amendments moved by Labor as a condition of its support for the 2019 bill. I thank the Hon. Daniel

Mookhey for his contribution to that debate. I also thank Ms Yasmin Catley and Ms Julia Finn for their

contributions to the 2019 bill in the other place.

It is said that real estate is the world's longest conversation. It is no more so than in New South Wales—

particularly in Sydney. It is difficult to watch the news, get a haircut, enjoy a social gathering with friends or take

a taxi ride without property prices and the rental market entering the conversation. The residential real estate

industry alone generates $118 billion annually, bigger than the New South Wales mining, retail and tourism

industries combined. Property transfer duty—sometimes called stamp duty—contributes well over $10 billion

every year to the New South Wales Government and to this we can also add land tax. The property industry and

those that serve it are clearly doing their bit for the State. The question is are we?

From a housing, economic, and housing and tax revenue perspective, everyone in New South Wales is a

stakeholder in real estate. Our relationship with real estate is often colloquially termed as "from the cradle to the

grave". It is therefore paramount that the property industry is prosperous. We know that markets perform at their

best when consumers have confidence. A key driver of market confidence is transactional hygiene and

transparency, but it will not come as a surprise that there is work to be done to improve that consumer confidence.

In fact, members of the previous Government were happy to actively erode that consumer confidence in the

misguided view that doing so somehow elevated their own standing in the community. For most of us buying a

home is the biggest acquisition we will ever make. It is an extremely stressful and emotionally draining process

so purchasers and vendors want to be confident that their service providers are competently regulated and properly

educated, as well as that they observe professional conduct standards.

The 2019 bill addressed those issues but, sadly, for reasons that allude me, the Coalition falsely represented

the purpose of and the powers granted by the 2019 bill. The Coalition alleged that the operative sections of the

bill granted industry self-determination and removed ministerial control. Both allegations were patently wrong,

of which I am in no doubt that the Coalition was fully aware. Despite the Coalition's efforts, after receiving the

requisite support in this House the 2019 bill went to the other place for further debate. Unfortunately for

New South Wales consumers and the industry, the Coalition persisted with its false narrative and, with its superior

numbers in the other place, it was able to defeat the bill. It is clearly important when considering legislative activity

to ask several questions. Firstly, why should Parliament invoke its legislative powers—what problem is it seeking

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 48

to solve? Secondly, will the proposed legislative activity adequately address those issues? Finally, and in the

interest of not repeating the mistakes of the past, what caused the problem? I will answer all those questions.

The journey that led me here today has been extensive. Both the Hon. Robert Borsak and I have undertaken

a deep dive into the industry and completed significant due diligence to craft the solution I put before the House

today. Many members will recall when the Hon. Robert Borsak alerted the House on 24 October 2018 to some of

the issues within the property services industry. If anyone doubts the importance of this bill, I suggest they ask an

aspiring first home buyer or someone trying to acquire a rental property for their opinion. There are serious

problems with the New South Wales property market, particularly the residential market. Put bluntly, New South

Wales does not have enough housing, much less affordable housing. If the past 10 years has taught us anything,

it is that ignoring the problem, attempting to assign blame to other stakeholders and seeking the community's

gratitude for dealing with only its symptoms has not worked. As we debate the bill, keep in mind that we are

dealing with one of the three non-negotiable needs for human existence. Along with food and water, humans need

shelter.

I accept that the bill on its own will not solve the housing problem; however, that journey must start

somewhere and, with the support of the House, it can start today. I believe history to be a great teacher. Prior to

2002 the Real Estate Services Council Act 1990 was operative. Readers of the 1990 Act will quickly discover that

it bears a distinct resemblance to this bill. That is not an accident. The 1990 Act was repealed in 2002 at a time

when the property services industry, along with numerous other industries, was clustered under one regulatory

authority, NSW Fair Trading. At that time I suspect the move would have been attractive from a cost saving

perspective, but unfortunately the experiment failed. The Property Services Council Bill 2023 merely returns the

property services industry to the regulatory environment that worked. Expressed colloquially, it is a "back to the

future" bill, so let's dust off the DeLorean.

I challenge members to think of an asset class that has greater community significance, involves more

money and is more transactionally complex than property. It is no place for a regulatory authority who fields

complaints about broken toasters and kettles. New South Wales property consumers—that means all of us—have

the reasonable expectation that the property services industry will be supported and supervised by experts in the

field. NSW Fair Trading is a regulator for high frequency, small dollar value transactions with minimal legal

complexity. Property transactions are low frequency, always involve large sums of money and occur within a very

complex legal environment. By way of example the following industries are within the remit of NSW Fair

Trading: motor repairers, pawn brokers, second-hand dealers, hairdressers, tattooists and tow-truck drivers.

The previous Government pursued an adversarial relationship with the industry. It appeared incapable of

referring to the industry without the use of terms like "dodgy". Fair Trading and the previous Government

constantly reminded the community of underquoting and the compliance "blitzes" it conducted. Both were keen

to publish the fines and penalties issued. I ask members to consider whether that was for the benefit of consumers

or political grandstanding. I have not undertaken any specific research, so I do not know how prevalent the offence

of underquoting is. Nonetheless, let us assume that it is as big a problem as Fair Trading wants us to believe. With

that in mind, we know that Fair Trading has been trying to solve the problem for over 20 years. Therefore, the

question for members is whether we implement change or hope that the use of the same unsuccessful strategies

for the past 20 years will miraculously solve the problem.

Let me be clear: All industries have people within their ranks who do the wrong thing. The property

services industry is no exception. On reflection, it would not surprise members to know that the people in the

community who detest bad agent behaviour more than anyone else are the good agents, because the good agents,

who have been reaching out for government support, get tarred with the same brush. When an industry wants to

improve itself, why would Parliament not assist? As part of my research, I examined the second reading speech

of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Bill 2001 by the then Minister for Fair Trading, John Aquilina. The

bill, having received the required support and satisfying all other necessary requirements, is now known as the

Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.

Unfortunately, in light of what I am about to report, we must acknowledge reluctantly that the Act has not

delivered the outcomes that Parliament intended and, therefore, on consumer expectations. During the bill's second

reading speech, Minister Aquilina made several specific observations and predictions relating to the positive

impact the bill would have for the consumer and property services industry. He said:

The bill will simplify the licence application process, improve industry standards, and lighten the regulatory burden for licensees.

…

… the core proposals: the introduction of competency standards, mandatory continuing professional education, and professional

indemnity insurance.

…

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 49

By ensuring that those who are granted a licence or certificate of registration demonstrate certain levels of competency, consumers

are protected, consumer confidence is boosted, vocational professionalism is increased, and an economically efficient property sector

ensues.

…

The bill also enables the renewal of a licence or certificate of registration on condition that licence holders undertake continuing

professional development each year. Licensees and certificate holders, like many others in business, need a wide range of skills to

competently perform their functions. Equally, they need to keep abreast of changes and developments in their fields of competence.

Continuing professional development recognises the changing nature of the marketplace, and provides flexibility to educate property

professionals in the special competencies needed in relation to the licence and certificate categories under the Act. Continuing

professional development could cover topics such as law and technology changes, ethics, dispute resolution and business

management.

…

In addition to competency and continuing professional development requirements, the bill enables the director-general to require a

licensee to hold a policy of professional indemnity insurance that meets certain minimum conditions.

I will now examine each of those items in turn. The first is the education required to enter the property services

industry in New South Wales. In 2002 Fair Trading set the required education at less than a week. Industry fought

successfully for increased education and experience as a precondition for entry into the industry. However, that

win is largely symbolic. There exists in the market very aggressive competition between registered training

organisations to deliver the education faster and cheaper. As usual, the data speaks to those who listen. Eighty per

cent of people entering the industry leave in the first 12 months. By any standards that is appalling. Why? The

answer is simple. New entrants to the industry have not been equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to

respond to the demands of practice. Governments have failed the person wanting a career in real estate and

exposed the consumer to risk. Prior to the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, a person seeking a career in real

estate had to attend TAFE for three years part time while gaining on-the-job experience. As the complexity of real

estate underwent a parabolic shift northward, the education requirements went proportionally south.

I say without fear of contradiction that the current education and training standards in the industry do not

reflect the Parliament's intent. Industry has relentlessly lobbied Fair Trading to demand higher standards from

registered training organisations. Fair Trading has refused, saying that the regulation of registered training

organisations vests with the Australian Skills Quality Authority. While that is true, for a body to be aware of such

a serious problem within an industry under its regulatory control and not pursuing the matter with the regulator

does not shower Fair Trading in glory. It has adopted the Scott Morrison response of "not my job, mate".

I will move to continuing professional development [CPD], which is recognised by numerous professions

and industries as essential to keeping service providers abreast of developments in their industry. Those matters

include emerging technology, new legislative instruments and identified areas of weakness with regulatory

compliance. There is currently a requirement for agents to undertake four hours of CPD as a condition precedent

to renewing their licence. The quality of CPD in the market is extremely poor. CPD providers pitch themselves

as cheap and fast. Online CPD is particularly poor, where agents can complete the training very quickly or,

alternatively, have someone else do it for them—typically an office admin or receptionist. The Real Estate Institute

of New South Wales videoed one of its employees doing an online CPD course from one of these providers. The

employee completed the required four hours of CPD training in just 3½ minutes. The institute sent the video to

Fair Trading, requesting action. Fair Trading responded by including that registered training organisation on the

list of approved providers published on its website.

It was unquestionably Parliament's intention that real estate agents should receive relevant and quality

CPD, and that the regulatory authority, Fair Trading, would police the matter. Fair Trading has, by the absence of

any activity in this important area, determined that CPD is unnecessary. However, given the legislative

requirement imposed by Parliament, Fair Trading has adopted a perfunctory strategy. The Independent Pricing

and Regulatory Tribunal recently recommended dispensing with CPD, considering it an unnecessary impost on

business. The Real Estate Institute also recommended abolishing the requirement, but for completely different

reasons.

While the institute is a strong advocate of relevant and quality CPD, equally it does not see the point of its

agents doing their CPD in 3½ minutes. Industry pleaded with the previous Government to establish a dedicated

Property Services Commissioner. In response, the then Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, Victor

Dominello, established the Real Estate Reference Group. In the opinion of industry, the group was established by

Minister Dominello to create a forum within which industry could make a genuine contribution and achieve

positive reform. However, Fair Trading saw it as a means of maintaining the status quo and keeping industry quiet

with meaningless meetings and agendas.

I have not discussed in any detail the workings of the Real Estate Reference Group. However, I can assure

members that, from what has been reported to me, it is not the proudest performance of the public service.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 50

Ultimately, industry walked away from the group and the forum was disbanded. Industry once again lobbied for

its own dedicated commissioner. Former Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Kevin Anderson

established an expert panel to replicate the Real Estate Reference Group. The Real Estate Institute is of the view

that the reference group and the expert panel are forums designed to house industry and provide Fair Trading with

the ability to demonstrate to government that it is working cooperatively with industry. Industry has repeatedly

petitioned Fair Trading to join with it in a variety of industry-based educational programs. Included in those

proposed activities are consumer events designed to assist consumers with property transactional decisions. Fair

Trading has refused to engage with those proposed programs, a decision again contrary to Parliament's intention.

In fact, Parliament made specific provision in the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 to fund such events.

Despite an extremely unproductive environment created by Fair Trading, industry continues to make an

enormous contribution to the development of regulatory controls and legislative instruments. Most recently, the

Real Estate Institute of New South Wales residential property management committee provided a submission to

assist the Minister with rent bidding. If the Government had to pay for that kind of expert consultancy, it would

come at considerable cost. However, it is provided freely and acknowledged begrudgingly. Industry regularly sees

itself as the panacea for misguided and ill-informed policy drivers at Fair Trading. Rescuing the consumer from

Fair Trading is a costly and time-consuming activity that industry provides freely. In relation to other instances

for consultation, industry is confident that its involvement is perfunctory only. The decisions have already been

determined. The ruse of industry's participation enables Fair Trading to report to the Minister that a consultative

process was followed.

I say in conclusion before turning to the bill: What I have spoken about today in relation to Fair Trading's

lack of competency to regulate this important industry is not an exhaustive discussion. Much more could be said

and numerous examples could be provided. However, I think I have sufficiently articulated the case for legislative

intervention. Members will have noted that the bill is not large by comparison with other bills that come before

the House. The reason for this is simple: Despite the issues being serious and widespread, the solution is

comparatively easy. The Property and Stock Agents Act 2002—the principal legislative instrument regulating the

property services industry—would benefit from a review, as all legislative instruments require in these times of

constant disruption. However, that Act is not the primary concern. Accordingly, it will remain largely unchanged.

The fundamental issue is the competency of the current regulatory authority.

At its heart the bill has two independent although interwoven parts. Firstly, it provides for the creation of

the property service council. The council comprises an industry educator, consumer and industry representatives

along with the regulator. The council is a forum within which all stakeholders can make a genuine contribution to

the betterment of the industry. The council is charged with advising the Minister on matters such as consumer

protection, agent education and training, refinements to the regulatory architecture and public information

programs. Secondly, the bill establishes the office of the property services commissioner. The commissioner will

have deep industry knowledge and will be exclusively focused on the regulatory controls for the property services

industry as set out in the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.

This bill will bring to life the consumer, market and industry benefits intended by Parliament. With the

assistance and cooperation of industry, the commissioner will use technology to have a window into many of the

activities of the industry. In many instances, this will be in real time. The commissioner will collect data and target

specific areas of compliance weakness from both a geographic perspective and regarding specific issues identified

more broadly. Regulation will be evidence based—collect the data, analyse same and address the problem.

Similarly, continuing professional development will be designed and delivered to address specific issues identified

from the data.

Members have a choice to leave the State's biggest and most important industry with the same people we

turn to when our kettle does not work properly or, alternatively, place it under the control of a dedicated and

industry-experienced regulator who will work cooperatively and constructively with industry, protect consumers

and support industry to deliver high-quality consumer outcomes. In closing, I express my thanks to the

hardworking team in my office. The long hours they have put in have made these reforms possible. Additionally,

it would be remiss of me not to recognise Parliamentary Counsel's efforts. I firmly believe that consumers have

the right to expect high-quality and professional services from the property services industry. That is what I intend

to bring about by introducing this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 51

Committees

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Chair and Deputy Chair

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I inform the House that at a meeting held

this day Ms Sue Higginson was elected Chair of Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment. The

Hon. John Ruddick was elected Deputy Chair.

Documents

AUDITOR-GENERAL

Reports

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): According to section 52B of the

Government Sector Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of a financial audit report of the Auditor-General entitled

Universities 2022, dated May 2023, received out of session and authorised to be made public on this day.

Bills

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION AMENDMENT (VALIDATION) BILL

2023

First Reading

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion by the Hon. Rod Roberts.

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (17:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Most members who introduce a bill to this House commence with the words, "It gives me great pleasure to

introduce this bill." It gives me no pleasure indeed to introduce the Independent Commission Against Corruption

Amendment (Validation) Bill 2023. I say that because the alert amongst us will recall that I introduced this bill

towards the end of the previous parliamentary term. However, for various reasons, the bill lapsed when the

Parliament was prorogued. In continuing the fight to right a terrible injustice, today I reintroduce the bill.

The bill is quite simple in its endeavours, but it is extremely important and necessary in righting a wrong.

It sets out to rectify an abuse of process—an abuse of the law—that has affected New South Wales citizens. I am

talking about only a small number of people whom I will detail shortly. Nevertheless, although it may be a small

number of citizens, it is a large stain on this Parliament and the justice system. This injustice has been allowed to

fester for far too long and the affected parties deserve to have this rectified. I present this bill to the Chamber to

restore the rights and, more importantly, the reputation of wronged individuals. I was forced in the original

instance to introduce a similar bill in the previous Parliament because the then Liberal-Nationals Government

dragged its heels in relation to this matter, despite giving undertakings in this Chamber that Cabinet would give

the matter serious consideration. I will address the issue of the former Government later in this speech.

Members may recall that the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, of which

I was a member, made a number of recommendations in report No. 4/57 entitled Reputational impact on an

individual being adversely named in the ICAC's investigations, dated November 2021. As its name suggests, the

inquiry was into the impact that individuals suffer if adversely named in an Independent Commission Against

Corruption inquiry. The takeaway words there are "adversely named", not "found to have behaved corruptly". It

was an extensive inquiry and heard evidence from a vast and diverse range of witnesses. It is extremely important

at this juncture to indicate that the findings of the final report were unanimous amongst committee members from

the Liberal Party, The Nationals, the Labor Party, The Greens and me, representing One Nation. Recommendation

No. 7 of that unanimous report stated:

That the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Validation) Act 2015 be amended to put the persons named in

the correspondence from the Crown Solicitor dated 23 April 2015 in the same position they would have been in on 8 May 2015 (the

date set for the Court of Appeal proceeding) had the Validation Act not applied to them.

It is prudent at this point to indicate that this bill is not an attack on the ICAC itself, in particular, those who have

been charged with the responsibility of conducting inquiries since 2016. I am sure members of this Chamber

support and encourage, as I do, a strong and robust ICAC. To understand what this all means we must go back in

time and look at the result of the High Court of Australia decision in the matter of Independent Commission

Against Corruption v Cunneen [2015] HCA 14. In short, in the Cunneen matter the High Court of Australia—the

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 52

highest court in this land—found that the ICAC had misinterpreted the definition of "corrupt conduct". The High

Court's decision threw into doubt earlier ICAC corrupt conduct findings where the wrongful interpretation had

been used and applied. That decision was handed down on 15 April 2015.

As a result of the finding, the ICAC requested that the government of the day amend the ICAC Act with

retrospective force. That was because of ICAC's concern that the High Court decision in Cunneen impacted a

number of past investigations. Hence the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Validation)

Act 2015, which I refer to as the validation Act, was introduced and passed by this Parliament. The bill was

introduced and passed by both Houses of this Parliament and assented to on the one day—that being 6 May 2015.

The effect of the new legislation was to validate certain conduct of the ICAC before 15 April 2015, including

findings of corrupt conduct. Here is where the difficulty lies. At that point in time there were five individuals—

Messrs Travers Duncan, John Kinghorn, John McGuigan, Richard Poole and John Atkinson—who all had legal

proceedings in play at various stages to contest corruption findings made against them by the ICAC. In fact, it is

my belief that Mr Kinghorn had already succeeded in that at the Supreme Court.

On 23 April 2015, as a result of the Cunneen decision some eight days earlier, the Crown Solicitor's Office,

acting on behalf of the ICAC, wrote to the legal representatives of Duncan, Poole, McGuigan, Kinghorn and

Atkinson. In that letter, the Crown Solicitor acknowledged the implications of the Cunneen decision as far as the

proceedings against the men were concerned. The Crown Solicitor further acknowledged that it was beyond the

power of the ICAC to find that the five men engaged in corrupt conduct. The Crown Solicitor acting on behalf of

the ICAC wrote to those individuals via their legal representatives agreeing that the ICAC findings were invalid

and beyond the ICAC's power in the first place. The Crown Solicitor stated in the letter that the ICAC would

consent to orders granting leave to appeal and declare the corruption findings against Messrs Duncan, McGuigan,

Poole and Atkinson invalid. Further, it also dismissed a summons seeking leave to appeal in the Kinghorn

proceedings.

Subsequent to that, on 6 May 2015, Governor the Hon. Margaret Beazley, in her role as then President of

the Court of Appeal, wrote to the legal representatives of the men concerned on behalf of the then Chief Justice

Tom Bathurst and Justice John Basten, who constituted the Court of Appeal. She stated that the court was presently

minded to make a declaration that the ICAC had no jurisdiction to determine that the men had engaged in corrupt

conduct within the meaning of section 8 (2) of the ICAC Act. Further, the matter was listed for 9.15 a.m. on Friday

8 May 2015 to set aside those findings. That hearing did not happen because this Parliament passed the validation

Act on 6 May, just two days before the orders were to be set aside by agreement of the ICAC, the Crown Solicitor

and the Court of Appeal, thereby rendering all of the ICAC's previously unlawful decisions suddenly now lawful.

That is despite the ICAC, via the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of

New South Wales, agreeing that the findings of corrupt conduct against the men were invalid.

Let us fast forward to the present day. The ICAC committee, as previously stated, took evidence from the

men involved, except for Mr Travers Duncan, who has passed away since the court proceedings in 2015. I take

this opportunity to inform members that, although this appears to be an historic event, Messrs Kinghorn,

McGuigan, Atkinson and Poole informed the committee in their evidence that the findings of the ICAC, which

were made beyond its jurisdiction and powers, continue to have ramifications for their personal and business

activities today. Subsequent to the evidence, the committee unanimously formed the opinion that this was a

travesty and a miscarriage of justice, hence the writing of the aforementioned recommendation 7 of the report.

The Government's response to the report, dated 24 May 2022, did not support the unanimous

recommendation. It stated:

The individuals referred to in recommendation 7 have fully exercised their review and appeal rights in this matter.

They had done so successfully, with the Court of Appeal agreeing to set aside the findings. However, just two

days before the date set for the signing off by the Court of Appeal, the Government rushed legislation through the

Parliament. It was the enactment of this legislation, the validation Act, that prevented the declarations from being

made by the Court of Appeal. It was wrong and misleading for the former Government to say that the individuals

had exercised their review and appeal rights.

I was not in the Parliament when the validation Act passed in 2015, but I have perused the second reading

speeches of then Premier Mike Baird in the other place and the Hon. Duncan Gay in this place and there is no

mention of the proceedings afoot in the Court of Appeal. It may be the case that, if the Parliament was fully

apprised of the outstanding matters, the Act may not have passed in its current form. Perhaps there would have

been an exclusion provision for those men. However, we will never know because the Parliament was never

informed. Members will recall that in a previous debate relating to amendments to the ICAC legislation Act on

23 June 2022, I moved an amendment to introduce what is essentially contained in the bill today. However,

I withdrew the amendment in good faith after the then Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Taylor Martin, said:

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 53

… I inform the Committee that I am reliably informed that Cabinet will reconsider its position on this matter in a timely manner.

That was in June 2022. Further, in answer to a question without notice on 9 August 2022, the then Leader of the

Government and now Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Damien Tudehope, said:

... the Government is committed to reconsidering this matter and I can assure the member that it is under active consideration.

We were told in June and again in August that the matter was under consideration, but nothing has ever happened.

That has led me to introduce this private member's bill. Honourable members should note that the bill does not

propose to open a floodgate of potential litigants. The bill is bespoke and specific in that new section 35A (1) states

that section 35—which I will call the validation clause—does not apply in relation to a person who had

proceedings pending in the Supreme Court, including the Court of Appeal, on 8 May 2015 in relation to a finding

by the commission of corrupt conduct. The bill has been specifically drafted to apply only to the gentlemen that

had the undertaking of both the ICAC and the Court of Appeal to have their findings annulled.

I commend the bill to the House and in doing so acknowledge the work of the ICAC committee. The bill

has been introduced on behalf of all members of the previous ICAC committee. In closing, I take this opportunity

to acknowledge former member of this place the Hon. Adam Searle for his work on the ICAC committee and his

dogged and unrelenting pursuit of justice and the rule of law on this matter. Let us hope that we can finally bring

this unjust and unfair chapter to a close.

Debate adjourned.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT (BATTERY CAGE PROHIBITION)

BILL 2023

First Reading

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion by the Hon. Emma Hurst.

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. EMMA HURST (17:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On behalf of the Animal Justice Party, I am proud to introduce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment

(Battery Cage Prohibition) Bill 2023. While I am proud to introduce the bill, I am also disgusted that I had to. It

is hard to believe that in 2023 battery cages are still legal. If members have ever wondered why the vote for the

Animal Justice Party keeps rising, it is because of the repeat failures of successive governments to take any action

to outlaw the most obvious, extreme forms of animal abuse—and battery cages are at the top of that list. Imagine

taking a dog and locking it in a cage for 18 months, a cage so small and crowded with other dogs it cannot take a

step forward or back. Imagine the dogs have had part of their mouths removed because they will likely attack each

other from the frustration of close confinement. This body mutilation will not stop the attacks or frustration; it

will just stop them from being able to kill one another. The dogs live on hard, wire flooring that cuts through their

feet, in cages stacked on top of each other with excrement piling up below them. For a year and a half they will

not be able to move.

It does not take an expert to know that this would be animal cruelty—it is obvious. In fact, it would be

illegal to do this to a dog, and rightfully so. But when it comes to keeping another sentient animal, a hen, in

identical circumstances in a battery cage, bizarrely, our laws allow this suffering. That is because our animal

protection laws are notoriously speciesist; they contain exemptions and defences that allow industries to do

horrific things to certain species of animals, particularly farmed animals, as long as the cruelty is undertaken in

the pursuit of profit. Even though we have clear evidence that these practices cause immense suffering and pain

to these animals and that it clearly amounts to animal cruelty, The Nationals and other MPs have argued in this

place to allow this practice to remain legal for decades. In doing so they have found themselves on the wrong side

of history, advocating for the suffering of billions of animals.

Right now millions of hens are being deprived of all their natural behaviours, imprisoned in battery cages

where they have about the same amount of room as an iPad. They live on hard, wire flooring and cannot even

stretch their wings. The life of a battery hen is unbearable to think about. She is born motherless and avoids live

maceration only because she is female. The front of her face is then cut, lasered or burnt off before she is put into

a cage in a dark shed for the rest of her life. She will never see sunshine, never feel wind, never dust bathe. She

will never walk, stretch, flap, ruffle or preen. She will likely suffer painful lesions, foot malformations, fatty liver

disease, osteoporosis and bone fractures, along with many other health conditions associated with extreme

confinement. She will never be given enough room to simply turn around. After approximately 18 months of total

confinement, she will be either gassed to death or pulled out of her cage and taken to a slaughterhouse to be killed.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 54

The use of battery cages is nothing more than legalised, institutionalised animal abuse. It is abhorrent that

in 2023 we would allow a sentient animal to be treated so inhumanely. Yet this is what is happening behind closed

doors to millions of hens kept each year in the Australian battery cage industry. I am ashamed to say that more

battery hens are imprisoned in New South Wales than in any other State. Australians care deeply about animals

and they do not support keeping hens in battery cages. An independent survey conducted in 2017 found that eight

out of 10 people want to see battery cages phased out. The 2019 Select Committee on the Use of Battery Cages

for Hens in the Egg Production Industry—which I chaired—received over 14,000 submissions and almost all of

them supported a move away from battery cages. During the inquiry the select committee heard that a legislated

phase-out of all cages was supported by a huge majority in the community, as well as by all animal welfare groups,

academics and scientists.

While the inquiry reached the conclusion that all egg production systems—cage, barn, and free range—

had animal cruelty issues, it was clear that the use of battery cages was by far the worst because of the restriction

it places on a hen's basic ability to express her innate, natural behaviours. While other systems can be improved,

battery cages have a hard limit—a "welfare ceiling", as it was described in the inquiry—above which welfare

cannot be improved and it is a very low ceiling indeed. The concern about the wellbeing of hens in cages is also

reflected in the purchasing decisions of Australians. Consumers are increasingly rejecting this cruel industry and

choosing cage-free and plant-based options. As a result of this sustained consumer pressure, major supermarkets,

Coles, Woolworths and Aldi, have committed to phasing out cage eggs by 2025.

However, many consumers remain unaware that cage eggs are regularly used in food served in cafes and

restaurants and pre-packaged products, including biscuits, bread, mayonnaise and custard. Many of these products

contain eggs sourced from hens imprisoned in battery cages, but there is no way for the consumer to know as it is

not labelled. The select committee inquiry heard that a significant number of eggs used in food manufacturing and

food services were coming from battery cages. It is through this kind of deception that the use of battery cages

has remained such a large industry in Australia, despite consumer backlash and rejection of this obviously cruel

farming method. The industry is profiting off the fact that consumers have no idea they are purchasing and

consuming eggs from systems they have ethically rejected.

When we look overseas we find that other jurisdictions, including the European Union, Switzerland, New

Zealand, Canada, as well as several states in the United States, have long ago committed to phasing out battery

cages. Australia, once again, is embarrassingly lagging behind. It was not until last year that we finally saw

movement on this issue. In August 2022 the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry

were finalised and much to the relief of the community and animal protection organisations it included a

mandatory phase-out of battery cages. However, this tumultuous process has taken far too long—over seven

years—and is an indictment on the current state of animal protection laws across Australia. Rather than this

important decision about animal welfare being made in Parliament by elected representatives, it has become

common practice for State and national governments to rely on the development of standards and guidelines which

are then adopted by States and Territories.

This development process is generally managed by departments of primary industries and agriculture, often

backed by funding from the very industry that will be regulated by the standard. It creates a hopeless conflict of

interest, right from the outset, between animal protection and industry interests and allows cruel, outdated

practices, like the use of battery cages, to be prolonged, despite community opposition and clear scientific

evidence of their bad welfare outcomes. It is this flawed process that is also to blame for the fact that the Australian

Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry will not require a phase-out of battery cages until 2032 to

2036. This means we will not see the final battery cage emptied for another 13 years. It means tens of millions

more hens will suffer in a system we have already accepted is inhumane. One more hen is unacceptable; millions

are unconscionable. In addition to the unnecessary cruelty that will be caused by this delayed phase-out, it also

makes no commercial sense for the industry, given the major supermarkets have now committed to phasing out

cage eggs by 2025 and other brands are moving to exclude battery caged eggs from their products. The long

phase-out is simply dragging out this unnecessary, cruel practice which the community wants to see gone now.

I also have outstanding concerns about when and how the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and

Guidelines for Poultry will be implemented in New South Wales. The entire process was put under threat in late

2021 when it was revealed via Government Information (Public Access) Act documents that the former New

South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Adam Marshall, had told other States and Territories that New South Wales

would not support a battery cage phase-out, regardless of what was recommended in the national standards and

guidelines process. This was an egregious action by the former Minister, who was formally condemned in a motion

passed by this House, supported by NSW Labor. And of course, this comes after the New South Wales Department

of Primary Industry was exposed only a few years prior to be colluding and holding secret meetings with the egg

industry about the poultry standards, freezing out animal protection organisations, in an obvious effort to "stage

manage" the standards writing process and protect the continued use of battery cages.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 55

While I have more confidence in the new New South Wales Labor Government to follow through with

implementing the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry, including the battery cage

phase-out, the reality is that a 13-year phase-out is just not acceptable. We cannot allow millions of hens to

languish in cages any longer. That is why I am compelled to introduce the bill today. The hens and people of New

South Wales have been waiting for far too long. The bill is straightforward. It creates a new offence in section

21D of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to confine any laying hen in a cage for commercial purposes.

This would prevent the use of battery cages, as well as other types of cages, but would not affect the transport of

hens.

It is important that the offence covers all types of cages. We heard evidence in the parliamentary inquiry

that furnished cages are being used as alternatives in some countries where battery cages are banned and may be

brought to Australia in the future. The international standard for a furnished cage is a marginally increased size

of 750 square centimetres per bird, together with some enrichments. However, during the select committee inquiry

I was very concerned by proposals from Australian egg industry participants, who gave evidence that they would

like to see furnished cages defined in Australia so that they only provide 550 square centimetres of space per bird.

That is the exact same amount of space that each bird gets in existing battery cages and would provide no increased

space for hens to exhibit natural behaviours.

If that industry proposal were successful, it would allow egg producers to rebrand their battery-cage eggs

as furnished-cage eggs without actually making any substantive changes to the conditions in which hens are held,

misleading consumers into thinking that welfare standards have improved. The lack of consideration for truth in

labelling, consumer rights and very basic animal welfare by the industry is unconscionable. It has proven it cannot

be trusted. For that reason, all cages for commercial use will be phased out in the bill. After all, a cage is a cage,

and there is a general desire in the community to move away from confining animals for the purpose of big ag

dollars. The bill also makes it clear that the prohibition on cages will apply regardless of any existing defences in

section 24 of the Act and cannot be overridden by any industry standards or guidelines.

The bill also omits some provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulation that are inconsistent

with the new ban on cages. The bill allows for a one-year phase-in; that is a much more reasonable time frame

than the 13 years proposed under the Australian Poultry Standards and Guidelines. It will allow ample time for

battery hen producers to transition out of the industry and will be consistent with the 2025 supermarket ban on

cage eggs. Hens are beautiful, sentient animals that are worthy of our care and protection. As I said, a cage is a

cage, and the Animal Justice Party will not stop until all cages are empty. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the resolution of the House of this day, it being 6.00 p.m. proceedings are

now interrupted to enable Dr Amanda Cohn to make her first speech without any question before the Chair.

Members

INAUGURAL SPEECHES

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into my gallery this evening the family and friends of Dr Amanda Cohn,

including Dr Cohn's partner, Geoffrey Hudson; her sister, Sarah Cohn; brother-in-law, Ben Weber; and nephew,

Charlie; her father, Jeffrey Cohn; her aunt, Ann Aitken; elected local government councillors Phil Bradley, Ned

Cutcher, Kristyn Glanville and Carol Sparks; and her mother, Susan Cohn, and grandmother, Patricia Philpott,

who are watching the livestream.

Dr AMANDA COHN (18:02): I acknowledge that I am delivering my inaugural speech on the unceded

land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and that I live on magnificent and unceded Wiradjuri land. I pay

respect to past, present and fiercely emerging Elders of those and the many nations of New South Wales and

extend that respect to all First Nations people here today. New South Wales always was and always will be

Aboriginal land.

I am a newly elected member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, a position of enormous

privilege and responsibility. I have become a part of this institution as it approaches its bicentenary and as we

discuss its history and its place in shaping the ways that we live today. The 200-year history of the New South

Wales Parliament is brief in comparison to the tens of thousands of years of governance that existed here before

it. To acknowledge the bicentenary with any honesty requires us to reckon with the truth that the New South

Wales Parliament has caused very real harm to First Nations peoples and cultures, both historical and ongoing,

from the destruction of cultural heritage and language to disrupting kinship and care for country. In recognising

this, I reaffirm my commitment to amplify and work alongside First Nations people towards truth, treaty and

voice.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 56

I have come to this Parliament from the front lines of multiple, related and compounding crises, in

particular the climate crisis and the crisis in our health system. The experiences that I have had as a country GP,

as a State Emergency Service volunteer and of steering a regional community through a pandemic as its deputy

mayor have prepared me for this role in ways I never expected. Working in public hospitals, emergency

departments and community health gave me the most precious insight into people's lives. I have been inspired

over and over again by my patients—by their resilience, their dignity and their humility in the face of suffering,

or difficult or unexpected news. But the patients that I still think about and who keep me up at night are the people

that I could not adequately help, not because of their conditions but because of the avoidable failure of

governments.

I remember a young man who refused admission to hospital for necessary surgery because he was a casual

labour-hire worker without access to sick leave. I remember the people who came to see me fortnightly for years

for support with their mental health while they languished on waitlists for public housing. I remember the elderly

couple who spent their final months together traipsing hundreds of kilometres back and forth, away from their

children, to a capital city for treatment they should have been able to access closer to home. I remember the

victim-survivors of family violence put back into dangerous situations because support services in the bush are

not good enough. I remember the four-month-old baby with COVID in respiratory distress for whom I cared for

over six hours, waiting for retrieval to Sydney, when I and the two nurses working with me had already been

working for 10 hours without a break. I wonder what happened to every other patient in the waiting room that

night who was not seen by a doctor.

Over a decade as a State Emergency Service volunteer, I have experienced firsthand the increasing intensity

and frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change. I was operating radios in the Lake George Fire

Control Centre the night Cobargo burned. I drove a rescue boat on the flooded Hawkesbury last year to evacuate

exhausted residents and resupply isolated communities. When I arrived at the Northern Tablelands Fire Control

Centre to support and relieve local volunteers just before Christmas in 2019, they had been operating for

108 consecutive days. I cannot continue on the front lines while people in this Parliament make decisions that

make things worse.

Climate change is the defining issue of my generation. Our leaders should be discussing how we can keep

communities safe in a warming climate and how we can make sure that nobody is left behind by the urgent

transition away from fossil fuels that we must make. Instead, new coal and gas projects continue to be approved,

and it will be for future generations to judge whether we took the action that we needed to. I am so inspired by

the School Strike 4 Climate movement. We should be listening to and platforming the voices of those who have

the most at stake, rather than disenfranchising them.

Burnout is not just about having to put in long and unsustainable hours. When you take skilled and

compassionate people and put them in an environment where they cannot do the work that they were trained to

do and expose them to suffering every day that they are unable to ease, it causes a moral injury. I have heard the

same stories from nurses, midwives, paramedics, teachers and countless other essential workers. While our health

system has failed to support its existing staff with safe working conditions, locum doctors and temporary agency

staff are offered more and more money. Through my work in both health care and emergency services I have

learned that the health and safety of our communities depends on strong, well-resourced and well-supported public

services—and, importantly, that one must never, under any circumstances, piss off the nurses.

For me, as well as finding healing through time in nature and time with animals, I found energy in having

the opportunity to be an advocate for my peers and my patients and a part of driving change. In 2016 I was the

first Green and the youngest woman ever elected to Albury City Council. I had the incredible responsibility and

challenge of leading my community through the COVID pandemic as deputy mayor while continuing to work on

the front line as a doctor. COVID brought out the best in our communities. In response to unexpected challenge

and hardship, at a local level we saw compassion and care for each other, making sure our neighbours had food

and medicines while we tried to connect, sing and play together using technology.

But the same unexpected challenge and hardship brought out the worst in government. The New South

Wales Government supported a police-led, punitive response, with fines disproportionately targeted at already

disadvantaged communities—decisions that further marginalised people with disability and, particularly,

immunocompromised people—and State border closures that ripped through the middle of cross-border

communities like Albury-Wodonga.

The one optimistic lesson that I took from the Government response to COVID was seeing that things can

turn on a dime, given political will—from the Federal Government providing free child care to suddenly having

to present documents to cross a policed border between Albury and Wodonga. Imagine if we applied that sense

of urgency to action on climate change or addressing the housing crisis. We can, and must, and I will hold on to

that hope that so many individuals and communities have shown me.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 57

Serving my community for five years as deputy mayor taught me the value of the platform of an elected

representative. I learnt that speaking up to change the conversation has value in and of itself, even if you do not

win in the short term. I have also unfortunately learnt how women in public life are treated when they take a stand.

The worst messages that I have received, being persistent threats of sexual violence, are too explicit to read into

Hansard. What helped me to get through the biggest challenges in local government is the same knowledge that

will serve me well in Parliament: knowing that I was not elected as an individual but as a representative of a

movement of people with shared values.

Many Greens before me have demonstrated how to be an elected politician who empowers and platforms

others. The Greens recognise that social and political change is driven outside of Parliament by social and protest

movements, and by people and storytelling. With that knowledge, I navigated a conservative majority in the

council chamber and had big wins on climate, protecting native vegetation, trans rights, accessibility for people

with a disability, and recognition of First Nations heritage.

Critically, The Greens understand that social justice and environmental justice are inextricably linked. Both

people and our environment have been ruthlessly exploited by corporations and facilitated by politicians. As a

crossbencher, and particularly as a Green, it is my proud responsibility to hold the government of the day to

account and to amplify the voices that most need to be heard. I am inspired by Greens who have come before me

in the Legislative Council. I am particularly personally grateful to three former members—Lee Rhiannon,

Mehreen Faruqi and David Shoebridge—who have each shared with me their time, energy, knowledge and skills.

From my academic work, including completing master's degrees in epidemiology and international public

health, I have been left with a love of seeking a deep understanding of an issue and not shying away from nuance

or complexity, and an appreciation of the important scientific approach of changing one's views when presented

with sufficient evidence. That said, academic peer review may be the only process I have experienced that is as

slow as the process of government.

After starting my study of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, I moved to Albury

for my clinical placement years of medical school, which also took me to Deniliquin, Broken Hill and Wilcannia.

Studying medicine gave me a fascination for people and understanding how we work and what makes us tick.

I quickly fell in love with both the landscapes and communities of regional New South Wales. I am delighted to

have the opportunity to travel and connect with the communities I now represent as an upper House MP.

For those wondering about my slight accent, I was born in Sydney and my family moved to Montreal,

Canada, when I was three years old for my dad's work as a scientist. Growing up in Canada has left me with a

predictable and lifelong love for cold weather and maple syrup, as well as an open mind to radically different

ways of thinking and organising our urban spaces. The motto of the school I attended in Montreal has shaped

much of my work: "Non Nobis Sed Urbi et Orbi", meaning "'Not for ourselves alone, but for the city and the

world".

Before I studied medicine, I completed a degree in Spanish and Latin American studies, which led me to

live and study in Chile and travel throughout Central and South America. With the Pinochet dictatorship in recent

memory, my fellow students took their democratic rights and responsibilities seriously. I learnt my activism as

part of the Chilean student movement for public education, to which the Government responded with military

police. They taught me that putting lemon juice in a bandana would take the edge off the tear gas, but it turns out

that does not work very well. At the time, I was grateful that in Australia we understood the critical importance

of the right to protest in a healthy democracy, but now we are faced with draconian anti-protest laws that have

seen courageous environmental activists given jail time for something as benign as blocking a road. Under the

current laws, I am not sure we would have ever seen the successful civil rights movements of previous generations.

At times, watching debate in Parliament and especially question time, one might forget that the decisions

made by the New South Wales Parliament have serious and lasting consequences for the communities that we

represent. Living on the Victorian border, I have seen the tangible difference that State Government decisions

make. Just across the "Milawa Bila" Murray River, my patients have better access to domestic violence services,

gig and casual workers have access to sick leave, and nurses have better pay and safe staffing ratios.

In 2019 I watched over the live stream, hanging on to every word, this Parliament debate whether to

decriminalise abortion. I will not forget that many of my now colleagues voted that I should be a criminal for my

work as a medical abortion prescriber. I am proud of my work as a provider of both abortion and antenatal care,

enabling my patients' reproductive health choices to be carried out safely. Abortion is health care. Reproductive

health care is health care. It should be free, safe and accessible to every person in New South Wales.

In March this year, I walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge along with 10,000 members of my

community and our allies in celebration of WorldPride. It was a glorious sunny morning for LGBTQIA+

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 58

communities to come together and reclaim public space. But what has stayed with me is the contrast between

vibrant and inclusive events like WorldPride and Mardi Gras and the daily lived experiences of queer people,

particularly in rural and regional areas. I remember a patient, whose physical and mental health I had been

supporting for some months, who came out as a trans man. He was kicked out of home and fired from his job on

the same day. Because his workplace refused to provide him with a separation certificate, he was not able to access

income support. He came to see me in a state of crisis, unable to afford to fill his scripts for his regular medications.

He did not feel safe approaching local charities for support because of their religious association.

Though I am proud and able to speak openly about my sexuality, I myself am not exempt from the pressures

of homophobia. When I was elected to local government, after many years of living and publicly identifying as

bisexual, I chose to no longer disclose my sexuality because it felt safer not to do so. Like so many bisexual people

in long-term relationships with someone of the opposite sex, I have been complicit in my own erasure. This

personal experience is a very recent memory, and it motivates me to fight for queer visibility and representation,

especially for bisexual and trans and gender diverse people, and to improve safety, access and inclusion for all

LGBTQIA+ people in every corner of our State.

Reflecting on the history of this place in preparing to speak tonight gave me cause to also reflect on my

own history. I am one of the 48 per cent of Australians who have at least one parent born overseas. My maternal

grandparents, Robert and Patricia Philpott, migrated to Australia from England in 1970. Through my British

heritage I know that a cup of tea cannot solve all problems but will certainly always put you in a better state of

mind to tackle them.

My paternal grandparents, Herbert and Gerte Cohn, my Opa and Oma, were forced to flee the Holocaust

as German Jewish teenagers. They met at Gross-Breesen, an agricultural youth community established to shelter

Jewish teenagers from Nazi persecution and to prepare them for life abroad. Their stories are well documented in

my Opa's memoir, including his forbidden visit to the Berlin Olympics on the day that Jesse Owens won the

100 metres sprint, which he tells they managed only because of the large influx of foreign visitors at the time.

My Oma survived the "Kristallnacht" with her father by riding the train that circled Berlin around and

around, with the family savings stuffed in her socks. My Opa was brought to Australia by a Jewish charitable

organisation and put to work as a farmhand near Forster. After a brief stint in the Australian Army, always creative

and entrepreneurial, he established a small market garden where he grew and sold vegetables and slept at night in

a disused chicken shed, saving up money for my Oma's fare to Australia.

After the war, with the assistance of the Red Cross, he found my Oma in England, who had survived the

war working as a cook. She told me proudly of the occasion that she cooked for visiting royalty at Perth in

Scotland. They were married, despite having no family and few friends at the time, with a complete Jewish

wedding at a synagogue in Bondi Junction and a reception attended by the large extended families of their

friends—an extraordinary gesture of compassion and community.

As romantic as my Oma's and Opa's story is—I have often mused that it would make an amazing movie—

the other side of this story is that my Opa's mother, his brother Alfred and Alfred's wife and child died at

Auschwitz. My Oma's father, Julius Jacoby, died at Theresienstadt concentration camp and her mother, Edith

Jacoby, at Auschwitz. I honour their memory today. By making the impossible decision to send their children

away, I am here to tell their story.

What my family's story has taught me is the danger of an "us versus them" mentality and the importance

of standing up for all persecuted people. The first time I voted for The Greens was in support of their principled,

courageous and unwavering calls for compassionate treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. We have a long

way to go for this institution to be as inclusive and representative as it should be. I wonder how my grandparents

would feel to know that their granddaughter is expected to stand, every morning, in this notionally secular public

institution while those around her recite the Lord's Prayer in unison.

This year we saw neo-Nazis openly parading in Australia, with the protection of the police. This chills me

to my core. Threats to any marginalised group of people make us all less safe. It is our collective responsibility to

respond firmly and unwaveringly to the far right and the threat that they pose not only to Jewish people but to all

targets of white supremacy, including people with a disability, people of colour and queer people. Those who may

oppose me should know that I am determined and persistent. Last year I completed an ironman-distance triathlon

after years of training and preparation. I may slow down. I may ask for help when I need to. But I will not stop—

not during an endurance race that took me 14 hours and not in the fight for the change that we need in this State.

Of course, I did not arrive at this position without the support of countless people, some of whom I will

take the opportunity to thank. Thank you to my patients for sharing with me your brightest and your darkest

moments and your hardest decisions. Know that I am still and will always be caring for you in a different way.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 59

Thank you to the thousands of Greens volunteers who poured their time and energy into this election campaign

and many before it. My seat in this Parliament does not belong to me as an individual but belongs to all of us.

Thank you especially to members of the Albury Greens—my second family—for your unwavering support and

for putting your confidence in young people. Thank you to my new colleagues Ms Abigail Boyd, Ms Cate

Faehrmann, Ms Sue Higginson, Jenny Leong, Kobi Shetty and Tamara Smith for your mentorship, guidance and

camaraderie. I am proud to be part of a team of such outstanding, skilled and committed women.

Thank you to my partner, Geoff, for nearly 10 years of walking beside me or standing behind me and never

in front. You have shown me the truth in the words of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, who said, "Aimer, ce n'est pas

se regarder l'un l'autre, c'est regarder ensemble dans la même direction", which means love does not consist of

gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction. Thank you to family, friends and

like-minded people who are here today. Seeing your faces in the gallery is a beautiful memory that will give me

strength on my most difficult days.

Finally, to the people of New South Wales, who I am here to represent, please never let me lose sight of

why I am here. Just as it is my role to hold the New South Wales Government to account, it is yours to hold me

to account and to keep me connected with the communities I am here for. I look forward to your letters, emails

and phone calls and to many collaborative conversations, meetings, public events and campaigns. I am ready to

work together towards a better future for all of us.

Members and officers of the House stood and applauded.

The PRESIDENT: I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: According to the resolution of the House, it being 8.00 p.m. proceedings are now

interrupted to enable the Hon. Jacqui Munro to make her first speech without any question before the Chair.

INAUGURAL SPEECHES

The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's gallery this evening the family and friends of the

Hon. Jacqui Munro, including Hazel Wolfenden; Bruce Munro; Sue Munro; Ben Davis; Janine Middleton, AM;

former member and President of the Legislative Council the Hon. Don Harwin; and Trent Zimmerman, the former

member for North Sydney. You are all most welcome.

The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (20:00): Mr President, honourable members, treasured friends and family.

I have entered this place with the circumstances of my endorsement more public than many. The circumstances

were a little unorthodox, but perhaps that has always been my fate. It is so good to be here. Before the 2023

election, just 61 women had served in this place. Now our Liberal Party in the upper House contains 60 per cent

women. It is an enormous honour to be elected as the New South Wales Liberal Party's first openly LGBTQI+

woman in Parliament, and its youngest in the Legislative Council. I was not selected for these attributes, and

although they should be unremarkable, and while I do not like identity politics, these unchangeable parts of myself

mean I can provide a new perspective in this place. As such, the milestones should not go without remark—even

if it is, at your indulgence, my own remark. It is not because of the immutable attributes themselves but because

these qualities have shaped the communities I am in, the experiences I have had, the challenges I have faced and

the way I think about opportunity, freedom, choice and fairness. An encouragement of diversity of thought and

experience is critical to good policymaking, which I, of course, hope to contribute to.

Tonight I will share some of myself—where I come from, what I believe in and what my priorities are—

so that you and the people across New South Wales, whom I represent, might hold me to account. I consider the

privilege of this office as a vocation, but I am at the mercy of others to judge that. There could be nothing more

important than to serve my State and country through the faithful creation of the human laws that govern us. I start

by particularly acknowledging my nanna, Hazel, who is here this evening. She was born on the big block of land

she still lives on in Beverly Hills—then called Dumbleton—and has seen so much change over her 93 years of

life so far. When her husband and my grandpa, Ken, a British migrant who arrived here alone at 16 on a ship from

London, developed the block of land when he married Nanna, he quickly earned the ire of neighbours. Grandpa

would come home after 12-hour days working on the railways to literally build his family home from the ground

up—from foundation to finish—all through the night. He was a hard worker, a staunch Liberal and believed deeply

in responsibility and reward for effort.

Hazel is the mother of my mother, Beth, who is not here in person this evening. Mum is so much of the

reason that I am in this place. The dignity, kindness and courage that I know can exist in this world is because she

embodied it in living and in dying. Her example is one of the most powerful forces in my life. She is here in me,

in my beautiful little—taller—sister, Kristina, and in all the people who knew her in this room and beyond. I also

acknowledge my Scottish heritage, which was taught to me by my father, Bruce. I am of the Clan Munro, whose

first chief lived in the 1300s across the Scottish Highlands. Our clan motto, "Dread God", must be the source of

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 60

my humility—for it is only God who may look down on and judge the Munros. But a healthy fear of electoral

retribution should never be far from a politician's mind, so under God I have pledged my loyalty to the people of

New South Wales and Australia to serve in this place.

I am a daughter in a family of army soldiers and naval officers. My paternal great grandfather, Poppy,

fought in the Battle of Be'er Sheva, a critical conquest in Israel that secured the region for the British forces in

1917. When I visited the town of Be'er Sheva 105 years later, I heard the admiration from Israeli descendants of

that battle for the heroic efforts of the Australians in that parched desert. It reminded me that my place in the world

is far reaching because of the service of my family. My grandpa, Harry Geoffrey Munro, who died just months

before I was born, served in the navy, particularly in World War II, to defend his family, his country and our

freedom. At every military event I proudly wear his medals to honour his sacrifices and service to our nation.

All of these men suffered psychologically in their own ways. Without the labels, they lived with

post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and depression. Respecting their service by providing better mental

health care treatment to today's armed forces personnel, and all people, is a mark towards progress and a better

society. I cannot round out my family history without mentioning a matriarch who must have passed on her

enduring sense of optimism to me. Mini Munro, my great grandmother, is in the Guinness Book of World Records

for being the oldest woman to marry. At 103 she tied the knot to a man two decades her junior. Unfortunately, he

passed away first and she became twice widowed. But in love and while saying something like "carpe diem," Mini

walked down the aisle and gave her heart to that man until she passed at 105.

If we are all a product of our history and circumstance, and our DNA holds the imprints of the lives of our

ancestors, I believe I am fortunate to have been embedded with a sense that there is good to defend in the world

and hope to generate through worthy action. I am thankful to have grown up in little Bonnet Bay in the Sutherland

shire surrounded by the beaches and the bushland. We also had a family farm in Bigga, a tiny town between

Goulburn and Cowra, where we rode horses and ran amok out in superfine Merino wool country. I am lucky to

have lived briefly in the Snowy Mountains and taught people how to ski on the other side of the world. I have

travelled widely throughout Europe and seen the ravages and successes of political turmoil. I am the proud product

of an academically selective public school education. I have been absolutely blessed with the most beautiful mates,

particularly an incredible group of women from Caringbah High School, many of whom are here tonight. They

are loving mothers, carers, sisters, daughters, wives and friends, before anything else. You have given me the

example of what is good and right, more than each of you could know.

After school, Manning Bar and Hermann's at the University of Sydney became my playgrounds. I am the

first woman in my family to attend university. I enjoyed being in Sydney University Dramatic Society productions

like the accidental comedy The Term of His Natural Life, playing saxophone for the JazzSoc Big Band and

campaigning for friends and allies for the Student Representative Council and Honi Soit. I am sure I ended up

among those sandstone walls because of seeing my dad, Bruce, graduate in the Great Hall when I was 10. He was

a mature aged student who was the first of his family to attend university and received a Masters in Logistics

Management to bolster his expertise in a successful business career. I hope that my father's great extroversion—

he is such a natural entertainer, connector, learner and leader—has stood me in good stead. He continues to inspire

me with his unbridled enthusiasm for life.

How grateful I am that my university attendance coincided with that of a group of people so equally

enlivened by a joie de vivre, impassioned by political engagement and a willingness to work together in sometimes

ridiculous pursuits. Many of these wonderful people are here tonight and continue to work in service of the

political process—some beside me, some across the Chamber, others in the press gallery and many beyond. We

all had a sense that ideas could be made real, and that there was something bigger to be a part of and to contribute

to. Many of us fought a university takeover and kept the University of Sydney Union and its revenue-generating

operations in student hands. I hear it is happening again today. I urge total focus to retain USU's independence. It

is a legacy from 1874.

At 21 I ran for the USU board of directors with the slogan, "Let's Go Munro". I felt it was electorally

advantageous to masculine-ise myself by using my surname. I acknowledge the many people in the gallery tonight

who have been the heart and soul of campaigns with me from then until today. It was 2011. With the first flushes

of political success, I took a call on Science Road next to Holme Building, my new USU office. I was the first

one to be told by Mum that she had cancer. Between St George Hospital visits and doctors appointments, my

sister and I tried to retain a sense of normalcy. It is what Mum wanted. After being told by medical staff after

three months of chemo and radiotherapy that the worst was coming sooner rather than later, we were grateful she

held on for a final Christmas. She insisted on eating well, pumping weights and joking with us until the end. She

did not want a round-the-world adventure in those final months. She wanted to sit at home amongst the gum trees

with the laughing kookaburras, overlooking the Woronora River. She had visitors and privately raged and was

helpless, but above all she lived her values: selfless and stoic.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 61

This courageous, practical and loving woman threw a party for herself before she died. Beth did not like

the idea that all her loved ones would get together without her at a funeral when she was gone. Always thinking

of others, she raised thousands of dollars at that party for Alzheimer's Australia, now Dementia Australia, in the

name of Grandpa. Friends who had been gathered over 5½ decades joined Mum to celebrate life with her one last

time. The impact of those long yet all-too-short months led to the most destructive and redemptive parts of my

life. I know what it is to feel powerless and to ask for help when logic fails. It can happen to all of us. Every year

since she passed, my sister and I and have been invited by Como Public School to present the Beth Munro

Environmental Award at their annual presentation night. It is such an honour to recognise her contribution to the

community in this way.

Mum's stoicism has been a source of great strength and inspiration. Today I call myself somewhat of an

adherent of the stoic philosophy, espoused by Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, to maintain a healthy mind

and perspective amidst the cut and thrust of politics. Perhaps it was inevitable when the Bonnet Bay Primary

School motto 'Learn to Grow, Grow to Learn' so clearly mirrors Seneca's "As long as you live, keep learning to

live." Fundamentally, the need to take personal responsibility for one's own mind and actions, to act in virtue and

in service to achieve happiness and to accept the fates that befall us without rancour are tools that I require to

maintain a fulfilling political life. Perhaps it would not seem so possible without seeing Mum's dignity and grace

through the hardest of times.

But before I needed philosophy, I found a calling. Although I had been praising Prime Minister Howard in

Facebook statuses since high school—because I am extremely cool!—it was not until after my first successful

student election—again, very cool!—that I seriously considered joining the Liberal Party—the coolest! Being a

political nerd since school, it troubled me greatly that one of our two major political parties valued compliance

over individual liberty, with the Labor Party mandating that its MPs would be kicked out if they voted against the

party's collective decision, even if their communities or their own conscience desired otherwise. It did not make

sense to me that in a liberal democratic nation like ours, the value of an individual's right and responsibility to

contribute in the Parliament, as elected by the people, was stripped away.

While union membership is 11.7 per cent of employees in New South Wales, with the largest group of that

membership identifying as "professional workers", union organisations formally control half of the Labor Party,

and certainly a majority when you consider the other half is full of union members. Please do not misunderstand

me: Unions have a place in our society. But I do not believe that it is their place to control one of Australia's

parties of government. Part of my role in this Chamber is to ensure that all people are fairly represented and that

the interests of union officials do not go unchallenged. On the other hand, the Liberal Party's respect for individual

liberty—the "work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives and maximises

individual and private-sector initiative", as outlined in our party's "We Believe" statement—and the talent of its

representatives, many of whom are here tonight, hooked me. Shortly after my election to the USU and the Liberal

landslide of the 2011 election, I volunteered for two days in the office of Mark Speakman, new member for

Cronulla, before he offered me a job. I was fortunate to have the encouragement of the fresh-faced member for

Hornsby, Matt Kean.

Having politicians and experienced political actors mentor young people who want to make a difference

in government and society is so important. My door is always open for young people, and particularly young

women, who want to know more and get involved in political life. I acknowledge the incredible impact of the

Young Liberals, which drives this work, and its president Dimitry Chugg-Palmer in the gallery this evening. I am

a classical Liberal in the tradition of Locke, Smith, Burke and Menzies. I hold the belief that individual

responsibility and action are at the heart of a necessarily complex but, crucially, good society. We achieve it

through what Hume called the "dissoluble chain" of our togetherness, linking "industry, knowledge and humanity"

for progress. To foster freedom for progress, political structures should support the opportunity for choice in all

these areas. Freedom of choice, supported by individual empowerment, results in the best outcomes for us all. It is

the most sustainable way to act over time. In my view, there is no better way to seek progress. These principles

have lifted millions—billions—out of poverty. It is fundamental to the United Nations Declaration of Human

Rights: the empowerment of the individual to create positive change and progress without recourse to undue

power. Good law protects the vulnerable from the unscrupulous and encourages free enterprise and empowerment.

In Menzies' words:

… the greatest element in a strong people is a fierce independence of spirit. This is the only real freedom, and it has as its corollary a

brave acceptance of unclouded individual responsibility.

It is the joy, the value, the beauty and the potential of each and every individual person to live freely amongst

fellows and to find meaning in life in the way they choose. That free expression is captured in music and art,

science and innovation, family and friends—and, yes, at its best, in politics. That is the spirit that our society can

generate and exude when every individual member is supported to find it within themselves. In favouring liberty,

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 62

I encourage considered ethics and personal responsibility as the best way to reduce reliance on legislation to

regulate behaviour. I am, as economic Michael Munger would put it, a directionalist rather than a destinationalist.

I am not a revolutionary. I see sustainable progress in society as the broad agreement and movement of people

through the Overton window.

I am loathe to quote Slavoj Žižek, but his question "What happens the day after the revolution?" remains

relevant in times of political uncertainty. The conservative in me seeks to maintain strong institutions based

outside of government structures wherever possible, from volunteer organisations like One Meal – It Makes a

Difference, where I served on the board with a group of people organising hot, homemade meals to those in need

across Greater Sydney, to sporting organisations like Oztag and netball that connect families and friends while

promoting a healthy lifestyle. We need not, and should not, resort to government solutions for all sources of

connection and support.

A caring society is also at the heart of conservative values, where institutions like family and marriage

foster connection, comfort and a natural safety net. Though we know families can be far from perfect, it is about

fostering a society that has the capacity to progress by developing healthier relationships based on respect for and

responsibility of the individual. Where these fail, there is a natural role for government, on behalf of a caring

society, to support people back to independence, if possible, and to comfort where necessary. I honour the

cornerstone of our society—our parliamentary democracy—by protecting it fiercely. It is a system that has

developed slowly over millennia to better serve its people and will no doubt continue to do so. My apologies for

the apparent self-interest, and perhaps for the roast earlier, but as a good friend says, "If you're not going to vote

Liberal, vote Labor." The strength and stability of a two-party system with our almost unique and wonderful

compulsory voting system delivers outcomes that should allow us to find society's core values through our

policies.

Unfortunately, there are many political systems in the world that seek to overthrow the primacy of the

individual and our representative approach to governance. They deny a person a democratic vote for a governing

body, oppress expression of thought and dictate the operations of an economy and a society, restricting choice.

These authoritarian and communist political regimes exist at the expense of their citizens, not to serve them but

to use them. We must be vigilant in our defence against these systems of power.

To bolster institutions, they must also be fit for a modern world. I was humbled to be involved in the

Australian Marriage Equality campaign and acknowledge the people in the gallery tonight who were an important

part of that, including Alex Greenwich, MP. Paul Ritchie, a speech writer for Liberal Prime Ministers, including

Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, articulated it best. In making marriage available to all couples, he knew that

more committed families, not fewer, were better for our children and our communities. Who would value the

institution of marriage more than those to whom it had been denied? It was a conservative institution made

stronger through expansion.

It is vital that our party's narrative reflects the great work that it has done for Australians to enable them to

live more freely. In the past 10 years alone, the Liberals amended the law to allow historic gay and lesbian offences

to be abolished, abolished the gay panic defence for violent crimes, put pre-exposure prophylaxis on the

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and delivered the first official government apology to the 78ers. Though not

perfect—and really there is no such thing in politics—there are also examples of great improvements for

Aboriginal Australians because of courageous Liberal politicians.

Harold Holt and the Liberal Party presided over a successful referendum in 1967 to count Aboriginal

people in the Census. The passing of the Land Rights Act in 1977 under Fraser, with the support of Australia's

first Aboriginal member of the Commonwealth Parliament, Liberal Senator Neville Bonner, was an enormous

feat of political will. More recently in New South Wales was the criminalisation of coercive control to help

victim-survivors escape abuse before they are murdered, the introduction of Renewable Energy Zones to

sustainably power our homes and our economy for the future, and the introduction of optional land tax. Those are

the types of policies that will drive our State forward as a safer, more prosperous and more optimistic place to

live.

Underpinning all our policy programs must be a strong economy to support those in need. That is why

I will always try to encourage wealth creators, entrepreneurs and small business people—not because they have

lobbied me, not because they will go on strike if I do not and not because they will threaten to stop funding my

political campaign, but precisely because they will not do those things. Their contribution to our State is based on

hardworking, responsibility-driven Liberal values. These are people working to provide for their families, to

provide for themselves, to save for a home and to invest back into their businesses. Currently 99.8 per cent of

business in Australia are considered small or medium. In New South Wales alone, 1.8 million people are employed

by small business, accounting for 45 per cent of the New South Wales private sector workforce. I hark back to

Menzies. He said:

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 63

… our first impulse is always to seek the private enterprise answer to help the individual to help himself, to create a climate, economic,

social, industrial, favourable to his activity and grow it.

These are the people who provide us with goods and services every day, pay their taxes and create jobs for fellow

Australians. I have worked in one of those small businesses in public relations and campaigns. I have witnessed

the grit, drive and selflessness that it took those founders to persevere through the pandemic while keeping their

employees on the books. JobKeeper helped enormously. They emerged more determined than ever. I am delighted

to say that they are thriving today, with numerous international awards recognising their talented contribution to

public policy discourse and advocacy. That is the raw spirit of the Australian small business person. Coming from

a professional career in public relations, communication and public affairs, I know that no matter how good your

policy is or how good the cause seems, without the right audience, messaging and communicator, it risks going

nowhere. Tim Wilson, the former member for Goldstein, wrote in his recent book The New Social Contract,

"Society struggles when resentment becomes so great that differing parties no longer share common interest."

In outlining some vision for what New South Wales can be, I hope we can find common interests. I envision

a rich and biodiverse environment, where the complexity and fragility of ecosystems is preserved; generosity and

goodwill offered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as they seek power over their destiny; a

productive economy driven by private enterprise, innovation, competition, collaboration and determination; a

place where individual talents, expressions and contributions are valued, from apprentices to investors and

musicians to scientists; a thriving space industry; the capacity for people to live securely in their own home and

be mobile when they choose; and a society where in-person interaction is prioritised because although the digital

world gives us so much, nothing can replace our deep animal longing and positive response to close physical and

psychological proximity.

I will briefly expand on a few of those areas before speaking more specifically about housing.

I acknowledge that this, Australia's oldest Parliament, was established on Gadigal land. I pay my respects to Elders

past, present and emerging. I note the Message Stick that inhabits this place because symbolism matters, and so

does the tangible equality of opportunity denied to so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I will sit in the

Chamber more easily when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not condemned from birth, in their

ancestral home, to lifespans a full decade shorter on average than non-Aboriginals. I will be deeply relieved when,

in that life, they have not been involved in far greater instances of racism, violence, alcoholism and drug addiction,

incarceration and a range of other health disorders, including the devastating effects of fetal alcohol spectrum

disorder from the beginning of life to kidney disease at the end. We must have the courage to listen to the torment

of powerlessness and heed the call for responsibility through the Voice.

Addressing flagging productivity is crucial if we are to maintain our valuable triple-A credit rating with a

stable outlook. Australians are facing economic uncertainty after almost three decades of uninterrupted economic

growth. Improving productivity is our key to success. I commend the work of the Productivity Commissioner,

Peter Achterstraat, in a role created by former Liberal Treasurer Dominic Perrottet. He set out a range of regulatory

and legislative reforms that can be introduced in this Parliament to promote productivity, including reforming the

payroll tax system, improving local government accountability, harmonising apprenticeship and trade

qualifications across the country, and delivering a comprehensive review of the New South Wales planning system

to fix delay and uncertainty in planning processes.

On tax reform, encouraging entrepreneurship and a mindset that failure comes with its own success can be

achieved with help from reform to our taxation system. That includes eliminating the payroll tax burden for

businesses in operation for five years or less and investigating the waiving of payroll tax for businesses paying

$5 million or less in wages, and the introduction of productive land use tax incentives. We must also have an

honest and public conversation about GST reform for improved fiscal efficiency and effectiveness, which Ken

Henry should be around to see updated. It took John Howard a quarter of a century from first introducing the idea

of a GST to its wide public acceptance and introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. While a Federal tax,

GST accounts for around 11 per cent of our State's revenue and is subject to serious fluctuations, particularly as

we navigate higher interest rates and inflation with reduced spending. We have the responsibility to lead this

conversation.

Fixing our messy apprenticeship system is an important part of our economic growth. My work with the

Global Apprenticeship Network Australia has particularly alerted me to the possibilities and problems in the

current system. Apprentices in rural and regional New South Wales should also be supported, and I acknowledge

my Coalition colleagues who are fighting to do just that. In fostering good, human connections, I remind members

of the value of art and play. Those are the things I was proud to fight for through the Keep Sydney Open

movement. For CBDs in particular, with the increase of apartment living, it is vital that true 24-hour economies

are encouraged. They are made lively because of the people who choose to live, perform, create, trade and travel

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 64

in a stimulating global city. Whether its techno, jazz or drum and bass, visual art, poetry or dance, restauranteurs,

tailors or bankers, I encourage the free flow of ideas and trade.

In saying all of that, I remind myself that one of the most challenging aspects of politics is prioritisation.

I have seen that a focused mind achieves results in politics. In that spirit, I focus my remaining minutes on housing.

Being able to afford a home is not a dream that we should give up on. As legislators, we must take on the

responsibility of fixing this crisis, not only for renters but also for home buyers. The psychological advantage of

a stable home cannot be understated, or that a person and a family can choose to live in their desired home and

work towards ownership as a goal. It might be a place where they can take a salty morning dip, wake up where

the freshest air is breathed or eschew sleep in the most vibrant city. They might take their kids out to the local

park with other families or invite their friends over to play in their backyard instead. We know that housing has

become an asset class more than a human necessity. In The Forgotten People, Menzies spoke of homes material,

human and spiritual. Without homes material it is more challenging to attain the rest.

The Liberals risk losing a political movement and a generation of inspired actors if we do not engrain the

idea that reward for effort is real and felt, not just said. When people feel as though their hard work will not set

them apart or allow them to achieve their dreams, they will turn to government for support. It is a natural feeling.

We are sleepwalking into a society of great Australian dreams, because its reality seems unattainable. As a

politician in opposition it is my responsibility to hold the Labor Government to account. But in this House it is

expected that we work together to seek reform, and I hope to do that.

The scale of the problem will not be solved by more public housing. It is an unsustainable route entirely.

The current housing waitlist sits at over 50,000 people—over a third of the number of people already in

government housing. It is estimated that 45,000 new homes will be required to be built every year for the next

20 years to house New South Wales' growing population. While in 2018 almost 70,000 dwellings were added to

the housing stock in a year, in 2021 we continued a downward trend, with only 40,000 homes added. There must

be capacity for more private investment to step in, with government required to work with developers to address

this chronic shortage. They are not insurmountable challenges that we face. To address the cost of housing, we

must do all we can to boost supply. I offer 10 changes to ease the cost of housing. Work on these could begin

tomorrow:

1. Retain Coalition legislation that allows buyers to choose to replace transfer, or stamp duty, with

land tax—a policy that treasury officials and economist have been calling for for decades.

2. Reduce application costs associated with building compliance for secondary dwellings on a single

property.

3. Extend long-term rental to 12 months without development approvals using existing State

registration approval processes—currently there is a three-month limit.

4. Develop an accurate short-term rental accommodation register that puts enforced limits on

non-hosted short-term rental properties.

5. Increase density and height limits in the Sydney CBD and surrounds, particularly in

Woolloomooloo, with in-fill development prioritised.

6. Release State-owned land.

7. Encourage banks to lend for dwellings under 40 square metres.

8. Undertake an accurate audit of vacant residential properties across the State.

9. Introduce land use incentives to develop properties for housing, including consideration of a

vacancy and dilapidation tax.

10. Identify and report on five-year to 20-year housing targets by local government areas.

I thank the Liberal Party, its staff, led so faithfully by our outgoing and indefatigable State Director Chris Stone.

In 2019 I ran for the seat of Sydney. I hope she will not mind me saying this, but Tanya Plibersek whispered in

my ear after I had given an answer at Glebe Town Hall, which was a pretty tough crowd for a liberal. She told me

that I had given a good answer. I was speaking about the importance of members in our Liberal Party and the

party's character being inextricably linked to the characteristics of the totality of its membership. The Liberal Party

will always be a party of individuals who have chosen to come together in service of their values and the

community.

The former member for Coogee, Bruce Notley-Smith, our State's first openly gay member of the

Legislative Assembly, said to me when I was a young Liberal something that I will never forget, "When I joined

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 65

the Liberal Party, yes, I became a part of it, but the party became a little bit more like me." In that spirit I cannot

finish without acknowledging the Liberal women in my life, who are absolute powerhouses. There are many—

too many to name. The NSW Liberal Women's Council is a force to be reckoned with. The best of them are

determined, diverse and whip smart. These Liberal women are deserving of seats in Parliament because they are

the best chances our country has to succeed. The Hon. Natalie Ward, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, Sally Betts,

Senator Maria Kovacic and founder of Hilma's Network, Charlotte Mortlock, have shown me the very greatest

strengths in women, for women.

Thank you to Matthew John Kean, who has encouraged me to persevere and prevail in speaking up for our

values, because this work is not about us; it is about what we can do to serve; and James Wallace, who is a humble

servant of the Liberal Party and a formidable political force. Deep thanks to my patient and loving family, to dad,

my beautiful and kind step-mum Sue, brave Kristina, most amazing Ben. I would be nowhere without you and

without your love and support. Thank you for everything. A final word from Epictetus who said:

For as the material for the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's

own life.

I extend the metaphor to say politics is the material of politicians. I will use all the tools I can to improve the

politics and policies of this place for the benefit of the people of New South Wales to the very best of my ability.

Thank you.

Members and officers of the House stood and applauded.

Motions

COMPREHENSIVE EXPENDITURE REVIEW

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (20:38): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Treasurer and Minister for Finance announced on 12 May 2023 that the Government will hand down the

2023-24 budget on 19 September 2023;

(b) the 2023-24 budget will be informed by a comprehensive expenditure review, vital to provide an accurate picture

of the state of the New South Wales budget, and that this review will be led by the Minister for Finance; and

by Ken Kanofski and supported by Infrastructure NSW.

(2) That this House further notes:

(a) the Treasurer and Minister for Finance are inheriting significant economic challenges and difficult-to-avoid

pressures on the budget;

(b) the former Government led in this place by the Hon. Damien Tudehope accumulated historically high levels of debt

in an economic environment of high inflation and rising interest rates; and

rebuild New South Wales' essential services and invest in the people who look after each and every one of us.

(3) That this House wishes the Treasurer, Minister for Finance and the whole Government the very best in their efforts to rescue

the budget position so as to make life better for the people of New South Wales.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government's comprehensive expenditure review. As the House

now knows, I am a huge fan of maths. But the numbers on the balance sheet that the previous Government left us

definitely do not add up—that is, when we consider what good governments should be doing. The House also

knows that the previous Government left the people of New South Wales with the biggest debt in our State's

history.

In fact, incoming briefs have uncovered a $7 billion budget black hole left by the former Liberal-Nationals

Government. Whilst I am a huge fan of the Hon. Greg Donnelly's deep dive into black holes the other day, I will

not attempt to canvass that again. The Government was elected on a platform to fix essential services in New South

Wales, to put more teachers in our schools, more health professionals in our hospitals, more paramedics in our

ambulance services and more firies in our fire stations. Members know that those things are needed—and they

were needed yesterday. Those values underpin the comprehensive expenditure review being undertaken by the

Government. We on this side of the House are serious about maximising the value of every dollar that we spend

to deliver meaningful outcomes to the people in our State. That is what the people of New South Wales expect

and deserve, and that is why they voted us in.

It beggars belief that the previous Government, without telling the people of New South Wales, cut

1,100 nurses from the budget. They will be unfunded from 30 June 2024, a $380 million black hole over the

forwards. There are many problems with unfunded positions for workers. The first that springs to mind is the

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 66

insecurity of their jobs. That is a particular problem in the regions, like where I live, where workers often need to

be attracted to relocate to fill those positions. Why would someone up-end their life and their family to move for

a temporary contract? The second issue with those positions is one that healthcare workers in particular have

spoken to me about at length, and that is the fact that it makes it very difficult to get a loan to buy a house and put

down roots in the regions.

Job insecurity and housing insecurity when the cost of living is soaring is just another layer of distress for

workers in New South Wales. But let us not forget what else the previous Government cut from its budget with

this $7 billion black hole. It cut support for kids living in out-of-home care in a funding shortfall from 30 June

2023, a $700 million hole over the forwards. Kids living in out-of-home care are already some of the most

vulnerable individuals in this State. The list goes on. Cyber Security NSW will be unfunded from 30 June 2024,

a $70 million hole over the forwards. Destination NSW will have $100 million per year cut from its budget, risking

funding to iconic events like Mardi Gras and the National Rugby League grand final.

One would think that with all the New South Wales Blues propaganda floating around the building today

the Opposition would have cared a bit more about the NRL grand final. Whilst a navy blue blazer is probably the

furthest I would go in staking a claim—and I have to admit that I wore it unintentionally—I recognise the

importance to this State of iconic events such as the NRL grand final. Active Kids vouchers will be unfunded

from 30 June 2023, a $350 million hole over the forwards. And, shockingly, the regional seniors travel card

program will be unfunded from 30 June 2023. This year, debt will be $128.7 billion, and interest will be

$4.5 billion a year.

The Government's comprehensive expenditure review will be thorough, considered and used to make

sustainable, sensible decisions. I acknowledge the work being done by Treasury and agencies across the

Government in undertaking that important review. It is a vital first step in fixing the budget in New South Wales.

The Government will ensure that we are maximising every dollar. We will do what a responsible, good

government should. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have significant economic challenges and

difficult-to-avoid pressures. Again, I thank them for their work to date in establishing the comprehensive

expenditure review.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (20:43): It really is a tragedy when those opposite hand a new member

a speech like that to read. It is laced with propaganda and inaccuracies. They have said, "We will give you

something that will line you up so that you will never have a job on the front bench because of the speeches that

you have been asked to give in this place." At best, the motion is an indulgent piece of theatre. It is the sort of

stuff we hear in question time. It is a sort of rhetoric we keep on hearing. We all know that "a $7 billion black

hole" is code for "We have not found the money to pay for the promises we want to make". They call it the

$7 billion black hole; we all know that it is code for "We have made promises we cannot keep". That is what the

Government is all about. Time and again Government members say in this place, "You haven't funded Cyber

Security NSW. You haven't funded the Active Kids vouchers and other things that we expected."

The Hon. Courtney Houssos: You cut it.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Well, how many Treasury officials have you sacked? You sacked the

secretary—I know that. You sacked the Treasury secretary because they are the one who signs off on the accounts

every year. They are the one who has to be responsible.

The Hon. Courtney Houssos: You want to blame the public servants.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: No, no. If you say that the secretary signed off on a set of accounts

which contained a $7 billion black hole, then where are the questions directed at those people doing that modelling

and signing them off as accurate reflections of the finances of this State? Members opposite come into the

Chamber and engage in pieces of theatre. The comprehensive review is a fraud to perpetuate this nature of saying,

"We are going to tell the people about cuts we are going to make and blame it on someone else because we cannot

afford the promises we have made." They should tell the truth to the people of New South Wales. They went to

the election with a lie, and they are perpetuating that lie in this place.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:46): On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate on this broadly welcome

motion. I flag that we have an amendment we would like to move, which I will get to in a moment, because the

last two paragraphs of the motion are a little too positive in relation to the new Government. However, The Greens

acknowledge that there has been at least a $7 billion black hole left by the previous Government, the full extent

of which I do not think is fully known yet.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Then how do you know it is $7 billion?

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 67

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: The $7 billion is just the bit we know about. The sham that is the Transport Asset

Holding Entity and the accounting gloss that was put on it is a good indication of the approach the previous

Government took to balancing the books. The previous Government was more intent on making the budget look

good than on making the budget, in substance, work for the people of New South Wales. There is no doubt that

we will end up having lots of conversations about this as we go, but it is not a huge surprise that we are in a

position where the people of New South Wales have discovered that a very significant difference exists between

the real state of the budget and what the former Government made it out to be. I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

(1) Omit paragraph (2) (c) and insert instead: "Without the courage to raise more revenue from New South Wales' most

profitable industries and wealthiest individuals, the Minns Government risks repeating the mistakes of the former

Coalition Government in being caught in a false dichotomy between borrowing more debt and cutting essential

services.".

(2) Omit all words after "House" and insert instead: "Calls on the Treasurer, Minister for Finance and the whole

Government to do their best to rescue the budget position in a way that makes life better for the people of New

South Wales.".

The Greens would wholeheartedly support the motion with those amendments.

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (20:49): I feel sorry for the Treasurer. Commitments were made during the

election campaign that now need to be funded and he cannot find the money. That is essentially what the

comprehensive expenditure review is about. Labor overcommitted and made all these promises during the election

—in particular, to trade union bosses—and now it cannot deliver on them. The easiest budget cut one can ever

make is the stuff that one does not go into. Labor made it clear that it will abolish wages cap, though little detail

came through the campaign about what that would entail. Those opposite are under a lot of pressure because of

the wage demands coming from the trade union bosses, in particular, the strikes that are rolling out now.

Trade union officials in this State are probably feeling a bit gypped. They are knocking on the door of those

opposite, saying, "We helped you get elected. We stood out there on polling booths. We ran the negative

campaigns for you. We helped at train stations. We helped at pre-poll. We now want to be paid. Pay up." Alex

Claassens and Mark Morey are knocking on the door, saying it is time to pay up. In return, those opposite are

saying "4 per cent." We were promising 3.5 per cent, and they are saying, "We have a deal for you—4 per cent."

An extra half a per cent on top of what we were already promising—is that it?

The trade unions are probably thinking to themselves, "Is that all there is? Is an extra half a per cent all that

they are going to promise? Is that all they are going to deliver on?" They probably feel like they are being

completely gypped because during the campaign those opposite said, "We are getting rid of the wages cap." There

was little detail about what that would entail, and now they are incredibly unhappy about the 4 per cent, thinking,

"Is that all there is?"

The comprehensive expenditure review is codename for, "How do we find more money out of the budget

because we have to abolish the wages cap and pay off the trade union bosses?" Those opposite will probably look

at another way when they cannot afford to pay for the union wage demands, and that is to cancel infrastructure

such as the Beaches Link and the two Sydney Metro lines. That will also probably come out of the comprehensive

expenditure review. What else will they cut as part of the comprehensive expenditure review because they cannot

deliver on the wage demands from the trade union bosses that run their party?

The Hon. SARAH KAINE (20:52): I speak in support of the motion. As we have already heard today,

the comprehensive expenditure review will be thorough and considered to enable the Government to make

sustainable and sensible decisions. Sustainable and sensible decisions are what this State needs after 12 years of

mismanagement that has seen so many of our essential service suffer. We are facing a mass exodus in our essential

services workforces, as the previous Government undervalued and devalued their important work. In education

1,854 permanent teachers resigned in 2022—nearly double those who resigned in 2020 and triple the 626 who

resigned in 2016. In 2021 NSW Health lost 12.6 per cent of its nursing staff, and the previous Government left

1,100 nurses unfunded from 30 June 2024. That is a $380 million hole over the forward estimates.

I am most worried about things that perhaps we have not found yet that will come out in the expenditure

review. What have we still not found? The Liberal-Nationals Coalition is notorious for outsourcing public sector

jobs. At a Federal level, it has resulted in what The Sydney Morning Herald referred to last week as a "shadow

public service". In the final years of Morrison's Government, nearly $21 billion was spent on privately owned

businesses providing Commonwealth government services, equating to about 54,000 full-time workers. At a State

level, in the 2021-22 financial year the former New South Wales Coalition Government spent approximately

$1.7 billion just on one public sector outsourcing scheme: the Contingent Workforce Scheme. These are not

consultants; these are workers who are doing work for government agencies through recruitment and labour hire

companies. That is over 16 million hours of work performed for the New South Wales Government by workers

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 68

who are not on the Government's payroll. That is outsourced work. We know what happens to workers in

outsourced companies.

The biggest spender in that Contingent Workforce Scheme in the 2021-22 financial year was transport and

infrastructure, while education and health were the second- and fourth-biggest spenders. The millions of hours of

work done by people who are not employees of the Government is what was spent through this one scheme. It

does not consider other spending on labour hire, outsourcing and consultants across the Government. We do not

know yet if these are sustainable and sensible decisions. We will find that out through this review. Given what we

have seen in the Federal jurisdiction with the use of contingent work as a quasi-public sector, I will not be surprised

if the Minister's review uncovers more unnecessary outsourcing of work using taxpayer money that could

otherwise be spent creating stable and fairly paid public sector jobs.

The Hon. WES FANG (20:55): In her contribution, the Hon. Sarah Kaine indicated that she is worried

about a number of things. I am worried about rural and regional New South Wales with Labor in power. We know

that it is going to be cut, cut, cut from those opposite. This motion is about the cut, cut, cut that will happen in

rural and regional New South Wales.

The first cut will be to the Regional Apprentice and University Student Travel Card that the previous

Government budgeted for and rolled out, and it has been stopped by Labor. Those opposite should be ashamed of

themselves. In rural and regional communities, people do not have access to subsidised public transport. This was

one way that our rural and regional students and apprentices could get their hands on a bit of help to relieve the

cost-of-living pressures they are experiencing so that they could have a bit of what metropolitan students get by

way of subsidised travel.

With Labor, it has been cut, cut, cut. Those opposite do not care if it is in rural and regional areas because

they really do not care about them. It has been shown time and again by the policies that they deliver. I agree with

the Hon. Sarah Kaine that I am worried. I am worried about this expenditure review because we know what it

means for our communities. Look at Marshalls Creek Bridge in Wagga Wagga that I spoke about earlier today.

The program is ready to go, but the regional roads Minister is refusing to implement it. This expenditure review

is code for "rural and regional communities and cuts". That is what it is about.

Ms Abigail Boyd: Cut, cut, cut.

The Hon. WES FANG: Exactly. I acknowledge the interjection. Even Ms Abigail Boyd knows it is about

cut, cut, cut. Those opposite should also admit, as Ms Abigail Boyd has, that this is purely about finding cuts.

Ms Abigail Boyd: Point of order—

The Hon. Mark Banasiak: She was being sarcastic, Wes.

Ms Abigail Boyd: For Hansard's purposes, I correct the record. I was not endorsing the "cut, cut, cut"

message but, in fact, making fun of it.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: She should be called to order.

The PRESIDENT: We will move on and take that as a comment. The member has the call.

The Hon. WES FANG: The Leader of the Opposition is right; the member should be called to order. But

I appreciate that she is perpetuating the legacy for which those opposite will be known: cut, cut, cut in rural and

regional communities and cut, cut, cut to students. [Time expired.]

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (20:59): I oppose the motion. I am very concerned that it treats a very

serious matter as one of congratulation and wishing each other the very best. The people of New South Wales

expect the Government to be doing things for them and not self-congratulating each other in this House. As the

Hon. Damien Tudehope said, this self-congratulatory, indulgent motion is theatre. The people of New South

Wales expect better. It is a matter of cut, cut, cut because the Government has cut vital projects across New South

Wales, which the Opposition when in Government worked very hard with the community to implement.

Government members have not worked hard for the people of New South Wales, nor have they sought help from

the Federal Government to ensure that those projects are backed in, even though they have mates in Canberra.

Labor seems to prioritise paying off the labour unions and their mates first and foremost. You have to pay

the ferryman for delivering the result. I find it interesting that while the Government is looking at slashing

Active Kids, it is reaching into the pockets of families to fund $16 million for the Ultimate Fighting

Championship. This is a Government that is at sea. It does not know what it is doing. Meanwhile, Government

members are very happy to extend those cuts to cutting ribbons on projects that the Opposition when in

Government funded, planned and delivered. They are cutting ribbons on new hospitals, new schools and the

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 69

Sydney Gateway. They are talking about how fantastic those projects are, such as, "Save 20 minutes of travel time

on the Sydney Gateway."

The Hon. Wes Fang: Central Station.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD: And Central Station. Government members have not even provided the

professional courtesy of inviting those members who put forward these ideas—most of which were opposed by

Labor when in Opposition, such as WestConnex—or the local members in the area to the opening of those

projects. There is an arrogance about the motion and the approach of the Government. Families are trying to send

their kids to sport. Families are trying to make ends meet. Young people are trying to buy homes. The arrogance

of taking that choice away from them is devastating to us. So yes, we oppose the motion. The budget is in the

place that it is because of the reality of the past couple of years.

In fact, the motion fails to recognise that we have had a global pandemic, we have had bushfires and we

have had floods. We have kept businesses afloat. We have kept families afloat. We kept the trains running and

the rest of the transport system going. All of those things continued. When in Opposition, the Minns team said

that it would not be political about this and that it would work together with the Government, but it has completely

cut that out of its revisionist history of the financial position of this State. I find it extraordinary that the motion

could come before the House in any serious manner when the people of New South Wales expect the Government

to have a plan. Stop doing review after review and come up with a plan to make things better for the people you

propose to represent.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (21:02): I contribute to debate on the motion. The nerve of the

Opposition to double down on a legacy that was patently rejected by the electorate! Opposition members continue

to double down on their abject failure. How can members argue against an incoming Government that is looking

at the books and wondering how it is going to find the money to fund the promises that it was elected on? It is

about priorities: The former Government prioritised lumbering Labor with the largest debt in this State's history.

That is a fact. Some $90 billion in assets were sold off, and you could not even leave us with a balanced budget.

You hired consultants hand over fist, you squandered money on grants all over the place, you sent trade

commissioners on multimillion dollar salaries overseas and then you spent money on dodgy infrastructure, such

as trains that do not fit the tracks.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The House will come to order. The Hon. Mark Buttigieg will direct his

comments through the Chair.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: I am very sorry, Chair. The infrastructure that Opposition members

boast about actually transferred public wealth to monopoly toll road companies. They said to the poor old tax

payer, "Sorry, you will now travel on a privately owned road and you will pay through the nose for it." It is no

secret that when in Opposition we campaigned night and day on our priorities, and that is why the expenditure

review is so important. We campaigned on this. As a result of the comprehensive review, we are going to find the

money to fund and deliver schools—schools in Camden and Leppington.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: We built them. We built more schools than any other government in the history

of this State.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Tell that to the people of Gregory Hills. Opposition members still—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: I am loathe to interrupt but the member should be able to

make his argument without a wall of noise coming from members opposite.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: The level of volume from those opposite is directly proportional to

their denial. We prioritise nurses, we prioritise firefighters, we prioritise paramedics and we prioritise wage rises

for working people. Members opposite denied them a wage rise for 12 years and left behind a mess. They denied

working people a wage rise because they preferred to spend that money on dodgy infrastructure. Members

opposite must be ashamed of themselves. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Wes Fang to order for the second time.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)

(21:05): I contribute to debate on this excellent motion moved by the Hon. Emily Suvaal. I begin by

congratulating her on a truly outstanding inaugural speech last night. I can only imagine how difficult it was. She

delivered it with style and class. She has an extraordinary story and she is going to make a huge contribution as a

member of this place. I am proud to serve alongside her as part of the Minns Labor Government.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: She is wishing you all the best too.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 70

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I am not entirely sure that those opposite read the same motion that

I read. The motion states that we will be delivering the budget in September; it will be informed by the

comprehensive expenditure review; we find ourselves with difficult choices to make; and that we hope we do well

in our work to make life better for the people of New South Wales. It is remarkable how quickly those opposite

forget about what they did during their 12 long years on the Government benches. The previous Government spent

tens of billions—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: The previous Government sold off tens of billions of dollars worth

of public assets and then went on to clock up a record level of debt to fund our current infrastructure program at

80 per cent debt leverage. That puts us in the remarkable situation where we will be paying off more of our debt

than we will be spending on our police force or on the skills of our children through our TAFE system.

Government is about making choices, and before the election those opposite made the choice to put 1,112 nurses

on temporary contracts instead of on permanent contracts so that they would run out in the middle of next year.

Those opposite ceased funding the office of cybersecurity in an era where we are suffering more cyber

attacks than ever before. They allowed the cost of care for our most vulnerable children to run into the hundreds

of billions of dollars worth of overruns with no plan to address the haemorrhaging. They failed to even lodge a

budget submission to preserve a voucher program that they apparently feel very passionate about now that they

have been rejected by the people of New South Wales. We make no apology for trying to clean up after their

laziness and lack of discipline. Governing is about priorities. We are clear about our priorities. We will fix the

essential services in New South Wales because the people of New South Wales have elected us to do so.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (21:08): In reply: I acknowledge a couple of remarks made by members

opposite. In regard to the discussion about wage demands from union bosses, I remind the Hon. Chris Rath that

the average trade unionist is a middle-aged woman. For example, they could be an aged-care worker or a cleaner

in a hospital. All of those workers' wages have been suppressed by the unfair public sector wages cap put in place

by members opposite. Setting aside the remarks of the Hon. Damien Tudehope about me making this speech and

my perhaps questionable ability to write a speech on my own, those opposite are attempting to heap blame over

here in a desperate bid to salvage their reputations as good economic managers because, without that, who are

they? I will never forget the treatment that the rail workers of this State were subjected to by those opposite. The

Hon. Wes Fang's fear of rural and regional communities missing out has become palpable all of a sudden. Yet,

when he was in government, he oversaw a crisis in the budget and pork-barrelled bushfire recovery grants—

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: What are you talking about? You weren't even here.

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL: I bloody read about it.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: I appreciate that the member may not be aware, but casting aspersions

like that on me should be done by way of substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order because the honourable member did say that the Hon. Wes

Fang personally oversaw that, which patently was not the case. I ask the member to withdraw that element and

continue with her contribution.

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL: I withdraw the remark. When in government, those opposite oversaw the

pork-barrelling of bushfire recovery grants away from regions that desperately needed them and into water parks.

The Hon. Natalie Ward took issue with the congratulatory nature of the motion when there are another six bullet

points that clearly outline the Government's plans to fix the mess that has been created. I also remind members

that the budget was on track to blow out to record levels before the COVID-19 pandemic. As I said earlier, those

opposite can attempt to heap blame over here in a desperate effort to salvage their own reputations because,

without that, what are they?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Emily Suvaal has moved a motion, to which Ms Abigail Boyd has moved

an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 22

Noes ................... 13

Majority .............. 9

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 71

AYES

Banasiak Higginson Mookhey

Borsak Houssos Moriarty

Boyd Hurst Murphy (teller)

Buttigieg Jackson Nanva (teller)

Cohn Kaine Primrose

D'Adam Lawrence Sharpe

Donnelly Mihailuk Suvaal

Faehrmann

NOES

Carter Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)

Fang (teller) Martin Taylor

Farlow Merton Tudehope

Farraway Mitchell Ward

MacDonald

PAIRS

Graham Munro

Motion agreed to.

Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND WORKS COMMITTEE

Reference

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: I inform the House that in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to

the establishment of committees, the Public Accountability and Works Committee resolved this day to adopt the

following reference:

Inquiry into NSW Government's use and management of consulting services

(1) That the Public Accountability and Works Committee inquire into and report on the use and management of consulting firms

by New South Wales government agencies, including:

(a) the setting and enforcement of procurement policies;

(b) the transparency of work undertaken by consultants, and the accountability of consultants for this work;

(d) whether consultants are being used strategically and in a way that delivers value for money;

(e) the management of and measures to prevent conflicts of interest, breaches of contract or any other unethical

behaviour;

(f) the impact on the capacity and future development of the New South Wales public service as a result of the

increasing reliance on the use of consultants;

(g) integrity and transparency obligations of New South Wales government agencies in relation to their use of

consultants;

(h) the use of "consultant shopping" and the poor public policy outcomes that have arisen from such practices;

(i) enforcement actions that have been taken previously, and the adequacy of existing legislation to support integrity

agencies to investigate and enforce penalties;

(j) the process and timing for releasing reports unfavourable to government policy priorities and initiatives; and

(k) any other related matter.

(2) That the Committee report by 31 May 2024.

Motions

FORESTRY INDUSTRY

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (21:21): I move:

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 72

(1) That this House notes the decision of the Victorian Labor Government to bring forward the end of the native timber industry

in Victoria.

(2) That this House notes that native forest harvesting in New South Wales is carefully managed under a robust regulatory

framework to ensure the right balance is struck between environmental protection and forestry operations.

(3) That this House notes the important role that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union will play in

ensuring a balanced and vibrant future for forestry in New South Wales.

As the Leader of The Nationals in this place, I move an important motion. The forestry industry is really important

to regional New South Wales. While in government, the New South Wales Coalition always supported regional

communities to ensure that native forest harvesting in New South Wales was carefully managed under a robust

regulatory framework to ensure the right balance was struck between environmental protection and forestry

operations. The forestry sector in New South Wales is worth around $2.8 billion, and it supports more than 19,000

jobs. In government, our priority was always to protect our environment, improve our sustainability and ensure

our economic productivity in the long term.

Unlike its Victorian cousin, NSW Labor has generally been silent on native forest harvesting, but now they

find themselves on the Government benches and it is time for their position to be clarified. New South Wales has

20 million hectares of forested area, of which 8.3 million hectares is managed by the Government. The rest is

privately managed. Of the forested area managed by the Government, 67 per cent is set aside for nature

conservation with no timber harvesting and 24 per cent is managed by Forestry Corporation. Of the forested area

managed by Forestry Corporation, 50 per cent is unavailable for forestry activity. Of the remaining 50 per cent,

up to 30,000 hectares is harvested a year on a 30-year rotation, which is 0.1 per cent of the total 20 million hectares

of forested area in this State.

New South Wales has an integrated framework to support the sustainable management that is regulated by

the Environmental Protection Authority. This State is a world leader in sustainable forestry management and

attracts experts in ecology and science to help manage its forests to a global standard expected by the community.

New South Wales has dedicated agencies that specialise in sustainable forestry management. It is important that

our State forests not only remain open for the critical timber resource they provide but to ensure that communities

continue to have a strong connection to nature through the many activities State forests offer.

We should also be proud of the timber products our State forests produce and the hardworking people in

regional areas employed in the timber industry. If we talk about investing in manufacturing jobs in New South

Wales, we need to start by supporting our timber workers. We already have an army of skilled workers in the

timber industry turning harvested trees into materials that can be used to construct buildings, furniture, flooring,

timber products and other items. Our mill workers, timber contractors and transport workers are a vital part of our

regional communities, especially on the North Coast. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues in the other place

when I say they understand how vital the forestry industry is for their communities.

It is also important to recognise the work of the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union

[CFMEU] in standing up for forestry workers. The forestry industry has faced a number of significant challenges

over the past three years, including the Black Summer fires and the recent floods that have impacted timber

harvesting across the State. As supply decreased in mills and the timber supply chain suffered as a result of those

dual disasters, the CFMEU continued to stand by timber workers. Without them, we would not have the incredible

products that we rely on each and every day. Advocacy on behalf of timber workers is important. We stand by

those who are looking to support the important industry.

As I said, we need to make sure we have the products that we rely on every single day. Not only is native

hardwood timber a critical material, but we use it in our everyday lives. Native timber goes into flooring, cladding,

panelling, residential building structures, fencing, boat and ship construction, power poles, bridges, furniture and

firewood. Recent media about what has happened in Victoria shows that the industry is having a tough time.

Victoria under the State Labor party is poorer for fast-tracking the end of their hardwood industry. Shutting down

the hardwood timber industry sacrifices hardworking jobs, and the demand for timber does not cease. At a time

of critical timber shortages in the construction and manufacturing sectors, the announcement by Victoria is a

significant blow to regional economies and the environment.

To fill the demand for hardwood timber, consumers will end up buying imported timber from other

countries with weaker environmental standards. That is a perverse outcome. New South Wales should be proud

of its timber industry and support timber workers who provide a critical resource while adhering to the highest

possible standards set out at State and national levels. I appreciate the opportunity to move a motion about an

issue that impacts many people across regional New South Wales. The State has almost 20,000 people employed

in the forestry sector. I look forward to the Minister's contribution to the debate on the motion. This is an important

debate. The Government needs to give the sector and its workers clarity and certainty about what plans, if any, it

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 73

has in New South Wales. If the Government is intending to go down the path of its cousin in Victoria, this is an

important debate. I look forward to members' contributions to the debate.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (21:26): The Government's position is pretty straightforward,

and the motion is not the wedge that the Opposition thinks it is. The Government is committed to a sustainable

New South Wales forestry industry. That is not a secret. Labor members said it during the campaign and

committed to it during the election campaign, and as the Minister I commit to it right now. The forestry and wood

products industry in New South Wales is one of the State's key levers for economic recovery and net zero

emissions and is central to the viability of many regional communities. I met with members of the industry and

the workers, even before I became the Minister. The Government absolutely supports the jobs across the industry.

Equally important is maintaining the balance of environmental protection while the industry is supported,

and Labor will get that balance right. The State has to manage how it deals with the relationships across the sector.

I note that paragraph (c) of the motion refers to acknowledging the work of the Construction Forestry Maritime

Mining and Energy Union. The Government supports that union. I should probably move an amendment to also

include the Australian Workers Union, which is very active in the forestry space and supports its members who

work in that space. I will work with them closely on the Government's position because jobs are important. There

are roughly around 22,000 forestry jobs across the State. We will be working with the industry to maintain those.

The Government has committed to undertaking a comprehensive economic assessment to guide support

for local jobs and communities. That will be achieved by supporting sustainable softwood and hardwood

plantations across the State, the construction of trails and tourism infrastructure so that places can be used for all

kinds of activities, effective fire and tree management conservation, and tourism facilities such as visitor centres

in newly reserved areas. The Government will also undertake a skills audit to guide investment and incentives to

encourage new economic opportunities in the forestry industry. The Labor Government supports forestry and

wood products industries, which employ more than 22,000 people across New South Wales. During the election

campaign we pledged to work on expanding the plantation estate. Getting the balance right is essential, and the

Government will do that. We will not handle this in the same ridiculous way as the previous Liberal-Nationals

Government. We will work across portfolios to make sure that we deal with the timber industry in the appropriate

way. Rather than look at what happened in Victoria, which is not the same as New South Wales, I encourage the

mover of the motion to look at what happened in her Government.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (21:29): I contribute to the debate particularly around the decision by the

Victorian Labor Government to end native forest harvesting, which was a disgraceful decision based on

chardonnay socialism. The Victorian Treasurer cannot explain where the State will get its timber from, so I smell

dead orangutans on the horizon. The decision came down to people like forestry contractor Brett Robin. Fighting

the 2019 Bunyip fire, he risked his life and drove through flames to rescue a trapped operator. His reward will be

to lose his job in 2024. In the 2006 fires, the industry used its machinery to create firebreaks to protect Melbourne's

two largest water catchments. After 2024 Victoria will never have that protection again.

The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party is unashamedly supportive of the timber industry. We do not pick

and choose moments to support it, like the major parties do. Unlike The Nationals during the election campaign,

we did not gag our members from talking about the proposed great koala national park. I pay tribute to the

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and thank its members for their support at the polling

booths. They support the party because it has shown, through its words and actions, that it does not pick and

choose when it supports them.

I draw members back to my inaugural speech, where I said both sides of politics have had equal experience

in stuffing things up, and that rings true for the timber industry. Last year the Coalition inserted the great koala

national park as a force majeure clause in new wood supply agreements, signalling what it would do if it were

returned to government. Bob Carr started this rot with the reserve system—and it is a rot when you look at the

facts. Eighty-eight per cent of native timber in New South Wales is excluded from harvesting and 12 per cent is

available to harvest at a rate of less than 1 per cent each year. That means that the 88 per cent, which should have

wildlife returning to huge numbers because it has been locked up for conservation for so long, is the problem.

There should be no endangered animals if The Greens rhetoric around parks is to be believed.

The 88 per cent locked up for conservation is clearly not delivering on the promised conservation outcomes,

so why is the Government continuing to do it? All the evidence is there. The facts that The Greens shout from the

rooftops actually spruik their own failures on conservation outcomes. I will not hold the Labor Government

accountable for the sins of its weird, creepy Victorian uncle, but the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party is

watching it on this issue. How does the Government plan to build the great koala national park without a net loss

to timber supply? That would be a great feat. If nothing else, in the past four years I have proven that I am a dog

with a bone. I stand steadfast with the timber industry in our State and across the country.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 74

The Hon. EMMA HURST (21:32): I contribute to debate on the motion on behalf of the Animal Justice

Party. I am well aware that the motion has been moved by the Opposition in an effort to try to wedge the

Government and stick it to a core promise to industry. Nonetheless, I congratulate the Andrews Government on

taking decisive action to bring an end to native forest logging in Victoria by January 2024 and call on the

New South Wales Government to do the same. Our native forests are extremely important. They provide critical

habitat for wildlife and play a vital role in carbon capture and storage. However, they are quickly being destroyed

by the logging industry. The NSW State of the Environment 2021 report found that habitat destruction and native

vegetation clearing were the greatest threats to biodiversity in our State.

Logging is incredibly harmful to animals, which are often killed or injured when trees are cut down or logs

are processed. Those that survive are at increased risk of dying from starvation, predation, exposure to the

elements and other threats. Logging is also a key threatening process for dozens of threatened species in New

South Wales, including koalas. Decades of the practice has meant a catastrophic decline in eucalypt tree forests.

The fragmentation of native forests means that koalas are forced to travel from one area to another to seek food

and shelter, making them more vulnerable to being hit by cars as they cross major highways and falling victim to

diseases such as chlamydia.

New South Wales koalas are now formally listed as endangered and show no signs of recovery. We need

bold action to protect koalas now if we are going to bring them back from the brink of extinction, and a key part

of that recovery plan must be a ban on native forest logging. On top of all that, there is no commercial argument

to keep the native forest logging industry going. Forestry Corporation of NSW is losing taxpayers' money in its

native logging operations. Ninety per cent of the State's timber products already come from plantations rather than

native forests. Banning native forest logging is one of the single biggest actions Parliament can take to turn around

the climate and extinction crises. If the Government wants to prove it is serious about protecting animals and the

environment, it needs to take action urgently on this issue.

The Hon. WES FANG (21:32): I believe the Hon. Sarah Mitchell moved this motion because the timber

industry is quite important to the State in general, not just to rural and regional New South Wales. Many of our

houses, furniture and infrastructure are made from timber. Timber is an amazing resource for building. It can be

structural or used for floorboards or furniture. When it grows, it captures and stores carbon. If the State does not

have its own timber industry, it will have to be brought in. In her contribution the Minister spoke about supporting

more plantations—effectively more planned forestry—which I think is a great idea. But some private native

forests are in areas that are under threat of being locked up because they are considered to be core habitat for X,

Y, or Z.

If this State, and this country, does not have a sustainable means of producing its own timber, we will either

have to bring it in from somewhere else or use another means to build houses—like steel, which everybody knows

is more carbon intensive. If we want a sustainable product for the construction of houses, furniture and all the

things we use on a day-to-day basis, we need a timber industry in this State. That is what is really worrying about

what has happened in Victoria. At the end of the day, softwood and hardwood are used for different things and

their plantations are different. Some private native forests being grown at the moment are at risk of being locked

up. As much as I acknowledge the view of The Greens that we need more hardwood and softwood plantations, in

reality what will happen is they are likely to be locked up halfway through their growth. Investment is needed so

the State has a timber industry into the future. Plantations take 40 years or longer to grow, so the industry needs

certainty, which is what the Opposition is calling for in the motion.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:38): It currently costs taxpayers $417 per hectare to log our public native

forest estate. That is about 1.5 million hectares that is managed for logging. At the moment, our plantation estate,

which provides over 85 per cent of the State's high-end timber, comes from plantations. It has returned $94 million

over two years, whereas the hardwood estate has cost taxpayers $28 million. We are emitting 3.6 million tonnes

of carbon by logging our public native forest estate. The money tells us we just cannot afford to be doing that. If

we stop logging now, that is a $2.7 billion carbon saving between now and 2050 based on the current cheap price

of carbon per tonne of around 36 bucks. We know that will increase massively as we go forward. We have just

seen a report on the table that states if we stop logging in the north now it would be a $294 million return in

revenue by 2040. The fact is we cannot afford to keep logging.

Members just heard about the Victorian decision. It is coupled with an $875 million price to make sure

workers are looked after. If this is honestly about workers then we need to wake up. Members are having the same

argument in this Chamber that was being had 30 years ago. It is time to grow up. We are decision-makers. We

must take responsibility for workers, the environment and the economy. Right now the mere fact that the

Opposition is proposing in this Chamber that this is all about looking after the CFMEU somehow—after 12 years

of what it has done in terms of unions, workers, capping wages and so on—is unbelievable. The hypocrisy is

outrageous. That is not wise when we are actually talking about the future of our grandchildren's children. I move:

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 75

That the question be amended as follows:

(1) Omit in paragraph (2) "carefully", "robust", and "to ensure the right balance is struck between environmental protection and

forestry operations".

(2) Insert in paragraph (3) "plantation" after "vibrant future for".

Those amendments would make for a reasonable and salvageable motion that is fit for this Parliament on this day

in 2023, when we have serious decisions ahead of us regarding the public forest estate. That estate belongs to all

of the people.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): Has the member provided a written copy

of her amendment to the Clerk?

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: No, I have not.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I ask that you please do so. I urge

honourable members who seek to move amendments to please put them in writing and make them available to

the Clerk.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (21:41): I support the motion of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. I reflect

on two issues in debate. The first is the concern of the member in bringing this motion to the House, which we

welcome and support. But I note that the former Minister sat around the Cabinet table for a very long period in

the previous Government. She would be aware of a number of reports that never saw the light of day, blocked

from public release as a result of the actions of the National Party. It has been an incredible week, with the Liberal

Party indicating it has done work on ending native forest logging and those reports that apparently may or may

not exist. I reflect on the interesting and fun time that the previous Government had in relation to forestry;

meanwhile, significant issues within the forestry sector were identified in the timber inquiry that went completely

unaddressed. If the former Government was serious about that, it would have addressed it.

People are talking about the great koala national park, which Labor is absolutely committed to establishing.

I have mentioned several times in the House the process we would undertake in relation to that. But there is

ongoing debate regarding some forestry operations within the notional boundaries of the great koala national park.

In particular, I put on record the issue of Pine Creek. Within those areas plantation forests will be harvested.

I make it very clear that Labor supports plantation forestry. Those trees were put in the ground to be harvested.

We must be very clear about what is plantation and what is native forestry and the way in which that is managed

throughout the process of creating the great koala national park. It is not Labor's intention to have plantation

forests included within the great koala national park.

For all of the talk about the support for plantation, we have plantation trees that have been growing for

many years that are ready to be harvested. We must work with that. Obviously we need rules about how that

harvesting occurs as well as an absolute precaution in relation to any threatened species. But it is important to

draw the distinction because I am asked about it every single day. We must be very clear that we will be very

careful. We are working closely with Forestry Corporation on the operation of planned forestry activity into the

future. Importantly, plantation timbers—which everyone seems agree needs to happen—must be allowed to be

harvested.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (21:44): In reply: I thank all members who contributed to debate. There

were a few remarks that this was a wedge motion, but it was not. It was an opportunity to have a genuine

conversation about an issue that is really important to regional New South Wales, which is why I moved it. It is

not my normal area of policy expertise—I confess that. I have been learning a lot in the past few weeks. But as

Leader of The Nationals in this House, people have personally been in touch with me about it. They want clarity

and information about the Government's position on these issues. I thank members for that because this is exactly

what private members' day is for: to have good, robust discussions about important policy issues that matter to

the people we represent.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The Hon. Sarah Mitchell has moved a

motion, to which Ms Sue Higginson has moved an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 5

Noes ................... 29

Majority .............. 24

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 76

AYES

Boyd (teller) Faehrmann Hurst (teller)

Cohn Higginson

NOES

Banasiak Jackson Moriarty

Borsak Kaine Murphy

Buttigieg Lawrence Nanva (teller)

Carter MacDonald Rath (teller)

D'Adam Maclaren-Jones Sharpe

Donnelly Martin Suvaal

Fang Merton Taylor

Farlow Mihailuk Tudehope

Farraway Mitchell Ward

Houssos Mookhey

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the bells for one

minute?

Leave granted.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 29

Noes ................... 5

Majority .............. 24

AYES

Banasiak Jackson Moriarty

Borsak Kaine Murphy

Buttigieg Lawrence Nanva (teller)

Carter MacDonald Rath (teller)

D'Adam Maclaren-Jones Sharpe

Donnelly Martin Suvaal

Fang Merton Taylor

Farlow Mihailuk Tudehope

Farraway Mitchell Ward

Houssos Mookhey

NOES

Boyd (teller) Faehrmann Hurst (teller)

Cohn Higginson

Motion agreed to.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): According to standing order, it being

10.00 p.m. proceedings are interrupted.

Adjournment Debate

ADJOURNMENT

According to standing order, members made the following statements.

TRIBUTE TO MARGARET DAVIS

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (22:01): I pay tribute to the Hon. Margaret Alayne Elizabeth Davis, who

was a member of the Legislative Council from 1967 to 1978 and passed away in December last year at 89 years

of age. Margaret was a beautiful person and a dedicated Liberal Party volunteer of over 60 years. She was still

supporting our candidates on polling booths in recent elections while sitting in her walker. She was also a valued

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 77

friend to me personally, making the trip from the Central Coast to attend my inaugural speech in this place in June

2017. She was always willing to offer helpful advice in my early days. Unfortunately, I only knew Margaret in

her later years of life. I only wish I got to witness her in her prime as a member of this place in the sixties and

seventies. Margaret joined the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party in 1959. She served as a councillor

at Bankstown council from 1962-63 and became president of the Auburn branch of the party in 1964.

Margaret was married to Neil, with whom she had three children, Susan, Robyn and Philip. Together they

shared the responsibility of raising their children and balancing their public service, with Neil also spending time

as an alderman at Bankstown council. Margaret was living in Chester Hill when she won party preselection for

the Legislative Council against 41 other candidates. She was subsequently elected to the Legislative Council in

1967—the second Liberal woman to achieve that. She gave her inaugural speech in this place on 20 September

1967 during an extremely controversial local government City of Sydney boundaries bill. The bill was so

controversial that Margaret felt obliged to waive her maiden speech rights. Hansard notes an interjection from a

member to which Margaret steadfastly declared, "This is Margaret Davis, and you might as well get used to it."

Her knowledge and experience as a pharmacist were invaluable as a member of the Joint Committee of the

Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly upon Drugs and also the Parliament's representative at the Institute

of Technology.

In her time in this place, Margaret played the self-appointed role as Ombudsman for people who needed

her help, proudly publishing her office telephone number at a time when it was not the standard practice of

members. One such person who needed her help was the divorced wife of an abusive alcoholic railway worker.

As a result of the divorce, this lady was being evicted from a housing commission railway cottage. Despite

Margaret's pleas and the pleas of the then transport Minister, the Hon. Milton Morris, the Railway Commissioner

refused to assist the lady. Margaret decided to stage a sit-in at the Railway Commissioner's office. She sat there

complete with a thermos and sandwiches prepared for quite a stay.

After a couple of hours and several attempts to be moved on, Margaret remained. She informed the

commissioner that she had told her husband that if he had not heard from her by 3.00 p.m., he was to ring each

daily newspaper and send their representatives to the site of the sit-in at the commissioner's office. Eventually,

reason prevailed, and appropriate accommodation was found for the lady. Margaret served in the Legislative

Council until 15 September 1978, when she resigned just prior to that year's State election after she was preselected

to contest the seat of Waverley, defeating five other candidates. Needing a 7 per cent swing to win the seat, she

fell short, defeated by the sitting Labor member.

Margaret was a pharmacist by profession. She was a delegate to the New South Wales Women's Amateur

Athletic Association in 1967, a member of the interim council of the Institute of Technology in 1974, a delegate

to the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia in 1975, and a co-delegate for New South Wales to the

Prime Minister's Women's Advisory Body in 1977. Later in her life Margaret retired to the Central Coast, which

is where I got to know her. She was an active member of the party, serving in various office bearer roles and

delegateships for the Terrigal branch and Terrigal State Electoral Conference.

Last year Margaret was awarded a lifetime service award by the New South Wales division of the Liberal

Party, recognising more than 60 years of service to the party. She was a councillor, a parliamentarian in this place,

and an office bearer. That is the highest form of recognition in the Liberal Party, awarded just once every two

years. Marg Davis was a giant of our party and a trailblazer for women. She was a champion for the disadvantaged

and doggedly pursued what she considered was the right thing to do. I record my admiration of and my thanks to

the Hon. Margaret Alayne Elizabeth Davis for her lifetime of service to the Liberal Party and the people of New

South Wales. I extend my sympathies to her daughters, Susan and Robyn, and her son, Philip, as well as her

grandchildren. May she rest in peace.

RICE INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (22:06): I draw the attention of the House to a critical issue affecting the

agriculture sector of New South Wales: the management of the impact of ducks on rice crops. The sustainability

and prosperity of the rice industry hinges on effective management strategies, making this a matter of utmost

importance. One key player in this endeavour is the Department of Primary Industries [DPI] hunting unit, which

assumes a pivotal role in managing hunters and collaborating with landowners. As meteorological forecasts

predict drier weather patterns, waterfowl populations are anticipated to concentrate in water-holding areas,

particularly in rice-growing regions of New South Wales.

Ducks pose a significant challenge to the rice industry, necessitating a proactive and coordinated approach

to management. The DPI hunting unit takes the lead in developing strategies and implementing measures to

mitigate the impacts of ducks on rice crops. It is responsible for managing hunters by issuing licences, monitoring

their activities, and enforcing regulations to ensure responsible and sustainable hunting practices. However,

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 78

effective management cannot be achieved without the crucial collaboration between the Department of Primary

Industries and landowners. The department must actively engage with landowners to promote best practices and

offers extension services for managing duck impacts. That collaboration ensures that landowners receive the

necessary support and expertise to protect their rice crops.

The rice-growing sector of New South Wales heavily relies on the efforts of the DPI and its hunting unit.

Its commitment to research, education, collaboration and responsible hunting practices is indispensable for the

thriving of the rice industry while preserving the delicate balance of our ecosystems. To ensure its continued

success, it is crucial that sufficient resources are provided to enable the DPI hunting unit to carry out its vital work.

Unfortunately, history has shown that funding cuts to programs supporting our farming and hunting communities

can have detrimental effects. We saw this in the former Liberal-Nationals Government cutting funding to the DPI

hunting unit and boosting Local Land Services chopper shoots over forests gazetted for public land hunting in a

failed attempt to erode our party base.

I also address the misconceptions perpetuated by the animal rights brigade, which has managed to deceive

the world into believing that banning hunting will eradicate all killing of wild animals by humans. That notion

could not be further from the truth and is highly undesirable for wildlife conservation. The animal rightists' lack

of understanding of the science of wildlife management is evident in their misguided beliefs. When unqualified

individuals meddle in the scientific affairs of humankind without a proper understanding of the subjects at hand,

irreparable damage can occur.

To shed light on this matter I highlight the perspective of professional biologist Professor Richard

Kingsford who is the Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of New South Wales. With

40 years of experience conducting yearly surveys of waterbird numbers across eastern Australia, Professor

Kingsford's research has shown that hunting has a small impact compared to the devastating effects of habitat

loss. Over the past four decades we have witnessed a significant reduction in waterbird habitat due to the

construction of dams, diversion of water for irrigation and the development of floodplains. These factors have far

greater consequences for waterbird populations than the impacts of mitigation programs in New South Wales or

hunting in the declared seasons in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

After his latest waterfowl survey in south-east Australia Professor Richard Kingsford expects a bounce in

numbers this year due to increased breeding over two wet years and ducks returning to the waterways included in

the survey. The ducks will also be returning to the rice growing areas of the Murray-Riverina irrigation area. With

the uncertainty of the future of duck hunting in Victoria and South Australia due to emotive political motives, not

factual ones, it is also likely that there will be an influx of interstate hunters to assist in the New South Wales

mitigation programs. This Government must recognise the important role of the DPI hunting unit in liaising with

farmers, and education and extension with hunters, not just compliance. This DPI unit must have the necessary

and appropriate resources and staff to undertake this important role.

STATE ELECTION

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (22:10): I acknowledge the incredible work of all of Labor's candidates in

the recent State election, but particularly some of the candidates who represented Labor in our regions. It can be

a tough and often thankless task to stand as a candidate in any election, but particularly in an electorate where one

knows that one is unlikely to win. Without the dedication of the faithful who fly the flag for Labor in these

electorates, we could not have ensured such a fantastic result for Chris Minns and Labor. Although, to quote one

of our wonderful branch members in Tamworth, Paul Hobbs, "We've got pretty short flagpoles." It is because of

their hard work and commitment to the labour movement that I am standing here today.

Firstly, I acknowledge Craig Elliot, who was Labor's candidate for Tweed. A former electrician,

construction worker and police officer, Craig has well and truly done it all. Despite a narrow loss for Labor in the

Tweed electorate, Craig's advocacy for the local community remains unwavering. The public sector wages cap

was a particular issue at the election for border communities like Tweed. They have gone through so much over

the past couple of years. We need go no further than Pottsville ambulance station or Tweed Hospital to discover

how the wages cap is impacting those workers. Paramedics earn significantly more across the border in

Queensland and with the cost of living soaring, it is no surprise workers I spoke with at Pottsville ambulance

station were supportive of Craig.

So too the teachers and parents at Pottsville who I spoke to on election day—teachers who need permanent

jobs, less administrative work and a local high school to which to send their kids. I was pleased to spend time on

prepoll with firefighters and nurses from Tweed who were advocating for the removal of the wages cap and

additional firefighters and nurses for their region. Craig is an asset to his community and truly a person who gets

on with the job and delivers outcomes. I have no doubt Craig will continue to fight for the people of Tweed, now

and in the future. I acknowledge Andrew Broadley in Ballina, a local high school teacher who ran a dedicated

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 79

grassroots campaign in the face of strong opposition, both from The Greens and the Nationals. Andrew saw the

challenges his community and indeed his own family faced during the devastating Northern Rivers floods and

committed to fighting for his local community and the recognition they deserve. The school Andrew taught at was

devastated during the floods. When I was doorknocking with him in Ballina he had many conversations with

members of the local community about the impact this had had on them and their families.

I also acknowledge Labor's candidate for Clarence, Leon Ankersmit, who I am told wore through at least

three pairs of shoes whilst doorknocking throughout the campaign. Members would be hard-pressed to find a

member of the Clarence community that Leon did not speak to over the course of the campaign. In spite of an

election loss, Leon has continued to work every day to advocate for better outcomes for his community and the

people of New South Wales, as he has always done. The people of Clarence are truly lucky to have him on their

side. In Coffs Harbour, Labor's candidate and local councillor, Tony Judge, worked tirelessly throughout the

campaign to deliver a strong result for Labor in the electorate. Tony was also the candidate in the 2019 State

election and has shown a true commitment to the people of Coffs Harbour in the past four years. Whether it be

through his work as a candidate, local councillor, or even as a volunteer with Lifeline locally, I know he will

continue to fight for his community every day.

Finally, I acknowledge Labor's candidate for Oxley, Gregory Vigors. Gregory has dedicated his life to

helping people, having previously worked in the community services sector and as a volunteer surf lifesaver; he

is now working at Coffs Harbour Base Hospital. A lifelong drive to deliver for the people of Oxley made Gregory

an outstanding local candidate for the seat. There is no doubt that NSW Labor took to the recent election a group

of highly dedicated, skilled and selfless local candidates. Standing as a candidate in an election is no easy task, as

we all know. I am proud to have stood alongside these candidates representing Labor in rural and regional New

South Wales. I delight in the opportunity to thank them for their hard work and sacrifice to represent Labor in

those electorates. They are assets to their communities.

UDENT COUNCIL

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (22:15): It is a genuine honour and privilege to serve in this place but

also to be able to serve as a Minister, which was something I was able to do for six years. It was not a responsibility

that I took lightly. I have found, particularly since no longer being a Minister, that people often ask me what are

some of the things that I am most proud of. I worked for a long time in the early childhood space and was Minister

for six years. I had two years in Aboriginal affairs and four years as the Minister for Education. As I am sure those

opposite will know, when their time comes to an end, it is sometimes not the big reforms that make the front pages

of the paper but the little things that one is able to do that stay with one.

One of the things that I would like to speak about tonight in my adjournment speech is the creation of the

Minister's Student Council in New South Wales known as the DOVES, or the Department of Student Voices in

Education and Schools. I used to start my meetings by saying, "I love my DOVES", because I genuinely did. They

were some of the most amazing young people I have ever had the privilege to meet. The DOVES started during

the pandemic when I found that we were talking to a lot of different stakeholders about how we would manage

schools during that period—whether it was learning from home or what we needed to do. We were talking to the

teachers, the federation, the principal groups and the parents, but there was not a single student voice to which we

could speak. I spent some time coming in and out of some of the online learning classrooms that had been set up

talking to kids about how they were finding the experience. I thought it was time to bring a group of students

together who could be advocates and be that student voice to represent 800,000 students across our public schools.

Hence the DOVES was formed.

One of the things that was important to me was that we had a diversity of students. Often when I visited

schools, particularly as the education Minister, I met the school captains and the leaders. They are amazing young

people but their story and their journey at school is not necessarily the same as some of their peers. We made sure

that we had a good, diverse coverage. We had three students from every geographical area and three from our

connected community schools. All up we had 27 students. We had school captains, we had students from

Aboriginal backgrounds and we had students with additional learning needs. Together as a collective group they

were a very powerful voice for advocacy for all students in our public schools. They gave me incredible advice

on everything from how we can tackle issues around vaping in schools, to what mental health supports we need

to put in place for young people and what we can do with regard to bullying. They were part of roundtables with

many highly distinguished people in many spaces, really giving that student voice. They also asked whether they

could have more engagement with the university sector so two visits to the University of Sydney and the

University of New South Wales were facilitated. I thank those universities for their participation.

This was really about making sure that young people had a voice at the highest levels of government when

it comes to their education and what they wanted to achieve. They had policy ideas and they had feedback on

certain pieces of legislation that I took to Cabinet on their behalf. They really had the ability to shape and change

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 80

what we were doing in education. A powerful message for young people to know is that they can be an advocate

for something that they care about, and that adults will listen to them when they have something to say. That was

something of which I was proud. Just before the election we took to the national meeting of education Ministers

the idea to have a national student council. I am pleased to say that that was adopted. I look forward to seeing that

movement grow. It is important that young people have a voice. I acknowledge the department staff who worked

so hard to make sure that the DOVES were well looked after. I particularly thank Katrina, Leanne and Scott, our

teachers who were the DOVES champions in each of those areas. Their support made the DOVES a reality.

I will finish with an anecdote from election night when I was in Sydney doing media commitments. It was

quite late by the time that finished. I met up with some of my former staff for a beer at a pub in Paddington, as

members do on election night after a long day. A rowdy party was happening upstairs in the pub and I noticed

people with red T-shirts were heading up. We thought it was our political opponents having a good night out, and

deservedly so. Next minute, I recognised someone coming down the stairs. I will not name him, but it was one of

my DOVES, who just happened to be there, so we had a beer. He had been working on a Labor campaign. I know

his father, to whom I said many times, "I think your son will be a future PM." I kind of wished he had been on

our side.

It was a serendipitous moment. Of all the things I was able to do, having had the privilege to be a Minister

in this place, I thought having a beer with an amazing young man who will have a bright future was a nice way to

finish my time as education Minister. He is a representative of all the genuinely good people who were part of the

DOVES council. I thank each and every one of the DOVES who served. They are all legends. Many of them are

keeping in touch with me. I cannot wait to see the incredible things that they will go on to do.

GOVERNOR LACHLAN MACQUARIE

The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (22:20): Macquarie Street is named after Lachlan Macquarie, the fifth

Governor of New South Wales. Our Parliament, the peak representative body for the people of this State, is located

on Macquarie Street. The Parliament should embody our shared values of democracy, freedom, respect and

equality for all. How can this be so when the literal foundations of this institution are built on a street named after

a man whose hands are stained with the blood of our First Nations peoples? Governor Lachlan Macquarie ordered

a military reprisal against Aboriginal people in the early hours of 17 April 1816. At least 14 Aboriginal men,

women and children were killed when soldiers under the command of Captain James Wallis shot at and drove a

group of Aboriginal people over the gorge of the Cataract River. Now known as the Appin massacre, this tragedy

has been commemorated annually with a memorial service since 2000.

That targeted attack occurred during the Cumberland Plain war that began in the early 1790s when settlers

forcibly took Aboriginal land for farms. The massacre failed to suppress the violence, instead inflaming the

situation. In response, local magistrate William Cox organised a relentless campaign of raids on Aboriginal people

of the Hawkesbury-Nepean area over the next eight months. The horrific treatment of our First Nations peoples

is a blight on Australia's history. We must not turn a blind eye nor claim that the past is in the past. The

consequences of the past are with us every day. The legacy of dispossession, genocide, assimilation and

discrimination are still felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We must take action.

Lachlan Macquarie had a great interest in town planning. After he arrived at the New South Wales colony

in 1810, he gave early attention to the state of the roads, with the modern street layout of Sydney based upon his

plans. The colony's most prestigious buildings were built on Macquarie Street, which he named after himself. In

March this year, seven-year-old Rosie Booker petitioned her local council to change the name of Macquarie Street

in South Hobart, citing the historical mistreatment of First Nations peoples by the street's namesake. In an

interview, Rosie said that she was "sad" her push to rename the street she lives on was rejected but proud that she

had "tried to make a difference". Like young Rosie, I believe the name of Macquarie Street, Sydney, needs to be

changed.

Names carry a deep personal, cultural and historical connection. They reflect what we value and who we

venerate. At present, the street names of the city of Sydney largely fall into one of the following categories: royals,

prominent personalities of the British Empire, New South Wales governors, notable Australians or functional

designations. Of all the names, only two represent women: Elizabeth Street, named by Governor Macquarie in

1810 for his second wife, Elizabeth Henrietta Campbell; and Reibey Place, named for Mary Reibey, convict,

businesswoman and shipowner. If her name sounds familiar, it should be—she is on our $20 bill.

Macquarie Street could alternatively be known as Preston-Stanley Street or Chadwick Street. Millicent

Preston-Stanley served as the first female member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Virginia

Chadwick was the first female President of the New South Wales Legislative Council, serving between 1978 and

1999. Another option could be to simply rename Macquarie Street as Bennelong Point Road. The people of this

State already understand the significance of names. In the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement, Ben Boyd

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 81

National Park in southern New South Wales was renamed Beowa after consultations with representatives from

Aboriginal and South Sea Islander communities. Ben Boyd was a slave owner, who traded in human lives and

exploited Pacific Islanders in the mid-nineteenth century. The case of Ben Boyd National Park highlights that we

as a community are obliged to continually reassess our history and what past practices look like through the lens

of contemporary values.

The legacy of Lachlan Macquarie is one that is contested. On Anzac Day this year, a statue of Macquarie

in Windsor's McQuade Park was smeared with red paint handprints and the word "murderer". By modern

standards, what occurred at Appin was a war crime—a point that someone sought to dramatise with this act. There

are 25 statues in Sydney honouring British colonists but not one celebrating First Nations historical figures.

Recently there has been a push for more statues of women, with a survey of capital city councils finding the ratio

of female to male statues as shamefully low. More needs to be done to recognise the contributions of distinguished

females and First Nations Australians. Symbols matter. If they did not, we would not erect statues. We should

ask: Should Macquarie continue to be venerated in light of what we now know? This week is National

Reconciliation Week, which calls upon us to learn about our shared histories and cultures, and to explore how we

can contribute to achieving reconciliation in Australia. Truth-telling about our history involves bringing to light

colonial conflict and dispossession, and includes acknowledging the resilience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (22:25): I update the House on another workplace abuse being

perpetrated by the corporate bully Qantas. On Monday 14 November 2022, SafeWork began a prosecution in the

District Court of New South Wales against Qantas. The prosecution concerns former Qantas employee and health

and safety representative Theo Seremetidis. In January and early February 2020, the very beginning of the

pandemic, Theo courageously spoke up about the fact that he and his colleagues were being asked to clean

COVID-infected planes arriving from China without adequate personal protective equipment. That was Theo's

role and responsibility as an elected health and safety representative. As a result of Theo's actions in sticking up

for the safety and wellbeing of his workmates, Theo was stood down by Qantas. That is an unconscionable act of

workplace bullying that cannot go unpunished.

Under New South Wales law, health and safety representatives are elected by their workplace colleagues

and have rights and obligations under the Act. That includes raising safety concerns, such as issuing performance

improvement notices to the company, if the health and safety representative believes there are issues of workplace

health and safety. That is exactly what Theo did. The fact that Qantas then stood him down simply for doing his

job is a terrible and shocking act of bullying. It is potentially illegal behaviour because it attempts to intimidate

and make an example of an elected workplace representative to stop them from speaking out and carrying out

their role. It is extremely important that SafeWork has brought this case against Qantas because it will send a clear

signal to other renegade companies that may wish to follow suit that this sort of corporate bullying is simply not

acceptable in New South Wales. I recognise and commend SafeWork for doing so.

This is but one terrible attack in a series of attacks by Qantas on its workforce. Less than 10 months after

Theo was stood down, Qantas illegally outsourced almost 1,700 ground staff jobs simply to prevent workers from

utilising workplace rights allowed under the law. Qantas was subsequently twice found in the Federal Court to

have illegally outsourced those jobs, forcing those workers out of their livelihood. Despite the two Federal Court

rulings, Qantas appealed the decisions in the High Court. A decision is pending. We all know the chaos that was

caused in airports when Qantas sacked those workers, and that was after it had received over $1 billion in taxpayer

funds to keep people employed.

To rub more salt into the wound, CEO Alan Joyce will pocket multimillion-dollar bonuses as a reward for

running this once great airline that touts itself as "the Spirit of Australia" literally into the ground. In February 2023

Qantas applied to have the Theo Seremetidis' case thrown out. His Honour Judge David Russell, SC, dismissed

the application on Wednesday 10 May 2023. The trial is due to resume in August. He also reserved all costs of

the application to be decided at the end of the proceedings.

One would be forgiven for thinking that after being found to have illegally sacked its workers, Qantas may

have learnt to not intimidate its employees into not speaking up against workplace health and safety concerns.

Under CEO Alan Joyce, Qantas continues to trash the Spirit of Australia by attacking its workers. We cannot let

Qantas get away with it. I take the opportunity to again congratulate SafeWork on pursuing this important

prosecution. I acknowledge the bravery and courage of Theo Seremetidis in speaking out on health and safety

matters on behalf of his workmates. I also acknowledge the work and advocacy of his great union, the Transport

Workers Union, for continually standing up for and sticking by its members, through thick and thin.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The House now stands adjourned.

Wednesday 31 May 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 82

The House adjourned at 22:30 until Thursday 1 June 2023 at 10:00.