Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 24 August 2011, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 24 August 2011

__________

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

The President read the Prayers.

SENATE VACANCY

Resignation of Senator Helen Lloyd Coonan

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Her Excellency the Governor.

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000

__________

The Senate

President of the Senate

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to.

Consideration of message to be taken on receipt of message from the Legislative Assembly dealing with the same subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business items Nos 153 and 194 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

WORLD FEDERATION OF THE DEAF PRESIDENT ELECTION

Motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood agreed to:

IRREGULAR PETITION

Leave granted for the suspension of standing orders to allow the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to present an irregular petition.

Tweed Shire Coal Seam Gas Exploration

Petition objecting to the granting of petroleum exploration and production licences for coal seam gas in the Tweed Shire and demanding a ban on all coal seam mining, received from the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to my gallery Mrs Rosemary Samios, wife of the late the Hon. James Miltiades Samios, AM, MBE, a former member of the Legislative Council, and Milton Samios, the son of James and Rosemary.

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES MILTIADES SAMIOS, AM, MBE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

In moving this motion I too acknowledge the presence in the President's gallery of Rosemary Samios, wife of our departed colleague and friend James Samios or, as he was simply known, Jim. James Miltiades Samios was born in Brisbane in 1933, two years after his parents had migrated from Kythera and settled in Dalby, Queensland. He attended school in Queensland and went on to complete his studies in arts and law at Queensland University in 1958. He completed national service with the Royal Australian Air Force and served as a pilot officer in the General Reserve in 1963. During this time he also worked as a lawyer in both the private and public sectors, working in Brisbane, Canberra and eventually Sydney. In 1968 he married Rosemary and settled in Woollahra.

Jim was very active in the Greek Orthodox community, working with the Archdiocese of Australia before becoming Chairman of the Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales in 1972. It was in that capacity that Jim's ability and passion to advocate on behalf of ethnic communities not only in this State but also nationally was fully realised. He went on to become Chairman of the Migrant Settlement Council of New South Wales, Chairman of the Community Refugee Committee of New South Wales, and a board member of the Special Broadcasting Committee. Jim's desire to assist in the development of a multiple cultural society was genuine, and this was evident from his strong work in these communities. Whether it was visiting refugee camps on the Thai border to speak firsthand with those seeking sanctuary in Australia, or his tireless energy in attending the many formal and informal functions and celebrations of the 230-plus ethnic groups that make up modern-day Australia, Jim Samios was fair dinkum in wanting to bring all of the people who make up modern-day Australia closer together.

Is it any wonder then that in 1984 the Liberal Party recognised this ability and his potential to achieve greater things by selecting him to become a member of this House? From the moment he arrived here no-one could say they did not know where Jim Samios was coming from or what he stood for. It was in his inaugural speech that Jim paid tribute to the growth and development of this nation, not being without hardship, tears and suffering and the role that migration played in our rapid development. Yet he never lost sight of the needs of all Australians, irrespective of their background, and he was particularly mindful of the abominable plight, poverty and high unemployment widely affecting the traditional custodians of this land.

Jim immersed himself in the world of ethnic politics before it was popular. He knew every ethnic leader, the groups within those communities, the editors of community papers and the electronic broadcasting companies. But, more importantly, they knew him. In this Parliament he performed the very senior roles of parliamentary secretary, shadow Minister and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. Jim will be remembered for the sincere and honest way he conducted his role as a member of Parliament. He was a loyal member of the Liberal Party. Above this, he was a true Australian who was prepared to put political differences and often fractured relationships to one side to get the job done, whether between political parties or ethnic communities. As Stepan Kerkyasharian said:

Given the speed at which the membership of this House turns around these days, very few members present in the Chamber would have known Jim Samios. Sadly, those members have missed out on witnessing an era of a special brand of politician: Jim Samios was one, Doug Moppett was another, and so was Jeff Shaw. Given Jim's love for the traditions of Parliament, I thought it only fitting for this House to take the opportunity today to mark his passing. He always will be remembered as a proud husband and father, a good friend and teacher but, first and foremost, a thorough gentleman. Vale James Samios, AM, MBE.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [11.19 a.m.]: I associate Labor members with the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government. The Hon. James Samios was held in very high regard by all members of my party. Many current and former Labor members of this place were present at his funeral. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Samios on only one occasion before I became a member of this place, but I had the opportunity to observe his career over many years. He was a distinguished contributor to the development of our multicultural society. As the Leader of the Government said, Mr Samios was Chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council and a member of the board of the Special Broadcasting Service [SBS]. He was a parliamentary secretary in both the Greiner and Fahey governments, and he was a special adviser on multicultural and ethnic affairs to a succession of Liberal Party leaders. We can only conclude that he made a most distinguished contribution to the development of community harmony in New South Wales. Mr Samios was also a champion of the arts in this State.

There is a fraternity of Greek-Australian members of this Parliament across political parties. The Hon. John Hatzistergos asked me to pass on in today's debate the great respect he had for Jim Samios, and the Hon. Johno Johnson asked me to pass on the same sentiment. "Gentleman" is the word most used to describe Jim Samios. His Greek background is well known. What is not so well known are his links with the Scottish community in Australia, of which he was proud. Jim Samios was appointed a member of the Order of Australia for his service to the community and a member of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his community service. I conclude with words from his inaugural speech to Parliament:

Labor members remember Jim Samios with great respect. May he rest in peace.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [11.22 a.m.]: Jim Samios was my friend, as he was a friend of everyone who was in Parliament at the time he was a member. I served with him in this place for 16 of the 20 years of his term. As other members have said, the key word about Jim Samios is "gentleman". And he was a gentleman. We attended his funeral as well as a former Prime Minister, a couple of former Premiers, former Ministers from both sides, including Hatz, Johno and other Labor members and serving Ministers. We were all there to recognise a man who crossed the political divide. Although, as the Leader of the Government mentioned, Jim was born in Queensland, he nevertheless was Kytheran, like George Souris, who was a pallbearer at the funeral last month. Kytherans are good people, careful people. As George Souris said, they rarely sell a house. They accumulate property but never dispose of it. I am not sure whether James shared that trait.

We variously called him MacSamios—because of his great relationship with his wife, Rosemary, her links with the Skye tartan and her leadership within the Scottish clans of which he was so proud, as he would tell those who had lunch with him daily—Lord James, Sir James and Lord Jim. He was the epitome of an English gentleman. It was sometimes hard to put the two together considering his Kytheran background. Service to the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] probably provided the final touch and degree of properness that was inherent in the man. He served in the Royal Australian Air Force and was an officer in the General Reserve. He made huge contributions to the community. As members have said, he was Chairman of the Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales from 1972 to 1982. He was also the Chairman of the Migrant Settlement Council for New South Wales from 1979 to 1981 and Chairman of the Community Refugee Committee of New South Wales from 1979 to 1982.

As other members have said, in his valedictory speech in 2002 Jim recounted a special time when he visited refugee camps on the Thai border and saw firsthand in camps such as Khao Din and Sakaeo the plight of refugees wishing to migrate to a safe haven like Australia. He was elected to the Legislative Council in 1984. Indeed, he was one of the first elected members. This House has had elected members since 1978; the first real intake was in 1984, and others, including me, were elected in 1988. So Jim was one of the first elected members, rather than an appointed member. He served as parliamentary secretary to Nick Greiner and John Fahey before his election as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council in 1995—a position he held until his retirement in 2003. He was proud of holding that position and proud of the recognition of his party on his elevation to deputy leader, and so he should have been.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Ethnic Affairs Jim worked tirelessly to promote community relations and was integral to the racial vilification amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1989. But he was more than integral to that. Those of us in the party room and in the Parliament knew that Jim was the driving force behind entrenching the anti-vilification provisions in the Anti-Discrimination Act. We are looking a far way back to when community norms were not the same as they are now. For a conservative man to put himself out that far was a huge step. One cannot doubt the strength of Jim's character to do that at the time. As much as anything, his presence and his popularity carried that through. As he so eloquently said in his inaugural speech to Parliament in 1984:

He was a vocal advocate for immigration because he knew better than most the great life Australia could offer people who chose to make this country their home. Jim said:

As Australians and as the only people on this earth to occupy a continent—the fifth continent—we have a special duty to ensure that we honour the heritage that the founding fathers and settlers to this country since 1788 have bequeathed to us, and to continue to ensure that the opportunities and resources of this continent are maximized to the benefit of all Australians, whether newly arrived or born here ...

He was proud of his Greek heritage and promoted cultural diversity and the arts. For a long time Jim's cousin Nick and his wife, Stella, lived in my home town of Crookwell although they now reside in Sydney. He was a director of St Basil's Homes and a founding director of the Museum of Contemporary Art; truly a renaissance man in every sense of the term. As a board member of SBS he was central to the development of ethnic radio and television. Jim Samios was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire in 1977 and a member of the Order of Australia in 2005. He had both the honours one can get in this country, testament to the recognition he got and deserved. He is survived by his wife, Rosemary, son, Milton, daughter-in-law, Jacci, and grandchildren Jamie and Sofia Rose. He was a member respected across the political divide for his honesty and integrity and, as other members have said, universally liked by all people. He said in his maiden speech in 1984:

He ended his parliamentary career some 20 years later when he began his valedictory speech by saying:

Australia is home to people from some 30 ethnic groups. We can be proud of their contribution. As one would expect there have been some tensions but those tensions to the surprise of many have been little compared with the great contribution that has been made by multiculturalism.

We will always miss our friend. He was an adornment to this Parliament.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.32 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens to express our condolences to the family of Jim Miltiadis Samios and to join in seconding the words of the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals in this Chamber. None of The Greens present today had the honour and pleasure of personally knowing Jim Samios but all of us, me in particular, remember him as a singular public figure of the 1970s and 1980s. His contribution, which was clear at the time, is writ indelibly in the legislation and institutions of this State but more importantly in the attitudes of the State towards multiculturalism. It is that contribution that The Greens particularly wish to celebrate today.

In particular I recall the anti-vilification legislation of the Greiner Government. It was a difficult passage for difficult legislation. Arguments on both sides were fought with sincerity. Jim stood up as a public figure and advocated for that legislation in a way that I think changed the debate and left the State a much stronger, more diverse and more successful State than it would have been if Jim had not been there. His contribution to the Ethnic Communities Council is well known and survives to this day in that fine organisation. His contributions to SBS and the Liberal Party live on in this State. I want to spend a moment talking about the Museum of Contemporary Art of which Jim was a founding director. He set a courageous direction for that organisation which goes on today, as is appropriate, because Jim brought courage to everything he did in public life. It is a direction which continues in pushing the boundaries on art to this day.

Jim was not just a voice for the ethnic communities, although he was very successful in doing that, but importantly he was an ear for ethnic communities. He was a place where various different communities including the Aboriginal community could be guaranteed an intelligent, gentle, sympathetic and highly effective hearing. That hearing would always translate into action and advocacy. Jim was clearly a kind and honest politician, an important role model for all of us in this House, but he was also a highly effective politician as is exemplified in the legacy he leaves today. I am sorry I did not know him personally. I feel I do know him from the contributions he made. He is a man who will be well remembered and sadly missed by all.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.35 a.m.]: It is with great sadness we observe the passing of the Hon. James (Jim) Samios MBE, AM on 19 July 2011. From the outset our hearts go out to his loving wife, Rosemary, and son, Milton, and the entire family. They both epitomise Jim's loving, caring and generous nature. In them Jim lives on, and the memories of this fine and great gentleman will continue.

I first met Jim when I was a young female councillor of ethnic background on Hurstville City Council. Jim took me into his heart and taught me many valuable people and political skills. He encouraged me on a journey first to the Legislative Assembly and then to this House. I knew Jim as a friend, as a colleague in the Liberal Party and as a person whose migrant background inspired others to achieve. He sincerely promoted cultural diversity in this State, as we have heard from other speakers today. Jim, along with many others, was highly influential in demonstrating how the Liberal Party could listen to, learn from and give back to the people who came from all corners of the globe to make Australia their home. I can never forget the exceptional ability Jim had to empathise with people of all backgrounds and in their past experiences. He shared their dreams for the future and explained to them the policies and ethos of the Liberal Party of Australia.

What an extraordinary life James Miltiadis Samios lived. He was born on 10 September 1933 in Brisbane. Jim's Kytherian parents Miltiadis—Milton—and Constantina Samios migrated to Australia from Greece in 1932 settling in Dalby, Queensland. Jim completed his secondary schooling at Church of England Grammar School in Brisbane before graduating with bachelor degrees in arts and law from the University of Queensland in 1958. Jim completed articles and worked as a solicitor with Cannan and Peterson Lawyers in Brisbane, later joining the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, working in Brisbane, Canberra and then Sydney. From 1953, 1954 Jim completed national service with the Royal Australian Air Force and served as a pilot in the general reserve of the RAAF in 1963. Jim then met the love of his life, Rosemary Nicolson, and in 1968 they married, settling in Woollahra where they raised their handsome son, Milton.

As many others have said today, Jim's contribution to the community was endless. He was a board and committee member for many organisations and a central figure of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. Jim was a driving force on the Board of St Basil's Homes and served as a committee member of the Review of Migrant Assessment and the Bicentennial Authority Multicultural Task Force. Jim was also a member of the SBS board and was a chair and accorded life membership of the New South Wales Ethnic Communities Council. Passionate about promoting the arts, Jim was a founding director of Sydney's Museum of Contemporary Art.

It is interesting to note Jim's heritage prompted him to go into politics in the first place. Representing people was in Jim's blood. Jim's great-grandfather, George Panayotopoulos of Kythera, was elected to the Legislative Council of the Ionian Islands in 1863, then a protectorate of the United Kingdom. Jim believed that it was largely as a result of that historic link between the United Kingdom and the Ionian Islands that the migration of Greeks to Australia commenced.

We have in common that Jim's great-grandparents came from the Ionian Islands and my own came from the Aeolian Islands. Many migrants from the Aeolian Islands have settled into the suburbs of Five Dock, Haberfield, Drummoyne and Leichhardt. It was an amazing connection. In 1978 Jim joined the Woollahra branch of the Liberal Party of Australia because he believed in the philosophies that the Liberal Party espoused. Jim's ability was soon recognised. In 1984 he was selected by the Liberal Party as a candidate for the Legislative Council and elected into this place where he served many fine years. I read briefly from his maiden speech of 12 September 1984 because he was a great supporter of the establishment and a great lover of the Commonwealth and the monarchy in which he stated:

Jim concluded his maiden speech by stating:

Those valuable words ring true through the years. I quote also Angela Chan, former Chair of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, in a booklet of many fine quotes produced as a tribute on the day of Jim's funeral at the St George Greek Orthodox Parish in Rose Bay. She stated:

Jim and his family can be justly proud of his work to bring about cultural diversity and tolerance in our society. His years of devotion in listening to and representing the needs of the community, regardless of ethnic background, age or socioeconomic background made Jim an exemplary representative of the people. I extend my love and sympathy to Rosemary, Milton, his wife, Jacci, grandchildren, Jamie and Sofia Rose, and the rest of the extended Samios and Nicolson families. I assure them that Jim and his work will never be forgotten. May he rest in peace.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.43 a.m.]: I pay my respects to the service of the Hon. Jim Samios, AM, MBE, with whom I had the great pleasure and honour of serving for a number of years in this Chamber. Gentleman Jim, as he has been referred to by all speakers—and that is how we knew Jim—was a unique politician. He crossed the political divide; indeed he crossed all divides. As the Leader of the Government stated, he became engaged in the multicultural area of bringing ethnic communities together when it was not popular to do so. As the Deputy Leader of the Government said, he went out. In those days it was a brave thing to represent those communities and make strong representations to protect them against racial discrimination.

Jim was born to serve the people and he had a distinguished record of serving ethnic communities in his own community, serving the Royal Australian Air Force from 1953 during the time of national service. Also, he developed a strong affiliation with the Returned Services League during that time. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, the messages that he, the Hon. John Hatzistergos and the Hon. Johno Johnson received were genuine affectionate messages that gave an indication of the high regard in which the Hon. Jim Samios was held in this Chamber. I am sure that the contribution of Dr John Kaye would have been relayed through The Greens members who served here during the time of service of the Hon. Jim Samios. Indeed, he was held in high regard by everyone. It was truly an honour to serve with a person of the calibre of the Hon. Jim Samios. I extend my heartfelt sympathies and condolences to Rosemary and his family.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [11.46 a.m.]: I also speak to the motion. The Leader of the Government and I both arrived in this place on the same day. We both had the privilege of serving our first few years in this place at the same time as Jim served his last few years. Everything that has been said today I can attest to being true. Everything that has been said about James' persistence and attitudes towards everyone in the community, his role with legislation and in committees on which we served together, often on differing sides, demonstrate that he was a gentleman. He was always prepared, willing and able to pursue a line of argument on something he believed strongly in.

The word "gentleman" has been used many times to describe James. From my experience of James in this place I would like to use another term. It is very easy to become a politician; to argue an opinion is something we and many others can do. James was not only a gentleman, he was a parliamentarian; he was an excellent legislator, and that is much harder to achieve. It is an achievement to be able to pursue a line of argument, something one passionately believes in without hating those who disagree; to be able to talk with those people, to successfully pursue that line of argument while maintaining a good relationship even though people may a different opinion, and still have the same respect for them. That is what a parliamentarian achieves and what James achieved. That is the message I received and what I will always carry with me. I miss James; he taught me some valuable lessons. We will all miss him.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.50 a.m.]: I express my condolences to the family and pay my respects to Jim Samios. I became a member of Parliament in 2000, on the same day as the Hon. Amanda Fazio, towards the end of Jim's term in Parliament. He immediately took me under his wing. I think Jim always had words of advice to all new members about what was happening in Parliament, something for which I will always remember very sincerely about him. I came in on a casual vacancy and with only two new members in the Chamber at that time. I clearly recall sitting on the Opposition benches with Jim talking quietly to me about what was going on in the Chamber and its ramifications, which were very important to me.

As has already been stated, Jim knew every ethnic community in New South Wales. On one occasion I had the honour of accompanying him to a function that I think was organised by the Chinese Ambassador. He took me under his wing and introduced me around the room, as he knew everybody in attendance. We came face to face with a very tall man who said, "Good day, Jim. How are you?" Jim introduced me to him. It was Gough Whitlam. Jim said, "This is Rick Colless, Gough. He is a very proud member of the National Party." Gough, being Gough said, "The only thing wrong with the National Party is that there are too many Kings School boys in there". I thought that was amusing as Gough was educated in a private school and I was educated in a public school; we were on different sides of the fence. But Jim, as always, was an absolute gentleman and was very gracious when speaking with Gough Whitlam.

Jim had a big impact when I was a new member of Parliament. As others have already said, he was an absolute gentleman. I would describe him as a gentleman's gentleman. In all the circles in which Jim moved he was always very highly regarded as being that perfect gentleman. Again, my sincere condolences are extended to Rosemary and the family. I know that I will miss Jim, and I will certainly always remember him with a great deal of fondness and respect for the way he treated me when I first came into this Chamber.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [11.52 a.m.]: I too express my condolences to the Samios family and friends. I did not know James Samios, and had only met him a couple of times as a university student. I would see him over the years at various Greek functions. As a university student I looked up to James Samios. I would read in the Greek newspapers about some of his great achievements in Parliament. As a person with a Greek background I was very proud and inspired that somebody from a Greek background could be a member of the New South Wales Parliament. Mr Samios achieved a lot for the Australian Greek community. He helped many Australian Greek people improve their lives and advocated on their behalf particularly during the 1960s and 19070s. Many new Australian Greeks came from poor villages and communities and were uneducated. James Samios was always there to advocate on their behalf and champion their causes. I express my condolences, and I support this motion.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET ESTIMATES 2011-12 PORTFOLIOS AND HEARING DATES

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I seek leave to amend Government Business Notice of Motion No. 2 by:

These changes have been discussed with the Opposition and members of the crossbench. They will allow more time for the committees to sit and facilitate the Minister for Primary industries and Small Business attending the Council of Australian Governments meeting.

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

Day One: Monday 24 October 2011

Day Two: Tuesday 25 October 2011

Day Three: Wednesday 26 October 2011

Day Four: Thursday 27 October 2011

Day Five: Friday 28 October 2011

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.58 a.m.]: I move:

I declare an interest in this motion. I am a member of a class of people who would materially gain from the Government taking action on this motion. As I have told the House many times—and if the Hon. Rick Colless does not know, he was not paying attention—I hold a deferred State superannuation defined benefits pension. However, I am not prohibited from moving this motion by the code of conduct because I would benefit from this motion as a member of a class of people, not as an individual.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You have no class.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Deputy Government Whip in saying that I am beyond class—as indeed he is too. This motion calls on the New South Wales Government to provide twice-yearly increases to the State superannuation defined benefit pensions in accordance with the movement in the consumer price index. In that way, New South Wales will join all other States and Territories and the Commonwealth in ensuring that recipients of defined benefit superannuation schemes do not fall behind inflation, particularly when it is moving rapidly. This matter is urgent because more than a decade has passed since the report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services entitled "A Reasonable and Secure Retirement", which stated in recommendation (2):

The Committee recommends that the Government immediately introduce a bi-annual adjustment of the CPI, which should flow through to Commonwealth public sector and defence force pensions to ameliorate the effects of the current "indexation lag".

This matter is urgent because the committee also stated in recommendation (3):

... for equity reasons, the changes made to Commonwealth public sector schemes proposed in this report also apply to State public sector schemes, where appropriate.

Indeed, it is appropriate for the State of New South Wales to apply this. This matter is urgent because more than nine years have passed since the implementation of the Howard Government's response to that report, which resulted in twice-yearly indexation of all retired Commonwealth public servants and defence force personnel, in January 2002. This matter is urgent because the then Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Nick Minchin, supported recommendation (2) of the Senate inquiry and argued that this initiative will help to reduce the delay between price increases and compensatory adjustments to superannuation pensions while also increasing each superannuant's purchasing power. With every year that passes without the State of New South Wales improving its indexation arrangements—the only jurisdiction to fail to do so—New South Wales public sector retirees in receipt of State superannuation defined benefit pensions are lagging further behind inflation. The retrospective nature of the consumer price index means that the purchasing power of the pension is severely eroded, particularly in times of high inflation.

This matter is urgent because superannuants can be more than nine months behind increases in the actual cost of living. It is urgent because many retired public sector workers are reduced below the standard of living that they felt was promised to them during their working lives. This matter is urgent because retired New South Wales teachers, nurses, police, community service workers, fire brigade officers and other public sector employees are comparatively disadvantaged with respect to public sector employees in all other States and Territories and the Commonwealth. New South Wales is falling behind the recommendations proposed by the Senate select committee that were adopted by all other States and Territories and the Commonwealth. Former finance Minister Joe Tripodi—and, of course, we always believed everything he said—suggested that the net present value of the changes proposed would be about $280 million, which is about $7 million a year in 2009 dollars over the next four decades. This is a relatively small sum to pay to secure justice for retired public sector workers. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [12.03 p.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. If Dr John Kaye were fair dinkum about the urgent nature of this matter he would have consulted other members of the House about it. Given that he has not done so, we cannot support his claim of urgency.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 5


Ms Barham Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge		Tellers, Mr Buckingham Ms Faehrmann

Noes, 28

Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Clarke
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Mr Green
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Mr Moselmane
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Dr Phelps

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August 2011.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [12.14 p.m.]: The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will establish the much-vaunted integrated transport authority—or, as it will be now called, Transport for NSW. The Opposition has a number of very serious concerns about this bill and its impact on both passengers and the 30,000 transport workers in New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much audible conversation. I cannot hear the member with the call.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The Government has dumped this bill on the Legislative Council with virtually no notice. The Government continues to follow an already familiar pattern of curtailing any opportunity for members of this Chamber to fully examine the details of legislation. There is no reason why the Minister could not have used the ordinary procedures of this House to introduce the bill, second read it and then leave it on the table for five calendar days so that the bill could undergo a detailed examination and to allow the opportunity for input by key stakeholders. The Government and the Minister, when in opposition, used to complain about this practice. Yet, when put to the test, they have failed. I now turn to the detail of the bill. It seems to have been written as though the roles, functions and integration of transport in New South Wales had not already occurred. In June 2010 Parliament passed the Transport Administration Amendment Bill 2010. When that bill was introduced last year the member for Blacktown stated:

The bill previously passed put in place an integrated approach to transport planning and delivery. At the same time, it respected and protected the rights of the workers who are responsible for moving millions of people around our State every day. The bill before the House today will establish Transport for NSW. The role of Transport for NSW will include the planning, oversight and delivery of transport infrastructure; contracting for the delivery of public transport services; transport services coordination; incident management and ticketing arrangements and services. It sounds familiar. This legislation simply tweaks the changes that the previous Government put in place for the better integration of transport services and dresses them up as something completely new.

But—and there are two very big buts in this legislation and many unanswered questions—the first and very significant part of this bill, which was almost completely ignored by the Minister in his second reading speech, is the wholesale gutting of entitlements and protections for transport workers in Transport for NSW. The bill gives the director general power to transfer transport agency staff to Transport for NSW. In so doing, it removes workers transferred from being covered and protected by the Industrial Relations Act. Section 66 (4) of the Act states:

(4) The transfer of staff under this Division does not give rise to:

(5) The Industrial Relations Act 1996 does not apply in relation to the transfer of staff under this Division.

The Ministers responsible for this legislation have made much of the so-called protections for staff contained in this bill. The protections are a furphy. New section 67 guarantees only the base salary of the worker and, although it is explicitly stated that they will not receive a smaller wage, transport workers will not be guaranteed their current conditions. Transfers will not be considered termination of employment, so workers will be forced to perform the same work under reduced conditions. It is yet another example of a Government that has done everything in its power to remove the hard-won rights, entitlements and protections of public sector workers across this State. The bill will strip the conditions and entitlements of transport workers and leave every worker worse off. The Opposition does not support this wholesale stripping of workers' rights under the cloak of so-called reform. I foreshadow that we will move an amendment in Committee to preserve the conditions and entitlements of transport workers who are affected by this legislation.

The second and very serious concern the Opposition has in relation to this bill is the amendments to section 99D of the Act. If passed, these amendments will remove the current priority given to passengers and instead prioritise freight services on our rail network. Currently, the transport Act requires RailCorp and the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority to give priority to passenger rail services when undertaking service planning. That means that when developing timetables and train path allocations, passenger services on CityRail and CountryLink must be the first priority in decision-making. The bill will relegate one million rail passengers from first priority to "reasonable priority", which means that freight will come first and passengers will come second. The Government has talked endlessly about its so-called commitment to the customer, to customer service and to placing passengers at the centre of the system. Indeed, in his second reading speech the Minister said:

This provision makes the talk of improved services to passengers an utter sham. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move a further amendment in Committee that maintains the priority of timetabling and train-path allocation to passengers. The Opposition also seeks answers from the Government to a number of questions about other parts of the bill. It notes the abolition of the Transport Construction Authority, the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority, the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Maritime, with the transfer of their functions to Transport for NSW. The functions of the Transport Construction Authority and the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority will be transferred to Transport for NSW only after the completion of rail safety change management projects. I ask the Minister in reply to detail the format of those projects, whether there will be public and stakeholder consultations as part of the projects, and whether the results of those projects will be publically available.

The Minister must guarantee that no reduction in transport safety arrangements will occur as a result of the changes. With the creation of Transport for NSW a department of transport will remain, which will provide policy advice to the portfolio Ministers. I ask the Minister in reply also to outline how many staff it is expected will be employed in that unit. In recent weeks we have witnessed cracks appearing in the Government between the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure NSW. Unnamed sources from Infrastructure NSW have bemoaned the Minister's focus on media at the expense of getting planning finalised for projects such as the North West Rail Link. Fears are growing also about duplication between Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW. The bill provides that Transport for NSW will prepare five-year plans about its activities. I ask the Minister to detail to the House when he replies to the debate how the roles of those two organisations will be delineated and how he can guarantee that there will be no duplication of effort.

So far, the Government has admitted that 350 positions will go under this plan. The Opposition rejects the notion that jobs have to go. Be under no illusion: the 350 positions already identified by the Government are just the beginning of job shedding in transport. If the Government has found so-called "back office jobs", it should not be cutting them; it should be redirecting them to front-line services. The Government has also been less than frank about its plans for outsourcing non-core services. I ask the Minister to define what a "non-core service" is in transport. Is it corporate services? Is it human resources? What efficiencies does the Minister think will be made, and at what cost? The bill will abolish the Roads and Traffic Authority and NSW Maritime and combine them into a new corporation called Roads and Maritime Services. The bringing of roads into a single transport budget has already occurred. The Opposition does not oppose this change. The stated aim of the bill is to better integrate transport across bus, trains, freight, roads and maritime. It is unclear, then, why in addition to the Transport Advisory Board there needs to be a Maritime Advisory Board. I ask the Minister in reply to explain why this is being done, rather than having one board.

Changing the name of the organisation by adding the word "for" will not lead to better services. Rearranging the divisions and agencies within the Transport portfolio will not lead to better services. Removing the prioritisation of passenger rail over freight will not lead to better services. Cutting jobs and conditions is not a path to better services. By any measure, the success of this bill will be determined by the service improvements, enhanced and increased infrastructure, greater security on the transport network, and improved customer service and communication with road and transport users. Ultimately the passengers will decide the success of this bill. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill but it will move amendments to it in Committee.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.23 p.m.]: I support the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill will mean significant and necessary change to the administration of transport in this State. These changes have been driven by the need to create a better transport system—one that maximises benefits for the community and the economy. The integrated transport authority to be created under this bill will be fundamental to delivering that outcome for the people of New South Wales. The bill puts the customer firmly at the centre of the transport task, and the needs of the customer will come first. The bill will fundamentally change the Government's approach to the provision of public transport in New South Wales. It is intended to create a system of public transport that all of us will take pride in and that will positively affect people's lives.

The most important element of the name "Transport for NSW" is the word "for". It demonstrates the Government's focus on providing a service "for" the people of New South Wales—something the former Government seriously failed to do. The bill will ensure that all the transport agencies will act as one team and that each person across the Transport portfolio will have an important role to play in shaping the results delivered to the customer. The bill will ensure that ideas, solutions and outcomes for public transport in this State are shared. The focus of Transport for NSW will be the customer. The customer will be at the centre of everything done by the transport agencies, whether he or she is a public transport user, motorist, pedestrian, farmer or importer.

A coordinated approach will be taken to public transport—from simple things such as ensuring that train and bus timetables provide seamless connections for customers, through to the delivery of integrated plans and major multi-modal projects. Transport for NSW will be responsible for providing the customer experience, planning, program administration, policy, regulation, procuring transport services, infrastructure and freight. This will allow the operating agencies to focus on providing safe, clean, reliable and efficient transport services to customers. Transport for NSW and its operating agencies will work in partnership. It will not be a case of the integrated authority making decisions in isolation. While decision-making or planning and policy will be centralised in Transport for NSW, the operating agencies will still be relied upon to provide expert advice to inform those decisions.

The Government wants to improve public transport so that people will regard it as truly reliable, regular clean and safe. Over time, this will result in fewer people driving to work and public transport will become the preferred option not only for commuters but also for social and occasional users. The organisation created by this bill integrates not only transport services but also the teams of people across the Transport portfolio. Transport for NSW and the bus, rail, ferry, road and maritime service agencies will act as one team to deliver something that will truly make a difference to people's lives. Claims by those opposite that the entitlements and conditions of front-line transport workers will be affected by the establishment of an integrated transportation agency are completely untrue—and those opposite know it. I am informed that the Minister for Transport, Ms Gladys Berejiklian, was astonished to hear the claim by the shadow Minister for Transport, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, that the entitlements and conditions of up to 30,000 transport workers would be affected.

That claim is completely untrue—and those opposite know it. The Minister for Transport, Ms Gladys Berejiklian, personally briefed the Hon. Penny Sharpe, and I am informed that in that briefing one of her staff members acknowledged that the Government was completing the job—which Labor started but failed to finish—of establishing a streamlined, efficient, integrated transport authority. Instead of employing the usual spin and spreading fear, those opposite should be congratulating the Minister for Transport on introducing something that Labor started but failed to finish. The correct facts, not the misinformation coming from those on the other side, are that—

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is unparliamentary for a member who does not have the call to constantly interrupt by shouting at and trying to talk over the member who has the call. I again ask the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to desist from engaging in such behaviour.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The facts—not the misinformation coming from members opposite—are as follows. Firstly, the wages and conditions of front-line transport workers, including train drivers, guards, bus drivers, ticket sellers and cleaners, are not affected by the establishment of the Integrated Transport Authority. Secondly, front-line services will increase and improve because of the establishment of the Integrated Transport Authority. Thirdly, back-office staff whose job it is to plan and deliver infrastructure, write timetables and develop policies and regulations will move into the Integrated Transport Authority where, for the first time, they will work as a team across all modes. Fourthly, about 1,150 staff will work in Transport for New South Wales. They will come from the existing transport agencies and will be covered by a new award instead of seven different awards and agreements.

Fifthly, the new award will contain a no financial disadvantage clause. This safeguard is enshrined in the legislation. Members opposite have clearly seen that but refuse to recognise it. Sixthly, the new award will abolish anomalies that would otherwise exist with some staff working a 35-hour week and others working a 38-hour week yet doing the same job. It should be remembered that in February 2008 the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals released the policy called "Towards One Network—The Need for an Integrated Transport Authority in New South Wales". That policy clearly stated that the lack of an integrated transport authority meant there was inadequate coordination between modes of transport resulting in poor services, a lack of accountability in relation to the delivery of major transport infrastructure projects and a failure to provide transport information to commuters.

The Coalition has been talking about this legislation for more than three years. Unlike Labor, we have been completely honest about our intentions and clearly advised the citizens of New South Wales. More importantly, we are now delivering on those announced intentions. It is extraordinary that members opposite now appear to be claiming that this is a rush job and that we have failed to allow appropriate time. One must ask where they were for the past three years if they were not listening to our announcements. Sadly, they were probably in the same place when, for the past 16 years, they failed to listen to the needs of commuters. Clearly, the results of the last election demonstrate that the people of New South Wales support the Coalition's intentions and that they are no longer interested in the failure of the previous Labor Government to deliver real change for New South Wales. This Government, unlike the previous Government, is committed to delivering substance, not spin and misinformation. I urge all members to support the bill. I will speak to the amendments in Committee.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [12.33 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I support the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. In the end we will support the bill because we have said for years that New South Wales needs an integrated transport authority. We support the intent of the bill. However, before I refer to the content of the bill I state for the record my disappointment at the rushed nature of this bill. The Hon. John Ajaka referred to Opposition members saying that the bill is a rush job. He defended the way the Government introduced the legislation and said that it is not a rush job. For legislation to be introduced into this place without members having a copy of the bill—yesterday the bill was introduced and declared an urgent bill—and for members to be expected to speak on the following day, an hour or so into the sitting, on a complex bill with enormous ramifications for the people of this State—and hopefully for better transport and infrastructure in this State—is a big ask. Indeed, it is disrespectful of the Government to do that. For the Government to rush the bill through in this way shows that it does not value our contributions to the debate.

I understand that we will not deal with amendments in Committee today, and that is a good thing. Having less than 24 hours to digest a bill of this magnitude is not good enough. A recurring theme of this Government is to rush bills through, particularly those with ramifications not only for transport but potentially for transport workers. It is important that we understand the ramifications of such a bill before we debate it. We have not been given sufficient time to get our heads around it. However, having said that, The Greens support the intent of the bill because it has the potential to change transport for the better. We welcome the broad sentiments of this bill. I think we all agree that it is time for transport—passenger, freight and active transport—to operate in a coherent way and to ensure that all decisions relating to transport consider wider implications for the community.

Transport decision making will impact heavily on the budgets of other departments, such as Health. If we do not get serious about implementing better public and active transport, which I will talk about later, the Heart Foundation assures us that within 20 years the State budget will be overwhelmed by health costs. The devil for any bill is in the detail, and it is the detail of this bill, which amends a significant Act and others, that we have not had time to go through and digest. Earlier I spoke with other crossbench members who expressed surprise that the bill is now in the second reading stage; they thought they had much more time. They also told me that their research assistants were struggling to get through the bill and they were struggling to get down to the Chamber in time to read it.

In his second reading speech yesterday, the Minister for Roads and Ports said that the Government will undertake planning and investment to ensure that good planning informs investment strategies. In this instance I believe the Government is actually Infrastructure NSW, which is interesting in itself given the amount of private sector involvement on the Infrastructure NSW board. One confusing element of this bill is the relationship between Infrastructure NSW and the new corporation, Transport for NSW, about which the Hon. Penny Sharpe also expressed concern. The bill makes no mention of how the new arrangements for the delivery of transport services will interface with Infrastructure NSW. During the second reading of the Infrastructure NSW Bill the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council said that the creation of Infrastructure NSW will at long last take the politics out of infrastructure decision-making to get the right infrastructure projects delivered on time and on budget.

There will be a lot of politics around infrastructure decision-making in this State when we do not know the exact relationship between Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW. Indeed, considering some of the roles relating to the planning and delivery of transport and infrastructure in New South Wales, the second reading speeches on the Infrastructure NSW bill and the Transport for NSW legislation in some senses made it seem as though those two bodies will be doing the same thing. I again state for the record, as I did during my contribution to the second reading debate on the Infrastructure NSW bill, that it is a shame the Director General of Transport for NSW is not on the board of Infrastructure NSW.

Considering the intent of this bill and the visionary planning that will be undertaken for Transport for New South Wales, if we can believe the Government, it is beyond me how plans that will be drawn up by Transport for NSW will interact with the plans that Infrastructure NSW will draw up if the Director General for Transport is not on the board of Infrastructure NSW. Over the next couple of years, I guarantee that will be played out in New South Wales. Infrastructure NSW will apparently secure asset management of infrastructure required for the economic and social wellbeing of the community. The Infrastructure NSW board will set policy and direction for Infrastructure New South Wales but there is no mention of persons representing transport interests being included on the board.

We are given to understand that planners in Transport for NSW will make long-term plans regarding transport and present them to Infrastructure NSW for consideration, but there is no guarantee that the plans put forward by transport experts will be adopted. Infrastructure NSW is responsible for developing sectoral plans, including transport, so it will be interesting to see how the two statutory corporations will relate. Some of the comments by the Chairperson of Infrastructure NSW, Nick Greiner, indicate his belief that Infrastructure NSW will be setting out plans, including plans for transport. Generally speaking, transport infrastructure is an expensive undertaking. As we know too well, it is easy to announce projects yet very hard to deliver. It is very important to ensure that active transport is part of the implementation of this legislation.

Although The Greens examined the bill in a very rushed manner, this morning I was pleased to be informed that a section within the policy and regulation division of Transport for NSW will deal with active transport delivery, along with bus and light rail. During those conversations this morning I was assured that specific positions, which do not exist within the Roads and Traffic Authority, will be created including the position of senior active transport officer and others. The specific identification of active travel as unique and important was severely lacking at the Roads and Traffic Authority. It is good to see that is addressed in the bill.

However, as the new statutory corporation Roads and Maritime Services will subsume the service delivery responsibilities of the Roads and Traffic Authority and as planning staff move across to Transport for New South Wales, I wonder if the Ministers, the Hon. Duncan Gay and the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian—with their new stated focus on the customer—include within that term cyclists and pedestrians. I am concerned that the language around customer service and the shift to customer service, while important, potentially takes away from users of transport who do not pay a fee. They do not pay a fee to use roads in the form of registration fees for their vehicles, and they are not paying fees for using buses and trains.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But they are customers.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Duncan Gay and point out that cyclists and pedestrians provide a benefit to the community by reducing health costs and traffic congestion. It is good to note that cyclists will be considered important customers, as are other transport users. I have been informed that the vision for the new integrated transport operating model is focusing on the customer. The Greens believe that further measures to ensure that cyclists are considered legitimate customers are warranted. The Minister has now assured us that that is the case.

As far as we have been made aware, the planning and programs and the transport project divisions do not have specific active travel positions. I would appreciate the Minister specifically addressing whether those two divisions will cater for active transport. It is one thing to have active travel incorporated in customer service, but another very important thing for Transport for NSW to incorporate planning and implementation of active transport in everything it does, instead of just leaving it to the end of the line. As Transport for NSW begins work on a new transport plan, I am concerned that the relatively small active travel section will be continually sidelined within policy and regulation, which was the case with the Roads and Traffic Authority.

An excellent example of why further measures will be required to address this bias—and an example of how important the prioritisation of active travel is—comes in the form of the proposed Inner Sydney Regional Bicycle Network plan that is being developed by the Council of the City of Sydney and fifteen other councils. Independent research shows that the network could deliver at least $506 million, or $3.88 for every dollar spent, in net economic benefits over 30 years from reduced traffic congestion caused by 4.3 million car trips a year. This is an incredible benefit, especially when considering the relatively tiny investment of $179 million that will be required. Why has the Government not adopted this proposal? Why have many Sydneysiders never heard of it? Why has no submission been made to Infrastructure Australia in relation to the proposal?

When considering that motorways often return dismal cost benefit, it is incredible that this State is seriously considering multitudes of massive multibillion-dollar motorway proposals but not a tiny investment in a regional bicycle network. The independent research commissioned by the Council of the City of Sydney forecasts a 66 per cent increase in bike trips by 2016, and a 71 per cent increase by 2026 if the 284-kilometre network—which would span 164 suburbs and serve a population of 1.2 million people—is built. We have received no explanation of how the anti-bicycle and anti-pedestrian culture within the Roads and Traffic Authority will be addressed when staff and leaders from that organisation move to the new planning authority. Although that possibly may be addressed over time, without specific regulatory and organisational measures and firm leadership from our ministers, it is unlikely to be addressed anytime soon.

Considering that construction of 480 kilometres of cycleway network could be achieved for the same cost as 1.5 kilometres of urban freeway, the current balance of funding is not producing value for money or creating a safe, affordable and sustainable transport network. Active transport solutions to Sydney's transportation crisis are affordable and will be of significant benefit to both commuters and our climate. I very much hope that Transport for NSW will focus on active transport programs that we have not seen in this State for some time. Although many local councils are doing very good things, such as investing in cycling infrastructure, they do not have sufficient funding to do as much as needs to be done. A whole-of-government commitment should be made to ensuring that adequate investment in cycling infrastructure.

This amending bill has new objectives of environmental sustainability, which is a very good thing, and social inclusion, which was missing from the original Act. I congratulate the Government for including these two very important elements of transport planning in the objectives of Transport for NSW. The definition of environmental sustainability in schedule 1, item [2] new section 2B (g) to the bill states:

To promote the delivery of transport services in an environmentally sustainable manner.

"Environmental sustainability" is a very broad term. I advise the Government in relation to future bills to refer to the original definition of "ecological sustainability", which is recognised in statute and common law and is a much more applicable term than is environmental sustainability. However, the inclusion of "environmental sustainability" in the new bill will assist in directing the new authority to ensure that services and selection of service delivery modes by their very nature will be more environmentally sustainable and more environmentally friendly. Because roads and parking take up one-third of urban space whereas a suburban train effectively can keep 800 cars off our roads and remove a line of traffic that is five kilometres long and 10 bicycles can be parked in one car space, it will be very important for Transport for NSW to ensure that public and active transport fits the definition of "environmental sustainability".

I understand that the Government has modelled some of this legislation on Transport for London, but we should acknowledge that Transport for London does not have an Act underpinning it. While Transport for London has very good policy objectives—one being to reduce carbon pollution by 60 per cent from 1990 by 2025—encouraging public and active transport modes is a key plank for achieving that reduction. One would hope with respect to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next few years in New South Wales that Transport for New South Wales will develop similar objectives internally, if they are not in the bill, or that the Department of Transport has appropriate strategies and policies.

I am disappointed that we have not heard anything from the Government about greenhouse gas targets. The name of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has been changed to the Department of Environment and Heritage. "Climate Change" has been removed from the title. Transport obviously is one of the leading contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The Government could play a leadership role in ensuring that Transport for NSW mirrors some of the fine objectives of Transport for London in reducing congestion rather than planning for roads, cars and other infrastructure. It should be a critical objective of Transport for NSW to formulate a plan for ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets that includes targets for vehicular kilometres travelled [VKTs]. I am aware they are in the State Plan, but are expressed as less-than-ideal ambitions. The Greens would like to see plans that set targets for greenhouse gas reduction and vehicular kilometres travelled.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is a new State Plan coming

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Then I hope the new State Plan will be based on wide public consultation and participation before it is released. As the Hon. Penny Sharpe stated, members are concerned that the bill may impact on workers' conditions and The Greens are examining those provisions closely. Mr David Shoebridge will address industrial relations concerns about the director general fixing the award. The Greens will endeavour to ensure that workers are looked after. I have been told that some transport workers will lose their jobs as a result of this merger and approximately 100 jobs being cut. We have been told that the positions relate to policy planning and perhaps some administration, but it is important to recognise that although they are not front-line services, they are critical to delivering transport projects and infrastructure. We must ensure that policy and planning in Transport for NSW is strong as a result of this merger. Transport for NSW will be huge compared to the departments that it replaces. Policy and planning must be front and centre. If we do not get the planning right to deliver sustainability, we will not have moved forward and the people of New South Wales will be as frustrated in the near future as they were under Labor. The Greens support the bill.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [12.53 p.m.]: I was quite surprised that in response to the Hon. Penny Sharpe the Hon. John Ajaka stated that there were no changes to the terms and conditions of workers within the sections being transferred to Transport for NSW. New section 66 (3) states:

New section 67 relates to terms and conditions of employment upon transfer, which means the transfer date, while new section 67 (4) (a) states:

(a) The amount of the staff's base salary immediately before the transfer together with any increase in the base salary that would have accrued to the staff member from time to time as a result of progress within the employment grade …

New section 67 further states:

base salary

It is there in black and white that the terms and conditions of employment of transferred staff members will be varied. The reality is that they will be transferred at their base salaries and will lose their terms and conditions. Time and again the Government's idea of reform on nearly every issue before this House is to remove the terms and conditions of workers. Those workers are public service workers who deliver services that the Government asks them to deliver to the people of New South Wales. I am surprised that the Hon. John Ajaka said that the terms and conditions would not be varied. It is clear they will be varied. Staff members will be subject to regulations. The regulations may make provision with respect to employment of members of the transport service, including the conditions of employment and discipline of such members. Perhaps the Minister could clarify what this means and what disciplinary regulations will be introduced in relation to this bill with respect to public service workers under Transport for NSW. I am not sure what the provision means. But I would be willing to bet there are plenty of options provided by this legislation with respect to discipline and conditions of employment.

Removal of terms and conditions is serious, but my greatest concern relates to transport functions under part 2 and ancillary functions under part 3. Part 3 (10) relates to the "Sale, lease or other disposal of land that TfNSW may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any of TfNSW's land". I ask the Minister in reply to explain what that will mean for disused rail lines. At present the Government cannot sell them. What are the implications for the Murwillumbah and Newcastle disused rail lines if Transport for NSW has the ability to sell any land at any point? Rail corridors are currently protected and, as we know, once land is sold it cannot be bought back. Land is a valuable asset held by the Government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Like the M4 East.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Who sold all the corridors?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They are hollow logs.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I note the yelling from members opposite. When the bleeding obvious is pointed out, they yell and make any disruptive, abusive or bullying utterance they can come out with. It remains to be seen if they address whether land on existing rail corridors will remain protected, as current legislation allows, after this bill is passed. The reality is that the rail corridors about which members opposite have spoken long and hard will be sold as a result of this legislation. We know we will need those rail corridors to cater for future population growth, but the land will not be available because this legislation will allow the Government to sell it.

[Interruption]

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

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

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

ORICA PLANT INCIDENT

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In an answer to a question on 12 August the Minister stated that he was informed about the Orica chemical leak at 12.30 p.m. on Thursday 11 August, and yesterday he tabled a letter indicating that Fire and Rescue NSW received an anonymous phone call at 1.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9 August regarding the leak. Did anyone in the Minister's office receive any notification of this incident prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday 11 August?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is a very good question and I thank the member for giving me an opportunity—yet again—to talk about this very unfortunate and quite concerning incident in the Hunter Valley. In relation to my own Emergency Services portfolio responsibilities, as I indicated to the House on 12 August, I was advised by Fire and Rescue NSW and notified through a phone call. At the moment the 12.30 p.m. call came through to my office—or the information came through at 12.30 p.m.—it was immediately brought to my attention. At 1.30 p.m. I participated in a telephone hook-up with Fire and Rescue NSW and Mr Mark Murdoch, who was organising the emergency response at that stage.

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE FORCE COMMUTER CRIME UNITS

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister please update the House on the work of the New South Wales Police Force commuter crime units?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question, and I am pleased to report that—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did they catch Eric Roozendaal?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, they do not do bus lanes.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Crimes against commuters.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They do public transport, obviously. Commuter crime units are achieving remarkable results through the effective use of the latest technology made available to front-line police. For example, ultra-portable mobile data terminals were issued to commuter crime units in 2010. They are being used extensively in the field and have proven their worth in identifying suspects for serious crimes who have come to the attention of officers. Recently, officers from the Campbelltown commuter crime unit made an arrest after a check on a mobile data terminal revealed a person was wanted by police. The discovery led to the execution of a search warrant. Earlier this year, Flemington commuter crime unit officers arrested a man at Strathfield railway station after a check revealed that he was wanted for a robbery offence committed the night before. Scene-of-crime officers had conveyed forensic evidence to be analysed and within 24 hours the man was listed as wanted and arrested as he was allegedly finalising plans to move interstate.

The mobile data terminals are ideal for commuter crime unit activities such as drug dog deployments, as well as major events and policing operations targeting alcohol and antisocial behaviour on the transport system. During such operations, commuter crime unit officers need to have the ability to conduct high-volume, detailed checks on the computerised operational policing system [COPS] database made possible using the mobile data terminals. I am told that the ability to pull up offenders' photographs on the terminals is particularly useful in the transport environment, where identification of suspects can be problematic. Mobile data terminals have improved access to information for officers in the field and relieved the demand on police radio, meaning that the status of officers can be reliably monitored, ensuring their safety.

Commuter crime unit officers also continue to make effective use of closed-circuit television [CCTV] footage to investigate crime. Recently at Campbelltown, for example, commuter crime unit officers arrested four offenders after identifying them on closed-circuit television footage. Macquarie Fields detectives were able to obtain and circulate the footage immediately, allowing officers to spot the offenders whilst on patrol. I am sure members will agree that it is great to see that technology is making the job of addressing crime on the transport system easier for police. The New South Wales Police Force commuter crime units do a tremendous job. Last week I was fortunate to travel on trains in our rail system with a couple of police officers from the commuter crime unit. I saw them moving through the trains, obviously checking for tickets but also looking for criminal activity. I was very impressed by their professionalism.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Did you make any arrests?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, but I was mistaken for a detective, unfortunately.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Those were the days.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They were the days, but I will not relive that memory.

The Hon. Robert Brown: It was the haircut!

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was the haircut or the dark sunnies, but it was great to be flattered once. Be that as it may, it was great to see those young police officers being welcomed by members of the public, who were pleased to see them on the train. I suspect there would be nothing more comforting for somebody travelling on the train system, particularly at night-time or if travelling alone, than seeing a couple of police officers walking through the train. I noticed the officers saying "Hello" to members of the public as they walked through, checking the train—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Heart warming.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Very professional and very heart warming, as the Hon. Trevor Khan—who has a great relationship with the police—says. He understands the value of police, and I am sure that as he uses our public transport system when moving around the State— [Time expired.]

TRANSPORT CORRIDOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister inform the House how the application by the Roads and Traffic Authority to attach advertising signs to its bridge at Ku-ring-gai Chase Road within the high-quality landscape setting of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park is in accordance with the transport corridor outdoor advertising and signage guidelines under State environmental planning policy [SEPP] No. 64, specifically the aims of ensuring that signage, including advertising, is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There are details to be found in this question. It is a good question and, from The Greens' perspective, it is an important question. For the rest of the country, it is a damn silly question, I have to say.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Putting advertising signs all over the place is fine for everyone?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Advertising is what sells products. Do The Greens not use advertising? The Greens got $1 million from Webjet to spend on advertising—but, no, they would not use any! The Greens are the biggest hypocrites that ever hit the planet. They want to use advertising but they do not want anyone else to have that opportunity. In providing infrastructure it is good to use advertising to offset the cost of that infrastructure, whether it is walkways to protect our elderly when crossing roadways—

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: The Sydney Harbour Bridge?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Or whether it is to protect our children. Settle, dear leader, I know it is your day to have the company press.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Don't respond to interjections.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am told that I may have misled the House and, if I did so, I apologise. It was not Webjet but Wotif that gave $1.3 million to The Greens. So I urge anyone who was about to avoid Webjet not to do so; they should stay with Webjet and avoid Wotif if they do not want to give money to The Greens. I will find out the details on the advertising standard. But I do not apologise if there is a chance for us to fast-track infrastructure that makes it safer for pedestrians in this State—and even cyclists in many instances—by coupling it with advertising. I think that would be a positive and a sensible thing to do.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS AND TRANSPORT WORKERS

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, in his own capacity or representing the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister guarantee that his Government will not reduce the existing salaries, conditions and other rights of employment of public sector transport workers?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question is out of order because there is legislation on this matter before the House.

The Hon. Adam Searle: To the point of order: The question stands independent of any legislation that may be before the House; it is not based or premised on it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Clearly the question falls within the ambit of the Act that is before the House. I uphold the point of order.

WASTE AND ENVIRONMENT LEVY

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Local Government. I refer to my question without notice on 27 May 2011 and to the Minister's answer on 2 August 2011 regarding the section 88 waste and environment levy. The Minister stated that the Government has announced it would review the waste and environment levy to consider and advise on the efficiency and effectiveness of current settings. Will the Minister advise the House, first, when the review is scheduled to commence; secondly, when the review is due for completion; and, thirdly, when the review and findings will be made available to members and the public?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Soon, not soon enough, and yes.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. How many times has the New South Wales Industrial Relations Advisory Council met since 27 March?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is a very good question. I do not know and I will find out.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer and explain why he has not convened a meeting of the Industrial Relations Advisory Council?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not think even I can elucidate that answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.

SCHOOL ZONE FLASHING LIGHTS

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Will the Minister for Roads and Ports update the House on the rollout of school zone flashing lights?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for her question, and for her assistance and that of the Hon. Amanda Fazio during my previous answer. We are all working together. I am pleased to announce that the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government yesterday fulfilled another election commitment: to fast-track the installation of flashing lights in New South Wales schools. To those opposite, this is what delivering on election commitments looks like. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals have already delivered 12 out of the original 66 named school zones around the State.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Who wrote that?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not know, but it is good. I have now announced the names of schools that will receive flashing lights initially under the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals $13 million rollout. Alert signs have been ordered for the installation of flashing lights in the next 54 school zones. This will begin in late October and be completed by the end of November. The development of a project plan, including the site inspection, surveys and site designs, for these 54 priority zones has also commenced. By the end of November 743 school zones across the State will have flashing lights installed. As I have said previously, the New South Wales Government is fully committed to improving safety in school zones. Flashing lights warn motorists that they are travelling in a school zone and alert them to the need to slow down. I am sure all members understand that people do not deliberately drive fast in school zones. The problem is, with the proliferation of signs on our roads, school zone signs can be missed and the flashing signs alert drivers that they are approaching a school zone.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Advertising signs.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We might put flashing on advertising, but the key is to alert people to the safety areas around schools because we have to protect young people—a most precious commodity. That is key. The flashing lights will operate automatically when school zone speed limits are in force and increase drivers' awareness of school zones. Flashing lights will be rolled out in the Sydney region at schools such as St Patrick's Primary School, Parramatta, where Geoff Lee won for the Liberals, with a swing of 25.8 per cent; and Mortdale Public School and Oatley Public School, in the electorate of Oatley where Mark Coure won for the Liberals, with a swing of 14.9 per cent. I congratulate those members on their tireless efforts in advocating on behalf of their electorates to secure flashing lights for local schools.

In the Hunter region, Raymond Terrace Public School, Anna Bay Public School and Hunter Valley Grammar School are just some of the schools that will be the first to receive flashing lights. In the southern region, Thirlmere Primary School and Mount Hunter Public School will have flashing lights installed. Lights will also be installed in the western region at schools such as Dubbo West Public School and Dubbo Infants School, Dubbo, where Troy Grant won for The Nationals, with a swing of 14.5 per cent; at Glenroy Heights Public School in Orange, where Andrew Gee won for The Nationals, with a swing of 12.5 per cent; and at Kelso Public School in Bathurst, where Paul Toole won for The Nationals, with a staggering 36.7 per cent swing.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And they hate it.

The Hon. Luke Foley: The Opposition takes exception to the Minister engaging in party political point scoring when answering a question about safety signs for schoolchildren. It is not relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not relevant and that he is making a debating point.

V8 SUPERCARS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing. It relates to the future of the V8 Supercars race, which is currently held at Homebush. What steps has the Government taken to find an alternative venue for the race or to transfer the race back to Eastern Creek, given that that was a preference expressed by the Premier during the State election campaign?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question and for his interest in V8 motor cars. He is the Peter Brock of the Legislative Council. I thank him also for his interest in major events. The Sydney round of the V8 Supercars races was relocated from Eastern Creek raceway to Sydney Olympic Park at Homebush in 2009 in a deal done by former Minister Ian Macdonald. The contract for the event runs until 2013, and a decision will be made on its future in due course.

NSW GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on how the Government is addressing the issues raised by the Independent Commission Against Corruption about NSW Government Procurement?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: In July 2010 the Independent Commission Against Corruption released a consultation paper regarding risks in NSW Government Procurement. The report identified 12 areas that if not properly managed could lead to corrupt behaviours. In late 2010 the Independent Commission Against Corruption undertook an online survey of suppliers to the New South Wales Government as part of the development of its final report aimed at making recommendations on ways to address perceptions of corruption in NSW Government Procurement. The survey found that almost half of the suppliers to the previous Labor Government perceived corruption in NSW Government Procurement to be a moderate problem or worse. Other perceived issues included 55 per cent, improper favouritism; 48 per cent, offer of gifts and benefits over $20; 39 per cent, provision of unequal information to different bidders—this was procurement under Labor—and 25 per cent, leaking of confidential supplier information prior to the close of tenders. I digress for one moment. That should come as no surprise in view of the number of relatives and friends that Labor had running the tenders and running procurement in the public sector. Those results are extremely concerning.

Dr John Kaye: Come on, Greg.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have the report here. I will not go into all the issues surrounding the previous Labor Government—unless I am asked to do so in a supplementary question—because I only have four minutes for my answer. One thing is certain: This is a very serious report. It is an indictment on those opposite who governed this State. Clearly they were more focused on internal party bickering than concerning themselves with the way the New South Wales Government was doing business. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition takes matters of corruption seriously. Unlike those opposite, it is not part of our DNA. Not only is corruption a serious criminal matter, but even the perception of corruption influences the willingness of companies to do business in New South Wales. That is why in the past 16 years companies have fled New South Wales to conduct their business in other States. They knew they would not get a fair go under the previous Labor Government.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: I am going to put this speech in my folder.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Very good. The former President is an exception—he is an exception on many counts, but we will not go there. Last month the final report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption was released—I have this copy with me. That report made seven recommendations on ways to address perceived corruption in New South Wales: first, establish a procurement leadership role in New South Wales; second, undertake a comprehensive review of the New South Wales Government approach to procurement; third, simplify the regulatory framework in New South Wales; fourth, align local government and State procurement policy; fifth, improve information, advice and support; sixth, build procurement competence; and seventh, oversee policy compliance. Unlike the previous Labor Government, the O'Farrell Government is taking action on all those recommendations. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer on the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation into New South Wales Government Procurement?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his supplementary question because this is a very serious and important issue.

Mr David Shoebridge: We want to know what you are doing.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will be telling you what I am doing at length, David. The Government will be returning to this issue time and again.

The Hon. Luke Foley: He is appointing Freehills to conduct an investigation.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Now that is a good idea. I am pleased to inform the House that when the Coalition came to office one of my first actions as Minister for Finance and Services—even before the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption was released—was to initiate a wide-ranging review of procurement in New South Wales. That review is already well underway and is assessing all arrangements for government sourcing of goods and services. The review will recommend a revised government procurement model based on New South Wales government and industry requirements and current best practice to support more efficient and more cost-effective delivery of government services.

The Government has also commenced the development of an agency accreditation system, which will improve procurement capabilities and better manage corruption risks across government. In light of the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I have asked the department to consider all its recommendations as part of the review. The Government is determined to fix these issues and to ensure that New South Wales is open for business. Earlier this week I took part in a three-hour workshop on procurement with people from my department and others from various parts of government. Guess what they told me? None of them had ever met with a Minister before. When that lot opposite were in government they took no interest whatsoever. Those opposite did not even talk to their senior public servants—except for their mates and relatives.

MINISTER FOR ROADS AND PORTS

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Is the Minister aware that last week the Federal member for Hume, Mr Alby Shultz, MP, made a personal statement to the Federal Parliament in which he said that on 10 August 2011 the Minister had misled the New South Wales upper House in a response to a question without notice during question time? Given the serious allegation made by Mr Schultz, does the Minister stand by his comments? The Minister could say, "I am sorry" to the House and we will then move on.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I assure members that I have not misled the House on any occasion, particularly in relation to any stories I have told about Mr Shultz. I could tell many more stories about Mr Shultz but we are a harmonious Coalition and the temptation must be avoided. Today I will avoid that temptation.

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE FORCE BOMB SQUAD

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the question.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Will the Minister update the House on recent activities of the New South Wales Police Force bomb squad?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Government will cease interjecting.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Last week I had the great pleasure of meeting with representatives of the bomb squad. What a great bunch of people they are. In fact, I met with them after I had been travelling with the commuter crime unit on our public transport system.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: They should get a pay rise.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am not going to make a silly comment about a pay rise.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Oh, it is silly.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, I am not going to respond to an interjection about pay rises. These people absolutely love what they do and members should take the time, if they can, to meet some of them. Members will then get to see the technical support devices they use—the stuff we see on television—such as explosive swabs, fibre scopes and X-ray vision devices. These personnel go to every job with the expectation that they could have to approach a very serious device. Often they do not know what they are dealing with until they get to the scene. We have seen evidence of their past successes, especially in the past couple of weeks as events in Mosman unfolded.

Personnel are prepared to put on the necessary equipment. The officers say that they do not put on the clothing, as one sees on television, to ensure that after the blast wave hits them they can walk away and, like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, say, "Gee, that was lucky; we got away with that." They openly say that they put on the clothing to make it easier for others to identify their bodies; to keep them in one piece. They say that once a device gets over a kilogram in weight the blast force is such that, no matter how good the suits are, they are of no real benefit to the officers. I picked up and felt the weight of these suits; they are incredibly heavy. Some officers have said that when investigating a large explosive device they do not bother to put on a suit, simply because it will not be of benefit to them.

Members of the bomb squad are called upon to deal with day-to-day events, to investigate suspicious packages left at a train station or in a school, or to take action when someone rings up and says, "We've placed a bomb in a certain location", as happened only this week. Continuously they put themselves at risk so that the public can avoid danger. We are blessed with the calibre of people who perform these roles. They also use robots. One such small robot known as the "Dragon Runner" has an incredible ability to get into spaces. They have devices that fire shotgun cartridges and that have x-ray and video functionality. They have everything they can possibly use. However, often they cannot get past the need for human action and intervention at a scene. That is why they perform their dangerous tasks, and for that I thank them. The bomb squad is relocating to new premises after being near Green Square for 30 or 40 years. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I thank its members for the job they do. I look forward to the opening of the new premises shortly.

FIREARMS SILENCERS

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. What response has the Minister sought, or he will be seeking, from the NSW Police Force in relation to the proposal published this week by the New South Wales Game Council, which is a statutory authority in New South Wales, to encourage the introduction of firearms silencers for hunters in New South Wales?

The Hon. Robert Borsak: Sound moderators.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I think they need some sound moderators but they are commonly known as silencers.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Whether one calls them moderators or silencers, some people are legally entitled to have these devices now.

Mr David Shoebridge: They are prohibited weapons.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes, but there are strict provisions. If I receive a proposal of this or any other nature—

Mr David Shoebridge: They have published it this week.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I know. My first port of call in relation to these devices, or indeed changes in relation to firearms, is the NSW Police Force.

Mr David Shoebridge: As I have asked you to do.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I continue to have ongoing dialogue with the NSW Police Force, as I do with other interested parties, in relation to firearms legislation, security legislation, the impact of firearms on security, et cetera. I will continue to have dialogue when matters are put before me and I will seek advice on them.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I ask a supplementary question. To elucidate his answer will the Minister be seeking a specific response from the NSW Police Force about the specific proposal published by the Game Council this week?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I just indicated to Mr David Shoebridge, as with many aspects of this portfolio, as matters are brought to my attention I have ongoing discussions with police and other interested parties about them. If a decision needs to be made about such devices, I will most certainly seek the advice of police, whom I continue to consult on such matters. If the NSW Police Force is concerned about any matters that are raised, or indeed a matter raised with me by another member, there is nothing to stop me from initiating a discussion with police. I have ongoing dialogue with police.

TWEED HOMELESSNESS

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. In light of recent deaths of homeless men and vicious attacks on homeless people in the Tweed, what is the Government's timetable to build a homeless shelter, as promised by the local member, Mr Geoff Provest?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for his serious question. As the member knows, two Ministers are responsible for housing matters. My colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services is responsible for homelessness issues, so I will get an answer for the member in that respect.

SYDNEY FERRY SERVICES

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government will increase ferry services on Sydney Harbour?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank my Parliamentary Secretary, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport, to whose portfolio this question relates. I am pleased to announce today that the New South Wales Government is calling for expressions of interest from the private sector to develop and operate new peak hour ferry routes.

[Interruption]

The trouble with members of the Opposition is that they do not like good news. We are trying to give good news to the people of New South Wales, and members opposite want to interrupt and babble on. We want the private sector to tell the New South Wales Government what extra peak hour ferry services can be provided for commuters. This represents the next stage of reform to the ferry network and is another step towards fixing Sydney's ferries after 16 years of Labor mismanagement. Developing new routes, fostering innovative service proposals and getting more people off our roads and onto ferries are priorities for the New South Wales Government. There is spare capacity on our harbour and we need to take full advantage of that. Now is the time for any private sector operator or company that is interested in developing new ferry routes on Sydney Harbour to put forward its plans to the New South Wales Government.

Additional routes would be approved if they can be provided on a cost-neutral basis to taxpayers and do not duplicate services provided by Sydney Ferries and Matilda Cruises under contract to the Government. The experience of the private sector shows that people will use an efficient ferry service and that commuters want to be able to travel on our harbour. In addition, new or existing ferry operators will be able to bid for peak hour access to wharf 6 at Circular Quay. Wharf 6, the western most wharf at Circular Quay near the Museum of Contemporary Art, has long been used only by charter vessel operators. The wharf will now be reserved during the morning and evening peak periods for commuter ferry services. This will not impact on existing Sydney ferry services operating from other wharves at Circular Quay.

Circular Quay is a critical transport hub, where the public connects with ferries, trains, buses, taxis and charter vessels. There is now an opportunity to open wharf 6 to additional commuter services, giving a wider choice of ferry services to the commuting public. Access to other Sydney Harbour wharves would also be made available as part of the process. This is a win-win situation; ferry operators get better access to the city, and spare capacity at Circular Quay and other harbour wharves can be used. This is an exciting development and will mean that all ferry operators will have an opportunity to delivery better services. Expressions of interest close on 19 September. The New South Wales Government will assess the expressions of interest and see which routes can be implemented.

These services will be provided on interim three-month contracts that will be reviewed following the completion of the Sydney Ferries franchise process. I take this opportunity to congratulate the State Treasurer, Mike Baird, on his advocacy on behalf of Manly commuters. Mike has been working tirelessly to ensure that private ferry operators who service the Manly community have an opportunity to bid for a slot at wharf 6, rather than tie up at the steps outside the Museum of Contemporary Art. This will be advantageous for Sydney commuters and all members opposite can do is make sick jokes. That is why they are in opposition. [Time expired.]

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House what plans, protocols or procedures the New South Wales Government has in place to consult with Aboriginal people about the delivery of New South Wales government programs and services for aboriginal people?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question, which I suspect relates to the whole of government rather that to one specific portfolio area. I will undertake to get an answer for the member as quickly as possible.

RURAL AND REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing of the Deputy Premier. Is the Minister aware that up until March this year whenever a major regional business closure occurred the State Government would set up a one-stop-shop service providing affected staff with assistance, such as getting Federal Government benefits, skills accreditations, retraining and assistance in finding new job placements? Why has the Government not provided one-stop-shop arrangements to assist workers in regional New South Wales who have been laid off as a result of major employee closures in such areas as Wingham, Mudgee and Tumbarumba?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the local member for his question, although I suspect he has not been to any of the towns he referred to

[Interruption]

George Martin supported the local Coalition candidate in the Tumbarumba area. That former Labor icon, together with many other Labor people, was disenchanted with the Labor Party. The former President of the Australian Labor Party and editor of the local paper at Tumbarumba supported the Coalition.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: On a point of order: I ask that the Minster be directed to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot direct the Minister to answer the question in a particular way, and the Minister is being generally relevant.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know the member has some concerns and that he is calculating the numbers. His leader was distracting me with regard to George Martin. If the member is really as good with the numbers as his publicity suggests, I suggest that his leader is his first job. He is number one. There are concerns in these community areas and no-one is working harder than Andrew Stoner to address them, but I was surprised about—

[Interruption]

I am having difficulty hearing; someone in the Chamber is speaking in Chinese. It was the leader of The Greens, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham. I was disappointed that no member of the Labor Party mentioned the problems in the Illawarra. And I would remain quiet if I were the Hon. Steve Whan; he had a bad day yesterday and he would not want another bad day today. He has a glass jaw and he suffered a little bit, but I suspect that pain becomes him. We have put together a package for the people of the Illawarra that will assist those who have been made redundant from BlueScope to find new jobs using Job Services Australia access training and education programs and assistance.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: It relates to relevance. Yesterday we heard about the action that has been taken with regard to BlueScope, and we are very concerned about that. The Minister might be interested to hear that we can actually remember things two days in a row. But this question is about a number of country communities that have had difficulties, including Tumbarumba, and if the Minister does not know the answer to the question, he should tell us that.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order. Wollongong was specifically referred to in the member's question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! In answering a question the Minister needs to bear in mind two requirements: his answer must be relevant to the question and he must not debate the question. The Minister is reminded also of the need to be generally relevant.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have been trying to answer the question but interjections and points of order taken by members opposite who do not want me to talk about the Illawarra have prevented me from doing so. [Time expired.]

NORTHERN SUBURBS OCEAN OUTFALL

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Finance and Services. Can the Minister update the House on recent upgrades to the northern suburbs ocean outfall system?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I would be delighted to. I know that members on the other side of the Chamber will be very interested in this update. Last week I announced the allocation of $5 million to improve wastewater services across Sydney's northern suburbs. This investment is vital to ensure Sydney Water can sustain quality services as the population in Sydney's north grows. The upgrades will reduce the risk of overflows and ensure a high standard of wastewater services to customers. It will occur in five tunnels that form part of the northern suburbs ocean outfall system.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: Clearly the Minister is making a ministerial statement. Several times he said "I am pleased to announce". This is clearly a ministerial statement.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am outraged, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is contrary to standing orders for a question to ask for an announcement of government policy. However, precedent and practice, upheld by previous Presidents, allows Ministers to announce government policy so long as it is not sought in the question asked.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: For the assistance of the member I advise that I actually said that I made this announcement last week. The upgrades will occur in five tunnels that form part of the northern suburbs ocean outfall system, Sydney's largest wastewater system, which extends from Blacktown to North Head wastewater treatment plant in Manly. The five sewerage tunnels are approximately 30 to 70 years old. The first is the Dorset Road Tunnel, a 230-metre section between Coolawin Road and Dorset Road, Northbridge. This sewer is mainly in a residential area. Second, the West Lane Cove Tunnel, a 2.9-kilometre section between Porters Creek landfill and recycling centre, off Wicks Road, Macquarie Park, and the corner of Pittwater Road and Coxs Road, North Ryde. Part of this tunnel is in the Lane Cove National Park. Third, the Newport low level submain section 2 tunnel, an 865-metre section from the corner of Avalon Parade and Barrenjoey Road, Avalon and the end of Allen Avenue, Bilgola Beach. The start of this section of work is located near the Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club and ends near Bilgola Beach. Work will be done during the winter months to reduce the impact during summer time. Fourth, the Porters Creek Tunnel, a 470-metre section between the corner of Ryrie Street and Morshead Street, North Ryde and council land off Epping Road, North Ryde. Fifth, the Mowbray Point Tunnel, a 300-metre section between The Bulwark, Castlecrag and Rockley Street, Castlecrag.

The project is expected to be complete in the first half of 2012. The restoration work is being undertaken by Metropolitan Restoration Pty Ltd and includes cleaning and repairing the insides of the tunnels. Work will be carried out during the day and there will be no disruption to water or wastewater services. Sydney Water will also consult with councils to ensure work areas are restored as close as possible to their original condition. The work is part of Sydney Water's $560 million four-year SewerFix program to improve the wastewater system and protect public health and the environment along the 23,000 kilometre sewer pipe network. We have to ensure that services are available to meet the growing population, and these upgrades to the Sydney Water system are a critical part of that.

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. How many employees of the Office of Environment work in regional areas? What proportion is this of the total number of employees and what is the ratio within the Office of Environment of front-line field, horticultural and ranger categories in relation to policy advisers and other backroom positions?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As usual the member's question invites me to learn something with respect to a department about which I do not know a great deal, so I look to the Minister for a more detailed answer and will come back to the member as soon as I can.

PARRAMATTA JAIL PRECINCT

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister assure the community that when the Government closes Parramatta jail the facility will remain in public hands as part of a Parramatta historical precinct that includes the jail, the girls factory and the orphan school?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not know where the member gets this information but I suggest that she refer the question to the correct Minister.

MARINE VESSEL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the Marine Vessel Replacement Program reaching local area commands?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Since 2005 the New South Wales Police Force's $27 million Marine Vessel Replacement Program has delivered a total of 26 new vessels.

[Interruption]

It is just amazing what the Coalition Government has been able to achieve in only a few months. These vessels cover the full range of Water Police tasks, from smaller motor boats suited to patrolling harbours or areas close to shore, right through to vessels with ocean patrol capabilities. The sea takes a hard toll on vessels and the reality is that they need to be replaced on a regular basis in order to remain effective. A bit like government! A review of the capability of Deniliquin Local Area Command's vessel fleet led to the funding and building of five replacement boats. A new vessel was recently delivered to Deniliquin, along with vessels delivered to Barrier, Shoalhaven, Brisbane Water and New England local area commands. All vessels have been thoroughly tested by the Marine Area Command and deemed ideal for their water policing role. The new Deniliquin vessel was used to support the annual Southern 80 ski race event, which was held on the Murray River in April this year. During the event police used the new vessel to reach difficult areas of the river.

These vessels will play a strategic role in marine crime investigations and will also perform a search and rescue function in regional inland waterways. The design of the vessels, including enhanced police signage, will allow for more effective enforcement duties in terms of focusing on maritime licensing requirements and random breath testing. I emphasise the scale and quality of the marine fleet of the New South Wales Police Force. It is certainly the best in Australia, and the $27 million fleet replacement program will keep it well ahead of the fleets of other law enforcement agencies in the country. This is appropriate, given the size of our coastline and the number of New South Wales residents who use our waters in their jobs or just to relax.

Operation Bergonia, which was conducted in October 2010, resulted in the seizure of 464 kilograms of cocaine—the third largest seizure of cocaine in Australia's history. I inform the House that the Marine Area Command continues to deliver outstanding results from its day-to-day policing duties. Marine crime statistics for this financial year compared with the same time last financial year reflect these results as vessel theft has declined 7.3 per cent, theft from vessels has declined 17 per cent, the number of persons arrested has increased by 16 per cent and the number of charges laid has increased by 10 per cent. For the 2010-11 financial year the Marine Area Command conducted 11,842 random breath tests—a 7.8 per cent increase over the number conducted in the 2009-10 financial year. This aligned with a 52.4 per cent decrease in boating fatalities, with 23 deaths recorded in 2009-10 and only 10 deaths recorded in 2010-11. For the same period there was also a noticeable decline in serious boating collisions—from 67 to 40 incidents. I commend the Marine Area Command for its outstanding work in reducing crime and promoting safety on our waterways.

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. How many policy officers are working towards the formation of strategies to achieve biodiversity goals under the Government's biodiversity strategy in the Office of Environment? How many staff are involved in each of the following activities: providing policy and legal advice, guideline development, auditing, enforcement and compliance, science input and reform, conservation assessment and planning, and monitoring and reporting to protect native vegetation?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I have indicated a couple of times when the member has asked me a question about which I have had to seek a detailed answer, I have been greatly enlightened by the information provided. One such question related to visitations to national parks. When I received an answer to the question the member made the comment that he thought the methodology might have been problematic. When I analysed the response I noted that the numbers were not calculated as a result of a count but rather as a result of a survey conducted by Roy Morgan Research. Those surveys were conducted in a 12-month period. According to the answer I was provided, almost 16,000 respondents were surveyed across Sydney, regional New South Wales and interstate, from the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland, and when I went back to answer it struck me that that was the way things were done under the previous Government. It is very useful to have diligent members of the crossbench raise such issues and question whether we should continue to do things in the way they were done under the previous Government. Many difficulties have arisen because of problems created under the previous Government. I will obtain an answer to the question and look at it very closely because I am most interested in these matters.

VISY PULP MILL ROAD UPGRADES

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Other than the previously announced funding for Gocup Road, can the Minister advise the House of any road upgrades in surrounding local government areas to support log transport to the Visy pulp mill in Tumut?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for a question that seeks detail of particular roads in the southern part of the State. My knowledge about most roads across the State is pretty damn good. However, as the question seeks a degree of detail, I am more than happy to take it on notice.

DAFFODIL DAY

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister please update the House on the upcoming Daffodil Day?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased I have the information.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: I should have asked about daffodils.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Greg Donnelly should have asked a daffodil question, although his question was important. This Government put funding into Gocup Road, unlike the former Government. I have more good news. I am pleased to inform the House that the Sydney Harbour Bridge will light up to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of Daffodil Day—one of the Cancer Council's most important fundraising events. As the largest national fundraising event of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere, Daffodil Day raises essential funds for cancer research, prevention and support services. The Cancer Council asked the New South Wales Government to light up the bridge in the lead-up to the day to increase awareness and encourage donations toward Daffodil Day on Friday 26 August. The Government is very enthusiastic about this idea. From 6.00 p.m. until midnight on Wednesday 24 and Thursday 25 August, which are the two days leading up to Daffodil Day, the bridge's city-facing southern pylon will be illuminated with bright yellow and will display the event's logo.

In 2010 an estimated 114,000 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 43,000 people losing their lives to the disease in the same year. Half of the entire Australian population will be diagnosed with some form of cancer before reaching the age of 85. Just this year in New South Wales it is estimated almost 39,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer. Tragically each year 13,500 people die from cancer in this State. Cancer rates among men over the past decade have increased by 11 per cent while cancer rates for women remained steady. The five most common cancers—prostate, bowel, breast, melanoma and lung cancer—account for 63 per cent of all new cancer cases. Associating the event with Australia's most recognised landmark by lighting up the Sydney Harbour Bridge will certainly assist to promote the Cancer Council's vital fundraising efforts.

This year Daffodil Day aims to raise more than $9.5 million to fund cancer control initiatives, patient support and research services of the Cancer Council's eight State and Territory member organisations. More than 10,000 volunteers are expected to staff more than 1,200 Daffodil Day sites across Australia. I sent a thankyou to all volunteers for their contribution to such a great cause. Just $5 can go towards providing a cancer patient with support and information resources to help them through their cancer journey. Just $10 can go towards running the Cancer Council's helpline, which is 13 11 20. The helpline is staffed by expertly trained nurse-health counsellors who support those affected by cancer. Just $20 can help to train a Cancer Connect volunteer to provide one-to-one support for people diagnosed with cancer, $50 can go towards a visit to a community to educate health professionals and to visit and support patients and carers, and $100 can go towards SunSmart educational talks to schools. Prevention and early intervention are the best ways to control cancer. I thank all members for their support for this important initiative.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The time for asking questions having expired, I suggest that members who have further questions place them on notice.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Earlier in question time the Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked me about the Industrial Relations Advisory Council. I inform the House that the council was established in the later part of last year, some 15 and a half years after the commencement of the Australian Labor Party's term in government. The council met once during the last six months that the former Government was in office. It did not meet in 2011under Labor. I will obtain a copy of the minutes to ascertain when it will meet again.

TRANSPORT CORRIDOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier during question time, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked me about advertising signs on roads. I am advised by the Roads and Traffic Authority that under the State environmental planning policy 64 assessment process, all signs are assessed for environmental, urban design, engineering and road safety aspects. The assessment requires the Roads and Traffic Authority, as applicant, to assess the sign with reference to the visual amenity of the area. The proposed sign to which the Hon. Cate Faehrmann referred will be in the road corridor and will not be visible from the national park or residences. The sign has been placed within a road cutting and has been designed to be viewed only by those using the road. It is intended to be mounted below the handrail of the bridge. The sign will provide valuable road safety messaging during the Easter and Christmas peak periods as it the entry and exit point to the north of Sydney.

ORICA PLANT INCIDENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Earlier during question time I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition about the knowledge of my office in relation to the Orica incident. I advise the House that my staff first opened an email informing them of the incident at approximately 12.15 p.m. on 11 August. As members would be aware from what I said on an earlier occasion, at that time I was involved in a highly sensitive meeting involving the Crime Commission. That meeting was interrupted at about 12.30 p.m. when I was informed of the incident. At approximately 12.34 p.m. my office spoke to the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue by telephone in relation to the incident.

PRIVATE SECURITY GUARD WEAPONS

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yesterday Mr David Shoebridge asked me about semiautomatic handguns. I advise that on 12 August 2011 the Weapons Prohibition Amendment (Law Revision) Regulation 2011 commenced. Among other things, the amending regulation included a change to the numbering in schedule 1 to the Weapons Prohibition Regulation 2009. The schedule lists exemptions from permit requirements in certain circumstances, including the possession and use of firearm magazines. The renumbering was necessary to correct cross-referencing that had been thrown out by changes made by the Weapons and Firearms Legislation Amendment Act 2010.

This legislation included additional types of firearm magazines as prohibited articles, which meant that the reference in schedule 1 to the Weapons Prohibition Regulation 2009 was no longer correct because the item listed at item 4 (4) (e) of schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 had changed. The Weapons Prohibition Amendment (Law Revision) Regulation 2011 merely restored the cross-referencing to what it had been prior to the passing of the 2010 weapons legislation. The regulation that commenced earlier in August represented no change to policy. I am sorry: it slipped my mind at the time.

Questions without notice concluded.

OMBUDSMAN

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 and the Ombudsman Act 1974, the report entitled "Report of Reviewable Deaths in 2008-09—Volume 1: Child Deaths", dated August 2011.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.38 p.m.]: Earlier in the debate I referred to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 allowing for the sale, lease or other disposal of land. Currently rail lines cannot be removed or corridors sold without special legislation to formally close the specific line. There are 58 rail lines, including two within the metropolitan area, in New South Wales that have been earmarked as non-operational. The Minister must explain what would prevent rail lines from being ripped up and redeveloped as a consequence of this legislation. The 58 lines include key growth areas, such as the Far North Coast—Murwillumbah in particular—Newcastle and the Central Coast. Members in this Chamber will be greatly concerned if the legislation allows those lines to be ripped up and the land to be sold or redeveloped.

The Minister also referred to the issue of job losses. He put on notice that there would be 350 job losses under this proposal, but of course there probably will be more than that once they start to occur. The Hon. John Ajaka said that Government members have been talking about these proposals for the past three years, which would include part of the time they were in opposition. I would like him to direct my attention to one occasion in the past three years when this Government said it would take away the terms and conditions of workers, that it would sack workers and that it would rip up rail lines and sell the land. I bet he cannot find one reference to that in the last three years.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He did not say that because we will not be doing it.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The Minister says that the Government will not do that. The legislation states in new section 67 (5):

This section does not prevent the terms and conditions of employment of a transferred staff member from being varied.

Government members say that they are guaranteeing terms and conditions, but they absolutely are not guaranteeing terms and conditions. The legislation specifically takes away terms and conditions of staff. The legislation says that Transport for NSW may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any Transport for NSW land. It is very clear.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But not rail lines.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The Minister can clarify that in his response.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you could read legislation, it would be helpful.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: The legislation amends the Transport Administration Act 1988, which prohibits the Government from selling land, but this bill will allow the Government to do that.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [3.41 p.m.]: I will deal in detail with the provisions of the bill during the Committee stage, but at this stage I will pose a number of questions relating to conditions and entitlements of staff who will be transferred to the new entity. This bill is an attempt to undermine the conditions and entitlements of thousands of public transport workers, including policy makers, regulators and those who write timetables—the staff who develop and deliver the functions of our transport services. The bill will transfer employees working under various awards in RailCorp, Sydney Ferries, the Roads and Traffic Authority and other agencies to Transport for NSW, which is a new entity. Importantly, the bill will amend existing section 67 of the Transport Administration Act 1988 to allow the Government to vary the terms and conditions of employment of transport workers who will be transferred. It sounds to me very much like the Government is trying to pull a Patricks—set up a new entity, shift the workers and strip away their conditions. I hope that is not the case.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is not the case.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I hope that is not the case.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The bill indicates that we cannot do that.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I will go through it. The Opposition will move amendments to the bill to retain existing section 67 of the Transport Administration Act 1988, which specifically and explicitly provides that workers' remuneration and conditions of employment are to be maintained on transfer. It is hardly surprising that this Government would try to strip away workers' conditions. As we have seen over the past few months with its approach to public sector wage reform, the Government cannot help it—it is in its DNA. Thousands of workers feel very uncertain about being transferred from various authorities to one entity. The transfer will affect their conditions and entitlements, and we need transfer details to be clarified.

What happens to shift worker status? Shift workers who work on a continuous shiftwork roster receive five weeks holidays. Will they still get five weeks holiday leave? How will this legislation affect their State Authorities Super Scheme [SASS] entitlements and payments when they retire? In the scheme there is an 80-20 rule that provides for shift workers to be paid at the shift worker rate. But what about intervals between shifts? How will this bill affect people who routinely work on the weekend and receive weekend shift penalties? What about payment for excess travel time? What about reasonable offers within 90 minutes door-to-door, on-call and call-out allowances for IT support people, and minimum payments for those who are called out to attend work? How will annual leave loading be affected? I understand the loading is 20 per cent for shift workers and 17.5 per cent for others. How will an industrial allowance be affected? There are travel and incidental expenses, meal and overtime allowances, workplace training and competency assessment allowances and a first aid allowance. We need clarity and details of minimum and maximum part-time hours, sick leave, overtime allowances and higher grade remuneration and recognition for promotional purposes.

I will discuss a number of other issues at the Committee stage, but the questions I have asked reflect the concerns of thousands of workers. It is very important for the Government to clarify the purport of the legislation. I am not sure how many meetings there will be or if there already have been meetings with employee representatives, but I understand the Government has been criticised for transferring staff to one entity to streamline awards. Currently the workers are employed by Sydney Ferries, Maritime NSW, or by the Roads and Traffic Authority in varying sectors, so naturally they have been covered by various awards. The Government must ensure that their conditions and entitlements will not be affected adversely by transferring them to a new entity.

I have seen a media release by the Minister and heard comments made by members about bringing workers into line. There are some workers who work 35 hours and some who work 38 hours. How will the Government explain to workers who work 35 hours that they will be on the same pay for 38 hours work? All the details must be clarified to eliminate uncertainty. I hope that the Government will engage in discussions immediately to allay some of the concerns.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.48 p.m.]: As the House has heard, the Opposition has a range of serious concerns regarding this legislation. It appears that the legislation is a smokescreen to cut jobs and conditions of workers. In spite of protestations from the Government that that will turn out not to be true, the Opposition will keep a very close eye on that situation. The Opposition makes the point that changing the name of an organisation by including "for" in its title will not lead to better services. Moreover rearranging divisions and agencies within a portfolio or combining different organisations to create a very large organisation will not, by itself, lead to better services. Removing the priority ascribed to passenger transportation over freight rail also will not lead to better services, but has significant potential for creating a dramatic loss of service for passengers by increasing commuting times across the rail network.

The Government said that there will be 100 cuts to jobs and a reduction of 350 positions. We do not support job cuts. We do not understand how the Government can argue that transport is a number one priority while cutting the number of staff whose job it is to deliver the service. There seems to be inherent inconsistency between the two propositions. No-one would argue against providing more customer service, security and operational staff to work within the system, but the real issue is whether in the context of the Government's forecast staff reductions that would be achievable. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis and others have stated that unions are unhappy about the level of consultation that has occurred prior to the introduction of this legislation. Certainly a cloud of uncertainty hangs over the jobs of 30,000 people who work in the broad spectrum of government transport agencies.

The Minister and the Government demonstrate that they have very carefully chosen their words by saying that transport workers will not suffer "net financial detriment" following any transfer from current to new employment arrangements. But when one examines the legislation carefully, the Government's commitment is less than copper-bottomed. For example, clause 28 is a proposal to remove entirely existing section 67 of the legislation and provide a new section dealing with terms and conditions of employment for transport workers. But careful consideration of the carefully chosen words reveals that protection for transferred workers appears to be limited to a transferred staff member's base salary and does not include aggregate remuneration and other conditions of employment.

This bill will create a new employer entity. Workers will be transferred from a number of other existing State agencies to the new entity. Some of the agencies currently are under State awards, and the Opposition accepts there are differentials in those awards relating to pay and conditions, such as hours of work. We also understand that some employees currently are working under Federal instruments. It is true that there will be some differentials across the range of employment benefits. We have heard about hours of work and in some cases there are differences in redundancy scales, particularly in the context of job losses or the deletion of positions. The terms of redundancy benefits become of prime importance to employees and their families when employment ceases. Employees who will be redundant after transfer are concerned about new conditions of employment under the new agency and whether redundancy provisions will remain the same after transfer, or be reduced.

The Opposition has searched the legislation for a guarantee that there will be no net financial detriment, but we see that the Government's commitment applies only to base salary. Salary and superannuation is covered by Federal legislation, but the concern centres on a range of other employment conditions, such as redundancy and rostered days off. Rostering arrangements impact on shift loadings. Many workers in the transport sector receive a base salary, but their shift loadings form a large part of their aggregate take-home pay. As I read the legislation, the Government's commitment to no "net financial detriment" may not extend to those types of employment conditions.

Another grey area is salary maintenance when workers are transferred from one position to another but on a different grade. That is not part of base salary. It is a protective condition, but that does not appear to be protected by the terms of the legislation. I know the Government is working hard to deny this, but it is quite likely that people who are transferred from existing employers within the Transport portfolio to a new entity may suffer severe diminution in their conditions of employment, other than their base salary, depending upon the terms and conditions of their employment. That is of concern to the workers, their families and trade unions as much as it is of concern to members on the Opposition side of the House. We await with bated breath a full and more comprehensive commitment by the Government to no net financial detriment.

That begs the next question: The Government stated it gave a commitment in the briefing notes provided by the Government. What happens if a worker says, "I have suffered a net financial detriment. You have not done your maths properly. I am actually worse off"? To whom does such a worker complain? Where do they go? It is not unheard of, even in the public sector, for disputes to occur between employees and employers. Sometimes the dispute is over whether or not money should properly be paid or whether the right amounts have been paid. Currently those disputes come before the Industrial Relations Commission as disputes notified under section 130 of the Industrial Relations Act. Sometimes employment awards or agreements make specific arrangements for dispute settlement procedures, but the fallback or the safety net is the right for an employee to take the dispute to an impartial tribunal and have the matter resolved. In the case of underpayment of wages and related conditions, employees may even go to a court to recover unpaid benefits.

The difficulty with this legislation is that we are talking about a commitment to no net financial detriment following transfer, so we are not talking about an entitlement that a staff member may have going forward. The issue is: How can workers enforce that commitment? The issue is whether they would be able to go to the Industrial Relations Commission in those circumstances. Schedule 1 item [27], which inserts section 66 (5) and (6) into the legislation, makes it clear that the transfer of staff under the division does not give rise to a breach of employment contract or any claim based on the termination of employment. New section 66 (5) states:

Industrial Relations Act 1996

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Why?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: Indeed: Why? If we are not changing the status quo severely and detrimentally for affected workers, why is that provision part of the bill? That provision purports to remove the right to take a dispute notification to the Industrial Relations Commission in relation to any matters that would flow from a transfer from former employment to new employment. When undertaking any kind of bureaucratic reorganisation, particularly one on the scale contemplated by the legislation, there are many unthought-of and perhaps inconsequential difficulties that arise. As much as workers and unions may try to negotiate with management for successful resolution of the discrepancies, sometimes the assistance of an impartial and independent umpire constituted by skilled and trained professionals is required to conciliate and, if necessary, arbitrate to ensure that no hardship is occasioned by changes. But what we have here is a provision in the bill that removes that right and says, "No, you cannot go there".

If there is no intention to disadvantage workers as a consequence of these changes why do we have the prohibition on going to the Industrial Relations Commission? It is of a piece with the Government's public sector wages legislation and regulation. The Government is not content to rest at trying to make the commission and its wage fixing role a mere extension of government administration. It is saying in this case no-one will be allowed to seek an impartial third party to help resolve any disputes or to correct any imbalance that may occur. That is harsh and unfair, and is not in the Government's announcements about these changes. If there is no intention to disadvantage people, why is it there? New section 67 (5) reads:

For instance, a person may be doing a particular job and after a transfer they are effectively doing the same job—they may even be getting the same base pay—but the employer, in the form of the Government, is clearly reserving for itself the right to make changes to that employment. Under clause 27, workers will not be able to seek any independent or impartial redress, particularly if those changes create additions to his or her workload.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis spoke about anomalies in the system—drawing on the Minister for Transport's press release—where some workers may work 38 hours per week whilst others work 35 hours per week. No indication has been given as to how these anomalies are to be resolved. One form of resolution might be to say, "You were doing 35 hours per week for a set rate of pay but you will now be doing 38 hours per week for the same pay." One does not have to be a mathematics wizard to work out that would effectively be a cut to a worker's hourly rate of pay and the Government—in the form of the new transport agency—will be getting an extra three hours per week from that employee for free.

It will have a detrimental impact on workers while the Government gains. One might say, "Who cares, it is only three hours?" But three hours multiplied by 1,200 people—or however many workers might be affected—is a significant number of additional hours of work for which the Government may not have to pay any extra. This could lead not only to an increase in a worker's workload but could also lead to an effective cut in his or her hourly rate of pay. If that is not the Government's intention, I ask the Minister in reply to categorically address each of those points and rule it out. Such a clear statement would help to ease the legitimate concerns of workers in this field.

Under new section 68D the director general may fix the salary, wages and conditions of employment of staff, subject to any other law applying. It also provides that the director general may enter into agreements with unions and the like, which is fine. Strangely, new section 68E (1) reads:

A disciplinary regime involving what used to be the Transport Appeals Board, which has now been folded into the Industrial Relations Commission, already exists. But the bill provides a regulation-making power, which one assumes the Government will use at some point, to create a new disciplinary regime, which has not been disclosed to the public or the affected workers. We do not know what is in it or what effect it will have. Leaving aside the disciplinary regime issue, the regulations may make provision for or with respect to the employment of members of the Transport Service. Is that moving into the area of wage fixing?

[Interruption]

I am reminded by Mr David Shoebridge that new section 68E (2) (b) makes the regulation subject to any relevant award made by a competent industrial tribunal. One wonders why it does not say the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. What other industrial tribunal could the Government be thinking about unless it is thinking that the director general may constitute such a competent industrial tribunal? What the effect will be is unclear. I again ask the Minister to address each of my points in reply to try to put to rest the legitimate concerns of many. By any measure the success of the bill will be determined by any service improvements that are achieved, enhanced and increased infrastructure, greater security on the transport network and improved customer service and communication. Cutting jobs and attacking conditions is not the path to achieve this. The Government needs to engage the active partnership and enthusiasm of workers to achieve increases in service.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe spoke of the complexity of the CityRail system. About one million people use this system daily to get around and to get to and from work. Freight trains, on the other hand, are often unreliable. In practice RailCorp avoids significant disruptions on its network by largely not allowing freight trains to run during peak times. I am informed that transport bureaucrats requested the previous Labor Government to change the priority vis-a-vis passenger rail and freight but it was ruled out by Mr John Robertson when he was the Minister for Transport. The proposal has now resurfaced and the Government appears to be actively embracing it. If a freight train breaks down during peak times it can create enormous disruption—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So can a passenger train. You need to come up with a better argument than that.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: We will be interested to see exactly what the Government's plans are in this area. The legislation also flags seeking greater efficiency by outsourcing the delivery of what is termed to be "non-core services". What are non-core services? More importantly, who will make the call? If this bill is passed, as I expect it will, the Opposition will be interested to see how the Government addresses the areas of concern that have been raised in this Chamber.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [4.07 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party in support of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The object of the bill is to amend the Transport Administration Act 1988 to establish new arrangements for the administration of the New South Wales transport sector: Transport for NSW, the Transport Service and Roads and Maritime Service. The Christian Democratic Party acknowledges that the intent of the bill is for Transport for NSW to be a new integrated statutory body to bring together all the coordination, procurement, policy and planning functions currently performed by the Department of Transport, RailCorp, Roads and Traffic Authority, State Transit Authority, Sydney Ferries, NSW Maritime, Transport Construction Authority and Country Rail Infrastructure Authority.

The bill also aims to address the 14 different awards currently in place. In saying that, the Government has given an assurance that any transferred employees will maintain continuity of service and leave accruals and will not suffer any net financial detriment after the transfer. Transport for NSW will plan for both public and private transport, including roads, rail, buses, taxis, ferries, light rail, cycling, walking, community transport services, regional air services and freight movement. Transport for NSW will provide a single point of contact for industry interaction.

One problem with having many agencies under many different chiefs is that they can spoil the opportunity of purposes and outcomes. So I think having a single point of contact is a wise move. The Christian Democratic Party notes that the functions for Transport for NSW will include improving customer experience, planning, program administration, policy, regulation and procuring transport services, infrastructure and freight. This legislation is important especially for tourism areas, such as the Shoalhaven, Byron Bay and many other places.

The Hon. Adam Searle: The Blue Mountains.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Of course, the Blue Mountains. How could I leave out the beautiful Blue Mountains and my Three Sisters?

The Hon. Adam Searle: Indeed.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: The Shoalhaven uses pedestrian, cycling, car, bus and railway transport network services. Indeed, integrated transport is more important in the Shoalhaven in terms of the arterial routes to and through the city and increasing economic viability, particularly through freight routes. The Minister for Roads and Ports knows the importance of regional New South Wales. I refer to the Minister's media release about abolishing the Roads and Traffic Authority, in which he noted the importance of regional freight routes and regional development. Also, at recent hearings through the member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock, I note that he listened keenly to the concerns of the Southern Councils Group about the importance of the Princes Highway as a strategic freight route and its strategic importance to regional development. I applaud the Minister's attentiveness. I look forward not only to ongoing discussions but also to the results which I am sure we will see in the fullness of time.

While the Christian Democratic Party supports the legislation and believes that it is a great step towards a solid transport system for New South Wales, I echo the concern of other members that although the plan for transport for New South Wales was canvassed many months ago the legislation was only made available yesterday, which makes it tight for stakeholder input. My first impression is that the legislation looks fair. I do not see any problems with it, although I listened to the contributions of honourable members and I am sure concerns will be raised in Committee. I believe this bill will streamline the management of transport in New South Wales from start to finish, and will play a significant part in cutting red tape. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.12 p.m.]: I have pleasure in supporting the passage of this bill, which establishes an integrated transport authority to be called Transport for NSW. It puts the needs and expectations of customers at the centre of the planning and delivery of transport services through the coordination of planning and policy across all modes of transport. The bill puts into place a key commitment made by the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals while in Opposition—the policy was announced back in 2008 and was confirmed by the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads and Ports last month. Under the previous series of Labor governments transport planning, coordination and service delivery were scattered across a range of transport agencies—some of them quite obscure—that competed against each other for planning and priority and for budgets. By creating this integrated agency, the new Liberal-Nationals Government will put customer needs at the centre of every transport decision.

There will be a coordinated approach to the development of policy and planning services, and planning and delivering transport infrastructure will be coordinated across each transport mode. The transport system will be better designed to support the economic development of the State, and planning, investing in and delivering transport infrastructure will be done on time and on budget, unlike the recent history of the transport agencies in New South Wales, which led to a complete lack of confidence in any transport plan that was put up periodically by a succession of transport and roads Ministers. Customers will see integration between train, bus, ferry and light rail timetables, and there will be infrastructure to support pedestrians and cyclists, which will be planned in conjunction with other road users.

There will be an integrated ticking system. Of course, Labor's integrated ticketing system project never saw the light of day despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on it by the previous Government. One-stop shops will provide access for drivers licences and boating licences as well as information about various modes of transport. Stakeholders will have a single clear point of contact to discuss their needs, be they users or providers interested in taxis, buses, trains, light rail, ferries or community transport, cycling or walking. The bill establishes Transport for NSW as an integrated authority with six divisions focussing on customer experience, planning and programs, policy and regulation, transport services, transport projects and freight and regional development. The bill abolishes four transport authorities: the Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW Maritime, the Transport Construction Authority and the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority.

In previous Parliaments I have chaired a number of transport-related inquiries by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4; for example, the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service, the upgrade of various parts of the Pacific Highway and the transport needs of Sydney's north-west sector, all of which noted the lack of an integrated transport body in New South Wales. The report on the transport needs of Sydney's north-west sector highlighted the mess that the previous Labor Government had got itself into, causing great suffering to the population in the growing north-west sector of the capital city. The committee examined transport integration in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland and Western Australia, and noted that rail and road infrastructure in Brisbane and Perth have been integrated to a large extent.

One of our witnesses and an expert witness in this area, Dr Laird, cited the example of Queensland where recently completed busways have had rail tracks laid within them, allowing for conversion to light rail later. He said that such options should be considered in New South Wales. He pointed out that Queensland has rolled out several busways and is in the process of building more, and I am told that every one of them is capable of conversion to light rail. For example, if we go to a scenario as suggested by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation with petrol and diesel at $8 a litre, it would become advantageous to switch from buses to either light rail or heavy rail because we can use home-grown electricity. Some of the new southern suburbs railway in Perth was retrofitted into the median strip of a freeway. Dr Laird noted that many of Sydney's tollways and freeways do not have the capacity for retrofitting or conversion to rail because they are too steep in places to accommodate the grade required. He also said that he considered it an opportunity lost that a corridor was not reserved down the middle of the western orbital when it was built.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 looked at the issue of preserving corridors for multiple use, and commented that the Roads and Traffic Authority's evidence to the committee was indicative of the fact that if the pursuit of joint corridors is not a firm policy—and the Roads and Traffic Authority had indicated that it was not—of the previous Government or a strategic objective, then it is unlikely to occur. Particularly insightful was his comment that having two projects happening at the same time was an issue in itself. The committee commented that a more strategic approach to integrated transport would consider and plan for combined transport corridors as a single project, and such an approach would be more likely with a single integrated transport planning authority. The committee had a number of submissions which recommended that a single integrated transport authority should be established, and that such an authority should be responsible for network-wide transport planning and prioritisation, as well as direct expenditure on transport infrastructure. When the concept of such an authority was raised throughout public hearings, it was met with consistent support from participants. Much of the support for such an authority derived from participants' dissatisfaction with the apparent current inability to plan for and deliver over the long term—something for which the previous Government became infamous—the perceived competitiveness and lack of collaboration between the various transport and planning agencies as well as the frustration of having to deal with various agencies regarding one issue.

The Property Council said it believed there was a clear lack of the governance arrangements required to set, cost and deliver long-term transport priorities, particularly major capital intensive projects such as rail. The Transport and Tourism Forum advocated the need for an integrated transport authority for Sydney, drawing on the experience of Melbourne and Brisbane. It suggested that the Government look at Melbourne's Metlink and TransLink in Brisbane where basically all the planning and operational services of those particular networks and government bodies are combined so that the marketing, planning and operational undertakings are coordinated in a central body. The Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils recommended that a single transport authority be established to coordinate and integrate all modes of transport so as to avoid each mode being planned and operated in a competitive and self-serving manner. The committee noted that in his speech introducing the 2008-2009 mini budget the former Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, indicated that better coordination between transport agencies would occur. He said:

We know that better coordination did not result. There was no clear indication of the extent of the new collaborative approach contained in the Treasurer's speech. A former head of the Roads and Traffic Authority, Mr Dobinson, argued strongly in favour of integrated transport planning. He said also that funding for the various transport agencies should be pooled. He said in evidence before the committee:

On the one hand you have bus organisations, really the Ministry of Transport and the State Transport Authority with a budget that big; you have a road authority with budget this big. When you start to think about planning an integrated system, you have to think about one budget and you must use it in the best way. I ran the road authority, God, I ought to know.

He said if it was better coordinated much more could be achieved with the current average expenditure on transport and gave some figures to that effect. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 commented that it:

… believes that the current capacity for planning, coordinating and delivering an integrated and efficient transport system for Sydney's needs needed a significant improvement. On the weight of the evidence it received during the Inquiry, it agrees that the establishment of an Integrated Transport Planning Authority with responsibility for network-wide integrated transport planning and for the prioritisation and direction of all transport infrastructure expenditure is required.

So it recommended:

That the NSW Government establish an Integrated Transport Planning Authority with the responsibility for network wide integrated transport planning and for the privatisation and direction of all transport infrastructure expenditure.

It is true that belatedly the outgoing Labor Government in its death throes talked about integrated transport but it needed a change of government to bring about this transformative legislation, a reform bill such as the one before the House now. Often parliamentary committees' recommendations may not be taken up by the Government of the day no matter the wisdom possessed therein. But many are later implemented by a fresh government, one determined to set matters right, such as the new O'Farrell-Stoner Government in New South Wales. So it is very pleasing that the Liberal-Nationals Government is acting so early in its term of office to implement that recommendation of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4. I commend the Ministers responsible, the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, and the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Duncan Gay, for bringing forward this bill. It is a very important part of the new Government's mandate. I wish them well in setting it up, implementing it and getting transport integrated in New South Wales. It is very long overdue.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [4.25 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens to endorse the words of my colleague the Hon. Cate Faehrmann who led the debate for The Greens. She set out in some detail The Greens' response to the integrated planning modelling that lies behind this legislation. I do not intend to cover that material as well but I do wish to place on the record the real concern that I think all members of this Chamber—apart from the Minister and potentially other members of the Government—have at the manner in which this legislation was brought before the House. It was moved with purported urgency yesterday. At that time the Government had not circulated the legislation to other members of the House. After belatedly circulating a weighty tome of some 70-odd pages of legislation with many cross-references and amendments, it then sought to move on generational legislative change in transport, with, effectively, less than 24 hours notice. No consultation occurred with any of the key transport groups about the specifics of the legislation and no, or little if any, consultation—I think there was some discussion at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon with the unions—about some of the specifics in these amendments. The Government did not provide this legislation to the unions, to the key stakeholder groups, or to the key transport interests here in New South Wales until it put it on the notice paper yesterday. The Minister read it on to the record and then expected all those interest groups to come to terms with complicated legislation with 24 hours' notice. That is not good government. It is not good practice.

It is remarkable that this Government is adopting some of the poor practices of the previous Government when introducing legislation with little notice. One would have thought this was a chance to demonstrate generational change. The legislation is meant to be putting in place structures that will withstand the test of time and produce systemic change in the delivery of transport infrastructure and services in New South Wales. Why was it moved with urgency? Why was the legislation not laid on the table for a minimum five sitting days and not put out to broader consultation? Because if the Government listened to the people of New South Wales, to the people who have been looking at transport for the past 10 or 15 years, and got their input, the legislation would be greatly improved.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We have been talking about this for months.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The hubris with which the Minister makes that interjection proves the point that the Government thinks it knows best, that it has all of the answers. It will learn. This Government, like the previous Government, will learn that no individual administration has all the answers; that you get better legislation if you consult rather than just ram it through. No doubt, in time we will see the wrinkles that could have been ironed out with some reasonable consultation up front.

I would like to deal with two matters of more legislative substance. The first is some real concern about the industrial relations provisions in the bill. Some of the concerns of The Greens mirror some of the concerns raised by the Hon. Adam Searle in his contribution, but some are distinct from them. One of the real concerns lies within proposed new section 67 in the Transport Administration Act, which is clause 28 of the bill. That section does a number of things. It seeks to allow for the transfer of persons' employment from one entity to the Transport Service of New South Wales. It will allow that transfer to happen from a number of entities.

Of concern is that it will allow for the transfer of employees from entities currently covered by the Federal industrial law, the Fair Work Act, which provides for a fairer ongoing system for setting wages and conditions than does the new lean, mean Act that the Government has put in place for public sector workers in New South Wales. Workers at Sydney Ferries, RailCorp, the Transport Construction Authority and a number of other statutory authorities are currently employed by constitutional corporations and their employment conditions are determined primarily under enterprise bargaining agreements that are negotiated and registered federally under the Fair Work Act.

Principally, new section 67 (2) will allow for the transfer of employees of constitutional corporations such as RailCorp to the Transport Service of New South Wales. Upon transfer, a grandfathering clause states that their current entitlements will be protected whilst ever they are employees. However, the Federal enterprise bargaining agreements will each cease to have effect in 12, 18 or 24 months. Had they remained in one of those constitutional corporations, the workers would have continued to have the benefit of the fairer Federal industrial system, which would have allowed them to take protective action if necessary, to negotiate and to bargain for wages and conditions that exceeded the 2.5 per cent cap—which is the less than the inflation rate—imposed upon public sector workers in New South Wales. In addition, they would have an ongoing entitlement to fair wages and conditions and the capacity to bargain under the Fair Work Act. However, the workers will not have that capacity because they are being roped into a now deeply unfair State industrial system that places a 2.5 per cent cap on their wages.

While workers might hold on to conditions for 12, 18 or 24 months, when the current enterprise bargaining agreements cease to have effect, they will be thrown back into the lean, mean State public sector system. It is likely that a number of them will then effectively have their wages frozen for a number of years whilst the miserly rates of pay that will be handed out to public sector workers of New South Wales slowly catch up with the fairer rates of pay that can be bargained federally under the Fair Work Act. This legislation will apply to at least a couple of hundred employees, who will be roped into the Transport Service of New South Wales and will lose the benefits of a fairer and superior Federal system. They will have grandfathering entitlements for maybe two years but will then effectively be on a wage freeze delivered courtesy of the Government's grossly unfair industrial laws that have shanghaied public sector workers in New South Wales.

It is a further illustration of the unfairness of the so-called reforms forced on the public sector by the O'Farrell Government. Worse still, it shows the Government's intended template of rolling out and minimising the conditions of the 30,000 public sector workers currently employed by constitutional corporations—workers who thought they were free from the grasp of the finance Minister's new laws attacking public sector employees in New South Wales. This legislation shows that even those 30,000 public sector workers are not free from the potential grasp of the finance Minister or from the Government's intention to reach into the pockets of every public sector worker in this State and to reduce their wages over time. They might have thought they were protected under the Fair Work Act but this bill demonstrates that the Government will attack even those workers and rope them back into the State public sector. The Government knows that it can tell the Industrial Relations Commission what to do and can reduce the entitlements of public sector workers by fiat of the finance Minister to the commission.

I foreshadow that The Greens will move amendments in Committee to ensure that public sector workers who are dragged out of the fairer system and moved to the lean, mean State system will continue to receive the benefits of further negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements that occur in their constitutional corporations. We will move those amendments to ensure that the couple of hundred workers who are affected by this bill continue to have their ongoing entitlements protected. We look forward to the Government and crossbenchers—who claim they want to protect workers in New South Wales—supporting those provisions. We will also move amendments to new section 67 (5), which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned in passing, that provide that the new section does not prevent the terms and conditions of employment of a transferred staff member from being varied. According to the Government, the provision that protects the entitlements of workers does not do anything to stop them from being varied. That is no protection at all. The Greens will move amendments to ensure that if the Government wants to vary those entitlements of a transferred employee that are meant to be protected by the new section—and purportedly protected by the Government—it will require the consent of the transferred staff member. That is an essential protection. The transferred employee would obviously be willing to consent to improved conditions, but the purpose of this provision is to ensure that their conditions are not attacked by the Government absent the consent of the worker.

Another substantial concern relates to the capacity of the director general simply to fix the wages, salaries and conditions of employment of staff under new section 68D. That is an extraordinarily broad power to give to the director general. Basically it is a plenary power to fix the salary, wages or conditions of employment of staff under this part. It is not clear—the Government does not specify—that that power is subject to new section 67, which is required to protect the entitlements of transferred employees. There is no mention of new section 67 when the plenary power is given to the director general.

The Hon. John Ajaka: That is not so: read the last sentence of 68D.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It says, "by or under any other law".

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're being dishonest again.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection of the Hon. John Ajaka and the somewhat rabid barking of the Minister. Neither knows how to read the Act. It states:

(1) The Director-General may fix the salary, wages and conditions of employment of staff employed under this Part in so far as they are not fixed by or under any other law.

Section 67 is not another law; it is this law. The Hon. John Ajaka has some legal training so I would appreciate it if he would use that training in his interjections and try to understand the meaning of terms in the Act. It is not a reference to section 67 nor does it refer to protection under that section.

The Hon. John Ajaka: I disagree.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Hon. John Ajaka can disagree all he likes about the plain terms of the legislation. But the legislation says what it says, and claiming that black is white will not change the legislation. One hopes that if the Government intended to have that protection it will have the good sense to agree to The Greens' foreshadowed amendment. The power is subject to section 67, to the Industrial Relations Act of New South Wales and the award-fixing power of that Act. If that is the intent, why not say it? The same applies to the provision in new section 68I—that is, the capacity to retire a permanently incapacitated worker. Obviously that provision should be subject to the unfair dismissal supervisory powers of the Industrial Relations Commission under part 6 of chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The Greens will move amendments in Committee to make it explicit so that workers are not forced to go through often time-consuming and costly legislation seeking declaratory remedies under section 154 of the Industrial Relations Act in an attempt to hold the Government to the letter of the law under new section 68I. We need to make sure that workers have the capacity to turn to the low-cost—indeed, the no-cost—jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission regarding unfair dismissal, and The Greens will move amendments to insert that fairness.

Lastly, there is substantial concern about the amendments to section 99D of the Transport Administration Act that remove the clear priority that is given to passenger services and insert instead the qualified term of "reasonable priority" to passenger services over freight. Of course, The Greens have longstanding commitments to supporting the expansion of freight rail. But there are a number of choke points in the rail network in New South Wales where there is a direct contest between freight and passenger services. This occurs principally in the Hunter Valley, the Illawarra and in the Blue Mountains, where passenger services and freight—primarily coal movements within New South Wales—compete directly for scarce railway lines. Increasingly, State governments have been giving priority to coal movements over passenger services. This provision should send a warning signal to those residents in the Hunter, the Illawarra and in the Blue Mountains that the Government is going to give their passenger services a lower priority than coal services. That is the clear intention of this change.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are a bleeding hypocrite liar.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Point of order: I ask you, Madam Deputy-President, to finally make the Minister account for his foul-mouthed interjections and the unbecoming unparliamentary behaviour that he is displaying in this Chamber. Please draw him to account.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I remind all members, including the Minister for Roads and Ports, that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is continuing disgraceful behaviour such as that from Ministers of the Crown that brings this Parliament into disrepute. It is continuing base interjections—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Not six-hour speeches?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is simply sledging and abuse from a man who holds the office of Minister of the Crown. Sledging and abuse, childlike bullying and name calling from a man who holds the position of Minister of the Crown is totally out of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Mr David Shoebridge spent 10 minutes sledging me and I responded once. But he has a glass jaw and is now targeting me. If Mr David Shoebridge does not want people to react to him, he should be careful about what he says. He cannot have it one way.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I suggest that members on both sides of the Chamber be civil towards one another. They should direct their comments to the bill rather than at one another across the Chamber.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Wake up to yourself, you idiot.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: For the record, following your ruling the Minister for Roads and Ports sat down and said "Wake up to yourself, you idiot." He is a Minister of the Crown. That is consistent with his previous sledging, calling me a hypocrite from across the Chamber.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I think it is appropriate advice for you. You lie in the Chamber day after day.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Point of order: The Minister just said that I lie in the Chamber day after day. The Minister is bringing this House into disrepute with his sledging at the table. He is making it difficult to contribute to debate on an important bill but, worse still, he is bringing the office of Minister of the Crown into disrepute by schoolyard sledging and schoolyard bullying that is not at home even behind the stumps from the Australian cricket team, let alone here, where he is carrying out the duties of a Minister of the Crown. I ask you to draw the Minister to account.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! All interjections are disorderly. I urge members to behave civilly towards one another and to confine their comments to the bill that is before the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The change to the Transport Administration Act that reduces the priority of passenger services and puts in place a lesser test of only "reasonable priority" for passenger services through the amendment to section 99D of the Act is a direct threat to the ongoing secure and reliable provision of passenger services to residents in the Illawarra, the Hunter and the Blue Mountains. It is a substantial concern for The Greens that the Government will prioritise the provision of principally coal freight services through those three regions that are already choked with substantial coal freight movements. The one thing those residents have had to back their argument for prioritising passenger rail services is the statutory obligation to give priority to passenger services, but that is being stripped away by this change. The Government and the Minister may want to deny it, but it is an ongoing concern for those residents who expect timely rail services and not the prioritisation of coal freight movements.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [4.45 p.m.]: Earlier in the debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 I interjected in a disorderly manner across the Chamber during the contribution of the Hon. Lynda Voltz and said words to the effect of, "What about Labor closing the branch lines?" The Hon. Steve Whan countered with words to the effect of, "You can talk; you were the ones who closed Cooma". If it had been the Hon. Luke Foley, whose historical judgement I respect, I would have assumed that that was true. However, as it was the Hon. Steve Whan, I decided to investigate the issue. I looked on the excellent nswrail.net—which is a fantastic resource for anyone who has an interest in the history of New South Wales railways. I am not good at very much, but I am pretty good at my history and my research. So I thought I would find out exactly when the Cooma mainline service closed. I discovered that the Bombala service closed on 26 March 1986 and the Nimmitabel mainline service closed on 26 March 1986. Was the Minister for Roads and Ports around then?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I came in with the first Greiner Government.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: The Deputy Leader of the Government came in the first Greiner Government in 1988. When did Cooma close as a mainline station? I discovered that, like Nimmitabel and Bombala, it closed on 26 March 1986. That means that technically Cooma did not close under us—using the broad definition of "us" as being the Coalition, or the Greiner Government at the time. The Cooma mainline service closed under a Labor Government. I say to members opposite: I am not much at many things but if they think they can try to flim-flam me and impugn my historical knowledge then they should make sure of the grounds on which they are speaking before they open their mouths and direct allegations across the Chamber.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [4.47 p.m.]: I wish to contribute to debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Are you going to speak to the bill, Greg?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Yes, I will make a contribution that is relevant to the bill. I will not comment on what Opposition members, particularly the Hon. Sophie Cotsis and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said during the debate. They focused particularly on industrial relations matters, and I wish to associate myself with their remarks. However, I will pick up on a couple of points that flow from their contributions. I refer to the way in which employees transferred into the new entity will, in effect, have their wages and working conditions saved. I use the word "saved" in a general sense because when a restructure takes place within an organisation existing or new employees of that organisation occupy different positions in terms of rates of pay and entitlements.

Typically, an employer creates savings clauses or clauses that protect the terms and conditions that the employees have enjoyed to that point. This is normally done in a comprehensive manner to ensure that employees subject to the restructure do not go backwards in terms of their wages and entitlements. It must be said that negotiating a comprehensive savings clause that brings together employees from various backgrounds in terms of wages and conditions can be a complex process. Nonetheless, knowing that there is a proper saving or red circle—it can be called different things—regarding their wages and entitlements brings those employees great comfort. Yesterday the Minister made a particular comment in his second reading speech to which I will refer. It appears on page 9 of the Hansard proof. The Minister said:

Consultation with Unions New South Wales and the transport unions on the changes has taken place and is ongoing today. Already, the integration has commenced, and employees from a range of agencies have been assigned and are working side-by-side in the Department of Transport as a temporary arrangement.

The following is the key point. He continued:

Without the changes proposed by this bill, the current legislative and award arrangements would mean that when employees are transferred it would result in them continuing to work side-by-side doing the same or similar work while being paid different rates of pay and working under different conditions of employment.

Essentially, the Minister then made a value judgement, and said:

This arrangement is untenable and has to be addressed to avoid the significant administrative problems that would arise out of the ongoing management of such disparate employment arrangements and the likely industrial disharmony that would ensue.

The fact is that the unions are going to have to come to terms with the changes that flow from the restructure brought about by this legislation. I think it is quite presumptuous of the Government to assume that it knows the best way to develop the terms of savings arrangements with respect to employees. I find it difficult to comprehend that a great deal of thought has gone into the development of a savings clause because the bill—I am looking specifically at pages 14 and 15, which deal with section 67 of the Act—does not contain a traditional savings clause to protect existing employees. Instead we have a clause that tries—and I would argue ambiguously or potentially unsuccessfully—to deal with the issue of transference of employees into the new entity and what that means for them. Instead of the Government saying, "We are going to do this restructuring and we acknowledge that it is a significant exercise" and saving properly employees' terms and conditions of employment in savings clauses, it has introduced a transference-type provision. All that transference provision does is provide that employees will be transferred to the new entity and essentially the only protection they can rely on and have some certainty about relates to their base salary. New section 67 (1) states:

The terms and conditions on which a transferred staff member becomes employed on being transferred by an order under this Division (including terms and conditions as to remuneration, allowances and duration of employment) are, on the transfer date, those applicable to the position to which the staff member is transferred, except as otherwise provided by this section.

I have read the entire section, and there is a problem. The rest of the section deals primarily with protecting the employee's base salary. However, even the base salary is not protected completely because new section 67 (4) provides:

base salary

Without knowing the extent of those monetary benefits—and there could be many or there could be few, we do not know; it may well vary from employee to employee, depending on which award they are covered by—we have a situation where there is only a saving in terms of the way in which the base salary is defined, which is not comprehensive. In fact, the bill restricts the way in which "base salary" is defined in terms of what it can include. So there is no complete and full definition of "base salary". Another aspect of this provision is that conditions are not covered. There is a partial base salary definition, but nothing about conditions. Some conditions are very important and are embedded in awards, and in many cases involve genuine employee entitlements. New section 67 (5) is particularly troubling. It states:

That brings me to the question of the way in which the new entity, which is going to be the distinct employer of these employees, will operate. I take this opportunity to invite members, if they have not done so already, to read the briefing note that I understand was distributed yesterday by the Minister for Transport when the legislation was introduced. On the first page, the third dot point states: "The Transport Service of New South Wales, which will be a distinct employment entity and part of the broader public sector although it will not be part of the Public Service, is to employ staff under New South Wales industrial laws in accordance with terms and conditions set by the directorgeneral." Four pages later there is further elaboration. It states, "The Transport Service of New South Wales, subject to direction from the Minister, will be the employer of the staff in the Transport Service of New South Wales."

It will enable all employees of Transport for NSW to be employed on the same style of award, which represents another value judgement, "to avoid the current situation where employees are on a multitude of awards", which refers to conditions. The notes also state, "The Chief Executive of Transport Services of New South Wales will have the statutory authority to employ and fix the salary, wages and conditions of its staff and address promotions, appointments and discipline. The DirectorGeneral of Transport for NSW will be able to transfer its staff from other transport agencies." In spite of discussion across the table, the precise effect of that provision vis-à-vis new section 68D is still not clear to me or to other members. New section 68D states:

It seems to me that nothing will prevent the director general from creating an award that will apply to employees of the new entity without referring it to an industrial tribunal for conciliation and/or arbitration. New section 68D (1) seems to vest a great deal of power in a bureaucrat—the director general—that will enable him or her to unilaterally determine wages, salaries and conditions of employment. Of course the director general may inform himself or herself of wages and working conditions paid for similar work by referring to existing awards currently applying to employees who will be transferred. However, there seems to be no obligation or requirement in the bill to take those conditions into account in developing what will become the wages and working conditions of Transport for NSW employees in the future. As other members have stated, the difficulty with the legislation is that it has been introduced quickly and members consequently are required to make speedy deliberations and judgements about the meaning of its provisions. The Government must give serious consideration to protection of current entitlements of staff who will be transferred.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about section 68E (2) (b)?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I will deal with that in a moment. The Government must consider the consequences for employees who are transferred to the new entity. The Opposition strongly argues that that cohort must have comprehensive savings provisions with respect to their wages and working conditions and will endeavour to safeguard protections by moving amendments at the Committee stage. It is equally important to consider the position of future employees of the new entity. It is clear that the director general will play a very significant role in the determination of wages and conditions of employment for future employees of the new entity. The Minister has drawn my attention to 68E (2) (b), which states:

That does not deal with the issue of the wages and conditions fixing powers that the director general has. Why does the bill have new section 68D, which states that the director general may fix the salaries, wages and conditions of employment of staff?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is tempered by new section 68E. I think your concerns are unfounded.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No. My concerns are not unfounded at all. At the end of the day the term "may fix" vests power in the director general to fix wages, salaries and conditions of employment of staff. It clearly does that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But it states "subject to".

The Hon. John Ajaka: And also states, "any relevant award".

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: We are talking about new employees, not employees with saved entitled conditions. We are talking about future employees who will be covered by a new award that will apply to them. It seems there is no obligation whatsoever imposed by the bill upon the director general to involve the Industrial Relations Commission in fixing the award for future employees of the new entity. The Minister and I will have to agree to disagree.

Part of the difficulty members have is trying to understand the ramifications of the Government's proposal. I do not suggest that some are not being completely honest about the implications of the legislation, but when a provision of a bill clearly provides that the director general "may fix salaries, wages and conditions of employment of staff", it seems to vest significant power in the director general. I will postpone other comments to the Committee stage when the Opposition will move amendments. I look forward to participating in that part of the debate.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [5.06 p.m.]: I will briefly add my comments in support of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I do so because I think this is good legislation that will achieve real outcomes and benefits for the people of New South Wales, including those who live in regional communities. I commend the relevant Ministers for introducing this bill. It was made very clear to the people of New South Wales both during the election campaign and prior to it that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition, if elected, would be committed to improving public transport for customers and, by doing so, would ensure better integration of all aspects of transport. That can be achieved only by establishing an integrated transport authority, and that is exactly what this legislation will do.

Without this legislation any attempt to establish an integrated authority would simply become a game of musical chairs, with various transport agencies competing for resources rather than working together as one team. Planning for Transport for NSW is well and truly underway. I am advised that work already has commenced on the new authority's structure, which will consist of six key divisions. One of the divisions will be the customer experience division, which will ensure that all transport customer needs, preferences and opinions are given the highest priority in all decision-making, planning, activities and operations. The customer experience division will lead the organisation in ensuring that all transport planning, policy, investment and services are driven by and focused on customer needs. I believe the focus on customer needs is the crucial part of this legislation and it is something that has been lacking for some time in our current system.

Through this legislation the Government will ensure that the transport services offered to the people of New South Wales will be of the highest standard. The customer experience division also will focus on shaping and positioning public transport as the most attractive option for the people of this State by making it seamless and easy to use. This also will further deliver on our election commitment to improve public transport in this State. The customer experience division will be the advocate for public transport users and for road users in the operations of the new integrated transport authority. Another key division within the new authority will be the planning and programs division whose aim will be to bring into one division the planning of all modes of transport, identify transport needs and produce integrated transport plans. The planning and programs division also will manage the overall investment budget of Transport for NSW and coordinate Transport for NSW's submissions to Infrastructure NSW.

The third division within the new authority will be the transport projects division, which will be accountable for the delivery of all major public transport projects, including strategic procurement for rolling stock and fleet. As a proud member of The Nationals and a regionally-based member of this House, I am particularly interested in how this bill will improve services for people who live in regional communities. I am pleased that the new fourth division of freight and regional development division of the authority will ensure that New South Wales supports improved productivity, particularly in the regions, with an efficient and effective freight transport system, which is so important to the livelihood of many regional communities.

The freight and regional development division will be the central point of coordination for the New South Wales Government's role in freight transport, distribution and services. For the first time this new division will consolidate the coordination of key freight system components such as road, rail, marine, ports and intermodal terminals, and it will provide a single point of contact for industry. It will have enormous benefits. The freight and regional development division also will ensure that the New South Wales freight network supports regional development by connecting to key locations where freight is generated and delivered.

The fifth division in the new authority will be the policy and regulation division, which will drive strategic policy for the Transport portfolio and focus on development and implementation of customer-focused policy solutions in many respects, such as the performance of public transport provided by bus, rail, light rail, ferry, taxis, regional airlines and hire cars; national transport reforms and initiatives; transport network and service access and pricing; driver and vehicle licensing and registration; and roads, maritime, boating and public transport safety. The policy and regulation division will work with industry stakeholders on policy matters and reform processes and it will shape New South Wales' contribution to the national agenda.

The sixth division within the new authority will be the transport services division. Simply put, this division will plan and procure the best possible transport services for New South Wales by delivering on the customer strategy and standards of Transport for NSW and by delivering value for money for the New South Wales public. It will procure transport services from the operating agencies, including RailCorp, the State Transit Authority and the new Roads and Maritime Services. The division also will develop and manage with those agencies performance contracts and work with them to ensure a seamless transport system in our State. To achieve those intended outcomes, the division will undertake the key tasks of service planning, development and improvement; service procurement, including contract development; ticketing services, including the electronic ticketing system; and integrated timetable development. The bill will improve the New South Wales transport system. I am pleased to commend it to the House.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [5.12 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. For the information of members who may not know, before I was elected to this House I worked in a number of different occupations. In the mid to late 1980s, part of my varied past involved working for the New South Wales railway, which was then known as the State Rail Authority. I am an unashamed supporter of rail. I am a firm believer in the benefits of rail. However, I recall what it was like to work on the railways from 1988 to 1990 under the Greiner Government. I remember the staff freezes, the job cuts and the plummeting employee morale.

I will express my concerns in relation to the bill, although some already have been canvassed by other members. My first concern is about the proposal to remove the current priority given to passenger rail services and transfer priority to freight services. I am concerned about the impact of that on country passenger rail services because those services are important to people who live in rural and regional areas of New South Wales. We need timetable surety. Freight transport can be variable in its transit times and train length—for example, choke points can be caused by the length of freight trains—and that can impose serious pressures on signalling and passenger rail services. I am hopeful that the Minister for Roads and Ports, who well understands country issues,will provide an assurance to the House and to country passengers that country passenger rail services will not be negatively impacted upon by the proposal to assign "reasonable priority" to freight services, as stated in the bill.

I am also concerned about the abolition of the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority and the transfer of all of its functions to Transport for NSW. Of particular concern is that the transfer will occur only after the completion of a rigorous rail safety change management project. I assume that is intended to allow for a review of rail safety systems and to provide a framework for its transfer to the new entity. However, I ask the Minister to advise the House in his reply when he expects the rail safety change management project to be completed, and on what date the transfer of the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority's functions will be effected.

In addition to being a supporter of rail, I am also a supporter of the rail trail concept, particularly where community consultation has taken place and when a community supports the alternative use of their rail corridors. I have perused the bill but I am still not clear about the process of transferring a long disused rail corridor to community use. That is an important concern for people in rural and regional New South Wales. Currently an Act of Parliament is required to change the use of a corridor and to transfer the land to community use for something like a rail trail. I ask the Minister to provide an assurance that the current process to close or transfer rail corridors will continue to operate, and that the bill will not change that process. I am always cynical when the Government puts forward a seemingly well-intentioned bill. The intentions of this bill cause me to harbour the most serious concerns. I will make a further contribution to debate at the Committee stage.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [5.17 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 in terms similar to those expressed by my Country Labor colleague, the Hon. Mick Veitch. I begin by expressing some similar issues—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: About Cooma?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I will mention Cooma in just a moment. The Government Whip's comments earlier cannot go without a response, which I am sure he expects—judging by the grin on his face when I entered the Chamber. The Opposition has indicated its support for the bill, but also has indicated an intention to move amendments at the Committee stage. It is logical to have a single authority: The Government promised that in the lead-up to the election. To date the Opposition has not stood in the way of any obvious mandate, but it is reasonable for the Opposition to move amendments that will protect employee entitlements. That is a key concern for the Labor Party. The Government's form is on the board as a result of its public sector wage legislation. The process of chipping away at the entitlements of public sector workers already has begun and, consistent with the form of its predecessors, the Government will continue chipping away. The Opposition is keen to ensure that proper protections such as preservation of rights and transferability of employee entitlements are included, and we will continue our efforts to achieve that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not benchmarking, Steve?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Minister for Roads and Ports spends a great deal of time at the table just to make interjections. If he wants to discuss the Government's plans for Forests NSW, to which he alluded in his interjection, I would be more than happy to oblige him. He expects people to believe that prior to the election when he said there would be no job cuts in the Department of Primary Industries, the people concerned were supposed to know that forestry, which was part of my Primary Industries portfolio, was excluded from the guarantee. Today I issued a press release about this because that level of hypocrisy was worth pointing out.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It wasn't very good. It was the usual run of Steve Whan releases.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The usual run is generally good, particularly in country New South Wales. The people of New South Wales do not like the hypocrisy and trickiness of a government that says after an election, "Ha, ha, we fooled you all. When we said we would protect jobs in DPI we didn't mean the ones in forests. You should have known that." That was how the Minister performed yesterday. The people not laughing about that are the families who are about to lose their incomes. They should be taken more seriously. Shame on the Minister for those comments.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They should thank you for benchmarking?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: If the Minister wants to talk about benchmarking, he should move a motion to do that. I am more than happy to talk about how Forests NSW should meet community service obligations in the work it does and how that should be funded by government. I will come back to that when I discuss rail. As someone who has been in government, I know that proposals are made repeatedly to make cuts and to adopt an economic rationalist approach, and country rail lines are no exception. The previous Labor Government said no to that. Coalition governments go along with the proposals and then blame someone else. But I digress.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are being precious.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: If the Minister wants to interject on other topics, I am happy to speak about them. The Hon. Mick Veitch raised the issue of the precedence for freight. I would appreciate the Minister providing a comprehensive response to that issue during his reply.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You and your city colleagues don't want regional freight to come through.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I appreciate the need for freight in New South Wales to be enhanced and the need for policies that will ensure that more freight is moved by rail. I do not think anyone would argue against that. Our concern is to ensure that country rail service timetables are not delayed by the reversal of precedence. It is important to ensure that freight services and the reversal of priority do not upset country rail passenger services. The Coalition has form on country rail passenger services. All governments receive consultant reports stating that country rail passenger services are not viable. We certainly received such a report when Minister Costa was responsible for Transport. However, as a result of a lot of work by Country Labor members, our rail services were saved. Interestingly, prompted by the point made earlier by the Government Whip, I recall a large meeting in Queanbeyan attended by a former member for Monaro, Peter Cochran, who gave me some advice, as he often did. He said, "Steve, fight for this rail service because one of my greatest regrets during my time as member for Monaro was the closure of the Cooma railway." He acknowledged that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was closed before he became a member.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The website quoted by the Government Whip states that the Bombala line was closed on 17 May 1989 and the Cooma line was finally closed on 29 May 1989.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Say why—because your Government did nothing for the Numeralla Bridge.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The history expert opposite might want to know that the line was closed because it was too expensive to upgrade the Chakola Bridge. That is why the Coalition Government decided to close the line. Peter Cochran stood up in the public meeting and said that that was one of his greatest regrets. Let me examine the Coalition's form on country rail services. Coincidentally, I am quoting the same website as was quoted by the Government Whip. Tallying up the closures, the previous Coalition Government closed more than 1,300 kilometres of rail lines in country New South Wales: the Oaklands branch, the Corowa branch, the Rand branch, the Bombala line, parts of the Main South Line, Eugowra, Grenfell, the Molong to Dubbo line, the Crookwell branch line—I am sure the Minister will be interested to know that 57.1 kilometres of the Crookwell line was closed on 18 September 1989—the Hay branch, the Tumut branch, the Inverell branch and the Main North Line. That is the Coalition's form.

I remember in the other place watching Bob Carr talk about branch lines. Indeed, he talked about a line that was closed by the Coalition where the station was bulldozed. Unfortunately I cannot remember which line it was, but he loved to frequently tell that story in the other place. After the raft of promises that the Coalition made to the people of New South Wales about railway lines, this bill does not guarantee that the Coalition Government will deliver anything in terms of its promises on rail. I will be watching developments with great interest. The Labor Government closed one railway line—I think it cost us the electorate of Tweed at the ensuing election—and that was the Murwillumbah line. Geoff Provest came into Parliament with a firm promise that he would reopen that line. I am still waiting to see it happen. Because of Geoff Provest's firm commitment, I await the Minister's endorsement of reopening the Murwillumbah rail line. Indeed, I remember the member for Tweed saying he would get out there with a whipper-snipper to keep the line clear until it was reopened.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: He hasn't because I was up there recently on a weekend and it was covered with weeds.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The last time I saw the line it was overgrown, so clearly that promise went by the wayside. Geoff's whipper-snipper was not much good. Maybe it broke down.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you sure it was just weeds?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Well, it is the North Coast. The Hon. Mick Veitch referred to the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority. I seek an assurance that priority will be given to country rail infrastructure in the new structure. I refer again to the appalling record of the Liberal-Nationals on rail. It is no wonder Country Labor members are suspicious about their commitment to country rail services. One of the first actions by the Greiner Government was to cancel the Silver City Comet to Broken Hill. It was not until Labor returned to govern that rail services were reintroduced on that line. It was a vital rail service for Broken Hill, yet the Liberal-Nationals decided to close it. Investment in rail services has not been particularly brilliant from this Government.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: This Government? How long have we been in Government?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: We know the Liberal-Nationals' record on the airport rail link, which is still a problem, and the cost to people travelling to or from the airport on that line. The previous Labor Government reduced the cost of travel to the two suburban stations on that airport line. We are now seeing the processes relating to the interesting promises about the North West Rail Link. That railway line manages to carry only four trains an hour.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It only goes to Chatswood.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It only goes to Chatswood. The Government will have another problem with that line because of the commitments made by the member for Parramatta. He has been telling the other House how committed he is to having a train line that runs from Castle Hill to Parramatta. This Government wants the Federal Government to break its promise to build the Epping to Parramatta rail link. It will be interesting to see whether the New South Wales Government keeps the promise made by the member for Parramatta to have trains running from Castle Hill to Parramatta.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I always love enthusiastic local members. That's why you lost your seat. You didn't fight for rail.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Minister's interjection is not a ringing endorsement of the plan of the enthusiastic member for Parramatta. I am sure the constituents of Parramatta will be interested to know that. As I said, the Opposition is willing to support this bill—after all, the Coalition took the policy to the election—but we require clarification of some matters. As this bill is considered we want to hear some assurances, particularly for country areas, and we want protections for employees, which are so important here.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.32 p.m.]: I have some concerns about the bill. First is the abolition of the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority, which is dealt with in schedule 4 to the bill. This would seem to indicate to residents of country New South Wales that no special attention is being paid to the rail infrastructure requirements of rural and regional New South Wales. I ask that the Minister respond to this concern in his speech in reply. Second, the bill will alter existing provisions for the transfer of staff between public transport agencies so that transfers will be on a "no detriment" basis in place of the current arrangements for a transfer to be on the basis of the existing terms and conditions of employment. If I were to be completely cynical I would say that this legislation is nothing but a smokescreen to cut jobs and conditions of workers.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: But you are not cynical.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I am never cynical. I am also concerned that the Government has said that there will be a hundred cuts to jobs and a reduction of 350 positions. We do not believe that with the range of commitments that the State Government has made on transport that it can afford to cut any jobs in this new organisation. We do not understand how it can argue that transport is a number one priority, but reduce the staff of the agencies that deliver on that number one priority. Third, I urge members to support the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow Minister, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, which will give certainty to employees being transferred between transport agencies and guarantee that they will continue to have the rights and conditions they have at present. In the explanatory notes, schedule 2 (c) states:

(c) the Minister will be authorised to transfer commercial port facilities that are vested in the Maritime Authority (currently the ports of Eden and Yamba), together with the staff employed at those ports, to a new Ports Corporation.

I am concerned that this is being done in an attempt to set these two ports up for future privatisation. I ask that the Minister give an assurance that this will not be the case and that the ports of Eden and Yamba will stay in public ownership. Fourth, proposed section 2B (1) (f) (iv) provides that a common objective will be to achieve greater efficiency by outsourcing the delivery of non-core services.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What's that got to do with privatisation?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: If the Minisiter will answer that in his reply, I will be happy. It is difficult to support this part of the legislation without knowing what are defined as non-core services, so it is entirely reasonable to be very sceptical about the intentions of this section of the bill. The Minister should detail in his reply exactly what are meant by non-core services. If he does not do this then it would be reasonable to presume that this is a let-out clause to allow wholesale outsourcing of transport services.

Fifth, item [12] of schedule 1 contains a new section 35C (1) stating that "Sydney Ferries may operate Sydney ferry services". What does "may" mean? The Minister should explain this as well. Does it leave it open for full privatisation of ferry services? If this is the case, the Government should be honest and the public have a right to know. Sixth, item [17] of schedule 1 contains a gratuitous name change from the Transport Advisory Council to the Transport Advisory Board. How much will this name change cost and why is it so essential? A number of name changes to government agencies appear to have no real necessity so it is important that we know why this change is made. I urge the Minister to respond sensibly to the questions that I have asked and I urge all members to support the amendments foreshadowed by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [5.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate and for their indicated support in principle for the bill. Improving the public transport experience for customers is a priority for the New South Wales Government. The key to improving services is to understandcustomers needs and views. I will try to address this in general. I did not note the Hon. Amanda Fazio's particular points but there was only one that was not raised by other members—the ports of Yamba and Eden. The detail there is to improve the manageability of those ports in a proper maritime way. It is certainly not setting up the ports of Eden and Yamba for privatisation.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Mick Veitch and others raised the issue of reasonable priority for freight lines. Much of the existing rail network is a shared railway system. The movement of both passengers and freight is important to the success of our community and its economic good. It is important that we encourage appropriate investment in our train system by freight providers. If they were to make that investment and provide additional infrastructure it would seem reasonable for new rail freight infrastructure to give at least reasonable priority to freight movement. It is nonsense to imply that any sensible administration of a railway system should not give reasonable priority to both passenger and freight movement.

The Government is about growing the transport system and encouraging the participation of stakeholders. Our networks have suffered through lack of investment, and we want to provide the framework to maximise that opportunity. I emphasise that the Government will give appropriate priority to passenger movement—we have to—and we will also develop our economy. One has to askhy the previous Government was unable to come to an arrangement with the Federal Government to invest $840 million dollars in the northern Sydney freight corridor? The answer is because of the current limitations under the Act it could not give reasonable priority for freight on this new infrastructure.. the Government is now trying to change that so we can have new investment to allow for this sort of infrastructure to go ahead.

It is appropriate that the Opposition spokesperson on transport should raise safety. There will be no diminution of safety as a result of this legislation; quite the contrary. That is the why the Government is putting the Rail Safety Accreditation Working Party in place. We want to make sure that with the new integrated arrangements there is clear accountability and allocation of responsibility for safety on our network. We want all involved in transport to thinkabout safety.That is why the Government is sorting out these details before incorporating the Transport Construction Authority and the Country Rail Infrastructure Authority into the new integrated agencies.

Our working party includes all of the current rail chief executives and the independent safety regulator. The question of the relationship between Infrastructure NSW and Transport for NSW—this is for the benefit of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann and for the Hon. Penny Sharpe—is a fair question, but we suspect it is a story that has been planted in the media by Federal agencies. It certainly has not come from New South Wales. Transport for NSW and Infrastructure NSW are working cooperatively to make sure that the people of our State have a transport system they want to use. We are determined to build a transport system in New South Wales which puts the customer first.

We want Sydneysiders to choose trains, buses and ferries instead of their cars, not just when they go to and from work but when they meet friends for dinner, go to the movies or see a show. The Government has tasked Transport for NSW with the preparation of a transport master plan. The new transport master plan will provide an overarching integrated and multimodal strategy upon which investment decisions can be made. The plan will inform the projects and investment decisions necessary to respond to growth and demand and it will focus on industry and the community's transport needs, with strong connections for the movement of people, goods and services.

Importantly, the transport master plan will set clear objectives for identifying and prioritising transport investment decisions, taking into account network capacity and costs. Informing the master plan will be a suite of evidence-based specialist strategies looking at the long-term rail plans, a freight strategy, a light rail strategy and investigations of particular corridors and centres such as the Sydney central business district. Government investment decisions regarding short-, medium- and long-term transport modes must be based on a solid factual foundation. Future demand and needs assessments will drive project identification as well as service requirements, economic appraisal, and environmental and engineering information.

Infrastructure NSW will also play a key role in the process of prioritisation of infrastructure identified in the 25-year transport master plan. As I said, the new integrated transport authority, Transport for NSW, will work closely with Infrastructure NSW to identify the best fit investment program to meet budgetary requirements for the five-year and 20-year horizons. Investment programs will be based on the alignment of infrastructure projects to government objectives relating to transport, net economic benefits to the State, alignment to land-use priorities, customer satisfaction, funding availability, level of risk and complexity. The Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Steve Whan and others referred to non-core services and outsourcing.

The Government has publicly announced a significant change program for transport. Today we are dealing with the integrated transport agency. We are also looking at corporate and shared services as part of a whole-of-government review, which, to the credit of members opposite, started under the previous Government. Like many things they talked about it, we are geting on with the job of doing it. We have announced a new integrated agency and adjustment of the roles of the transport service providers to focus on delivering high-quality transport services. We are currently in the process of franchising Sydney Ferries, with a focus on delivering improved services. We took these policies to the election and we are delivering on them.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe and others referred to the ministerial advisory council. As Minister it is important that I work closely with stakeholders across the road, freight and maritime areas. In the transition to integrated transport the Government believes it is important to provide a formal process to get effective maritime input into key planning and policy development. It is my belief that this formal input was neglected in the past when the former State Labor Government abolished the council and ignored stakeholders. The maritime industry was screaming out to be heard and we are simply correcting the failures of the previous Government, although the odd Minister in the seven was better than the others, Joe Tripodi being one that was better in this area.

The new Maritime Advisory Council will advise me on matters referred to it or any other matter the council considers relevant to recreational vessel safety, commercial vessel safety, expenditure priorities, research priorities and boating infrastructure. The council will include representatives with expertise from the major recreational boating and commercial vessel sectors and it will be an invaluable source of expert and independent advice on boating safety. The Government believes in tailoring its interaction with stakeholders to get the most effective input and seeks this input from all stakeholders across the whole of the Transport portfolio.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann expressed concern about active transport. For the first time there will be a specific point of contact for all modes of transport and industry players, including cyclists and pedestrians, in the policy and regulation division of Transport for NSW. There will be a designated officer for this point of contact to assist interaction with the agency. In addition, the planning and programs division will include officers to plan active transport—bicycles and pedestrian—to ensure that these needs are reflected in our integrated transport plans. Gone are the days of a non-coordinated approach to active transport. We want to work with everyone, to ensure that people have a voice, as we develop an overarching plan to deliver the best transport outcomes possible.

Many members referred to employment conditions. I state at the outset to make it clear to all the scaremongers opposite, particularly The Greens, that there is an express provision in the legislation ensuring that transferred staff will not suffer any net financial detriment following their transfer. This has been discussed with the unions. The New South Wales Government has had monthly meetings with the unions to discuss the policy and to keep them updated on the transition and legislation.

Currently the Department of Transport has been staffed by employees from across the public sector, including seconded employees from RailCorp, State Transit, Roads and Traffic Authority and Transport Construction Authority. The employing authority varies across those entities and employees have a multitude of varied employment conditions. Across the agencies, there are currently 14 awards and agreements covering staff. This situation perpetuates complex and unwieldy employment conditions that have developed over time, some of which provide flexibility but most do not. These factors prevent the implementation of uniform, efficient and modern conditions of employment.

I am advised that staff coming into Transport for NSW would be covered by seven of these different awards and agreements if we did not introduce the new award. In order to achieve improved employment and industrial relations outcomes the Transport Service of NSW will be created to provide staff to Transport for NSW. It will operate in a similar way to the Teaching Service, Health Service and New South Wales Police Force as created by their relevant legislation.

The Transport Service of NSW, subject to direction from the Minister, will be the employer of staff in the Transport Service of NSW. It will enable all employees of Transport for NSW to be employed on the same style of award, to avoid the current situation where employees are covered by a multitude of awards. The Chief Executive of the Transport Service of NSW will have the statutory power to employ and fix the salary, wages and conditions of its staff and address promotions, appointments and discipline. The Director General of Transport for NSW will be able to transfer into it staff from other transport agencies. Once transferred, those employees will be covered by employment conditions set by the Transport Service of NSW, with the proviso that transferred staff will not suffer any net financial detriment following their transfer. The Director General of Transport for NSW will also have the power to transfer staff between agencies. Transferred staff will maintain continuity of service and leave accruals.

The new award for employees in the Transport Service of NSW, other than those in the transport senior service will be made in consultation with relevant unions and, if necessary, with the assistance of the Industrial Relations Commission. In establishing the new award it is proposed to establish conditions similar to those available to public servants and to ensure that inefficient provisions in other transport cluster awards, such as unlimited salary maintenance and no involuntary redundancy, are not carried over to the new organisation.

For the benefit of members opposite who struggle to understand the legislation, the employment provisions in this bill relate to the staff in the new integrated authority, Transport for NSW. They do not change the employment conditions of those continuing to work in the remaining agencies. I assure those members opposite that there is nothing in the legislation to preclude employee representatives, that is, unions, from working with the director general and the Industrial Relations Commission to negotiate a fair employment outcome. It is important that I emphasise for all employees, not a part of the transport senior service, there will be a written award that clearly defines the workforce conditions and this award will reflect normal conditions of employment in the public sector. I further emphasise that the content of this award will be finalised in discussion with employee representatives and, if necessary, with the assistance of the Industrial Relations Commission. That is the normal way to resolve these issues, and the Transport Administration Act facilitates that process.

The referral by the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Mick Veitch to the disposal of lands is simply scaremongering and there is no validity to those concerns. There is nothing in this legislation that supersedes section 99A of the Transport Administration Act 1998. That section precludes a rail infrastructure owner from closing, selling or disposing of a railway line without approval by an Act of Parliament. The Government is making a difference to customers of our public service transport services. The people of New South Wales have given the new Government the job of fixing the transport system. This bill will take advantage of the efficiencies larger agencies can bring so the Government can deliver transport reforms for all of New South Wales. Transport for NSW will be the driving force for transport reforms. It will host the policy, strategy and regulatory components and guide our investment decisions.

Recently I was asked what would be the key thing we needed to do for ports. I would say it would be to open the supply line. For the first time in a long while there is an enthusiasm in getting that supply line right—to get consignments from the ship to the shop and from the port to the paddock. It is important to ensure that that happens. The people who have been appointed as deputy directors general are outstanding—there were more than 200 applicants for each of those roles. The changes introduced by the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 can only improve services for the people of New South Wales. We will make sure that our transport system meets the needs of our State now and in the future. As the Minister for Roads and Ports I believe that in an integrated transport system the key issue to removing congestion is to get people off the roads. That can only be done by having an integrated body—an issue that all members of this House have taken on board. This bill has received in-principle support from all sides, which I appreciate. Tomorrow in the Committee stage we will look at amendments but in general terms I appreciate the support of all members. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Committee set down as an order of the day for a future day.

SENATE VACANCY

Joint Sitting

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MR PRESIDENT

Consideration of message set down as an order of the day for a future day.

RESTART NSW FUND BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August 2011.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [5.56 p.m.]: When contributing yesterday to debate on the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011 I referred to the Waratah bonds and, as always, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox listened in rapt attention. I referred also to the sources of funding for the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011, a bill which is unnecessary and which is only a showpiece to make the Government look like it is doing something. As we all know, the Government, Treasury and TCorp could set up a bank account that has exactly the same functions. If the Government wishes to borrow money to put into this fund, it could raise that money through TCorp, probably at better rates on the markets. Last year the Coalition put forward Waratah bonds in response to the budget as a stunt to try to make the people of New South Wales think that a Liberal-Nationals Government would spend more money on infrastructure.

In last year's budget we saw record spending on infrastructure by the former Government of $16.6 billion, and it remains to be seen whether this Government comes anywhere near matching that $16.6 billion investment in infrastructure in New South Wales. I said yesterday that this Government will be able to borrow money, if it wishes, at reasonable rates because the former Government left this State in a very healthy financial position with a triple-A credit rating. The black hole myth has been perpetrated by this Government. I refer to an independent assessment of that myth by the Parliamentary Budget Office and its assessment of Premier O'Farrell's press release when he made claims of various things, including being saddled with this black hole. The Parliamentary Budget Office, an independent body, said:

The media release offers other claims of "gross economic incompetence". Insofar as fiscal policy is concerned, the state's AAA status does not support this claim. A fear that the budget deficit "could grow even further" is merely an assertion made without evidence. A claim that "Labor had 'cooked the books' to distort the true state of NSW's finances" is not supported either by the report issued by Mr Lambert or by this Office's examination of available data.

A further claim that moving the timing of payment of rail grants is a "dodgy deal [used] to deceive the people of NSW into thinking the State's finances were sound" was likely made without understanding how prevalent is the use of this technique throughout Australia.

The Parliamentary Budget Office concluded:

The above analysis suggests that most of the claims made in the relevant media release of 27 April 2011 are unsupported by evidence or conflict with available information on the state's fiscal position and budgetary processes.

In other words, it was essentially saying that the media release by the Premier was complete fiction. That was also borne out by the assessment by Treasury, which failed to back up the Premier's comments. Matt Wade reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

I noted that the report of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office referred to a number of occasions when, as Leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Farrell would have been made aware of changes to the budget situation that occurred after the mid-year budget report and therefore, once elected, had no basis to claim, "Oh, shock, horror, there is a black hole!" This completely destroys the credibility of those on the other side of the Chamber and in the other place who cry that there is a budget black hole and who seek to justify budget cuts. The bill is a veneer, an attempt to suggest that something is going to happen to increase infrastructure investment in New South Wales. We see that from the number of members in the other place who rattled off wish lists of projects that they said would be funded. It will be interesting to tick them off as we go and see how many will eventuate.

On the list so far to be funded by this bank account, which has no funds in it, are the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line reopening, the Tweed hospital and a rail line to the Gold Coast Airport. Traffic congestion in Parramatta will be solved and there will be more parking at Westmead Hospital, an M4 East extension and a Castle Hill to Parramatta rail line. That is very interesting because the Government claims that the Federal Government should break its promise to fund the Epping to Parramatta rail link. It wants to take that money and use it on its project. The bank account is also going to fund Main Road 92 to Braidwood, the duplication of Kosciuszko Road, connecting roads to Canberra and Bobeyan Road. Erskine Park Link Road is another interesting project. The member for Mulgoa mentioned it in her speech as something that had not been done by the previous Government; she said it was a disgrace that the Erskine Park Link Road had not been constructed. Yet miraculously, just 23 days after the Coalition won government, she announced that a contract had been awarded to build the road. It is funny how the Government found the money for that project in only 23 days.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Before it had even started.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Before this even happened—it is amazing, is it not? It just goes to show the depths of deceit to which this Government will sink to try to claim credit for everything. My colleague the Hon. Mick Veitch might have more to say about that. According to the member for Albury, the account will fund the Mulwala-Yarrawonga bridge and, according to the member for Camden, the Narellan Road upgrade and Camden Valley Way. It is going to be used for sewerage works at Buxton, Douglas Park, Wilton, Yanderra and Bargo, Picton Road and Appin Road, and intermodal facilities will also be funded—and that is not to mention the biggies.

What happened to The Spit tunnel? Do members remember The Spit tunnel proposal? I think it was during the 2000 election that the Liberals promised to build that tunnel. They were also going to build a Blue Mountains tunnel. Perhaps that is back on the cards since Bells Line of Road seems to have fallen off the agenda now that they are in government—contrary to the promises made to those in mid-western electorates before the election. We have all heard the promises about the Princes Highway—everything is going to be fixed—and the North West Rail Link, which at the moment seems to be the only thing we hear about from the Government. One member in the other place did not promise to fund any projects from this source, which is quite interesting—and I am sure we will come back to that. The member for Bathurst told us that nothing had happened in his electorate for 16 years but then could not mention anything that he thought should be done. Perhaps the Hon. Mick Veitch will want to address that point; we will see how we go.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Country Labor, the two of you—oh, sorry; it is the whole of Country Labor.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Working as a team. Yesterday when I was speaking to the bill members opposite challenged me to name infrastructure that had been delivered in Monaro. For their benefit, I brought along a list of the 480 or so items that were delivered. I will refrain from going through them all, but they include the Lanyon Drive duplication, renal dialysis at Queanbeyan Hospital, the Q Performing Arts Centre, the Queanbeyan Trade School, the ambulance station and Tompsitt Drive. There are a few other things on the list. Capital works delivered by the Labor Government include the Berridale sewerage works and a new school at Jindabyne, the Jindabyne Central School—and a member in the other place said that nothing had happened in 16 years! Government members love to stand up and claim that the former Government was addicted to spin and no substance, but they have shown us up. We were no good at it. This Government is producing spin and lack of substance in spades, as we saw in the amazing contributions by members in the other place. Interestingly, members all read out the same few paragraphs—they appeared in every single speech—and then launched into their little wish lists. They all started their speeches by saying, "Nothing happened in the last 16 years". We have the wish lists, but the electors of New South Wales know when people are just putting up political spin—and that is what we are already getting from the Government.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: That is why you got booted out profoundly. Short memory.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Hon. Marie Ficarra interjects. I was informed today—I did not know it before—that she used to be a member of the lower House and she lost her seat. She must hate it when the Hon. Duncan Gay talks about the "losers lounge". She must cringe and feel a little sensitive about that. Was it not a relatively safe Coalition seat when the Hon. Marie Ficarra took it over?

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much audible conversation and interjection. The Hon. Steve Whan has the call.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I will resist going further through my list. I might come back to it on a future occasion. I refer the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox to my website, which lists the achievements in full. In politics one knows that one's political opponents are the most frequent visitors to one's website. That is a well-known fact. I was a most regular visitor to the Liberal Party website before the last election when I was trying to find some policies—and I did not find many. The previous Labor Government had a strong record of investment in infrastructure in New South Wales—$16.6 billion in the last budget. We saw in the recent Parliamentary Library paper that the value of infrastructure in New South Wales rose between 2009 and 2010 from about $210.9 billion to $224.9 billion. The paper also stated that the majority of general government capital expenditure was funded by operating surpluses—which is what the Government, when in opposition, would have called "windfall gains".

We will be interested to see what happens to the NSW Local Infrastructure Fund under this Government. I will be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about that when he replies to the debate. I will also be very interested to see whether the fund is used to make good the promise that the Hon. Duncan Gay made to mining-related councils at a debate that I attended before the election regarding a New South Wales royalties for regions program. Indeed, he made several promises. Admittedly, the Hon. Duncan Gay said, "I do not have total control over this; the Treasurer has to approve what I am going to do". But he certainly made a commitment that the fund would provide $160 million for a royalties for regions program, and I will be watching carefully to see what happens. A number of the councils said that it was chickenfeed compared with what they expected to get from the Coalition, but the commitment of $160 million is on record and, like those councils, I expect to see the program delivered.

Similarly, I note the Premier's promise of a Hunter investment fund. That was an interesting one. The Premier promised that the Hunter investment fund would be funded in part by the money that would be saved by not building the Tillegra Dam. But he forgot that that money was to be raised from water rates paid by people in the Hunter. It was probably one of the most embarrassing moments in the election campaign. I am sure that Coalition members who have some understanding of economics cringed when they heard him say that on radio.

Dr John Kaye: Who's that, Steve? Name them.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I struggle to name them, but I am sure there are some.

Dr John Kaye: Phelpsy—of course, he understands.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I know nothing.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' comment that he knows nothing should go on the record. I do not think the Hunter investment fund promise is covered by this fund but it has a mysterious source of funding—much like the three sources of funding that will be used to fill the bank account that this bill seeks to establish. The previous Government's good financial management resulted in New South Wales having a net worth in 2011 of $152 billion, which was an increase from $136 billion in June 2009. There was continuing investment in State infrastructure and assets, which increased the State's net worth and is the reason why New South Wales still has a triple-A credit rating. It is the reason why, if the Government does decide to borrow funds for this account, it will do so at a better rate than most other governments in the world. New South Wales is one of the few governments in the world that has retained a triple-A credit rating. That is a credit to the previous Government, and we will monitor the situation to see how this Government copes. The Opposition supports the bill, but we note that it is unnecessary. It is a stunt. The Government could have established a separate account within Treasury to do the same job. This bill is about filling the legislative agenda during a very lean period because, after 16 years in opposition, the Coalition does not have enough legislation.

The Hon. John Ajaka: It was announced prior to the election.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Yes, the fund was announced prior to the election but it did not require legislation to establish it. That is the point. If those opposite do not understand that then they need to learn how TCorp and Treasury work. I want to see from the Government a commitment as to the amount that is to go into the fund and a real regional development strategy rather than a grab bag of titles with no substance. I support the bill and commend it to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.15 p.m.]: The Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011 delivers on a key component of the Government's 100 Day Action Plan to invest in essential infrastructure across New South Wales. The bill provides for a new Act to establish the Restart NSW Fund that will set aside funding for critical infrastructure projects such as hospital upgrades, public transport and improvements to roads in order to reduce congestion. New South Wales is caught in a vicious cycle as a result of Labor's economic mismanagement for 16 years, which has left the State exposed to economic shocks such as the recent instability in global financial markets. I am a little surprised, Mr Speaker—no, Mr President—at the last speaker.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Change the notes before you come in here.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My notes, which are handwritten, say "Mr President". The Hon. Steve Whan should be embarrassed that he said anything negative about the bill. It is extraordinary. He has a very short memory. The new Government has been in office for six months. It made commitments prior to the election and within six months is delivering on them. And what was the Hon. Steve Whan's response? After 16 years in government—16 years of failure, and he was a Minister for a proportion of that time—the member said, "I support the bill but it is all smoke and mirrors." The only smoke and mirrors was his speech. He should be embarrassed with his contribution. This Government committed to doing real infrastructure work in a State that needs it desperately as a result of the Labor Government's failures. But instead of congratulating the Government on moving to establish the fund, those opposite criticise us and say, "You do not need to do it this way; you could open another bank account." The former Labor Government did not open a new bank account in 16 years, nor did it proceed with any real infrastructure.

What are the achievements of the former Government? Let us consider a couple of the major infrastructure proposals that it put to the people of New South Wales and then proceeded with. The Tcard was meant to be operational in 2000 but had to be scrapped completely. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the Tcard—it was a complete joke. You can still see sealed-off Tcard equipment at train stations. Members opposite are silent about that. What about the Rozelle metro—which I like to call the incredible metro to nowhere? Some $500 million was completely wasted on that project. Labor members do not mention that. Imagine what the Government could do if it had that half a billion dollars in a fund today to use on worthwhile infrastructure projects. Let us consider the hospital waiting lists. Those opposite do not want to talk about that. Former health Ministers tried to convince the public and this House that the waiting lists were only very small. But we discovered the truth when we came to government and the books were opened. Our estimates about hospital waiting lists were wrong—the situation was worse than we had projected.

I congratulate the Government and the Minister on introducing this bill to restart New South Wales. Those opposite criticise it, even though they failed to deliver. This Government is determined to get our State back on track and to drive economic growth because without economic growth there is no additional revenue for infrastructure. Those opposite forget that, due to its failures, developments that once made New South Wales the number one State suddenly went to Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia—I have nothing against South Australia; it is a beautiful State—and Tasmania. New South Wales lost billions of dollars in revenue that it will never be able to recoup. Those billions of dollars could have gone into the State coffers, but amazingly those opposite forget that.

Restart NSW will allow the Government to rapidly upgrade infrastructure across the State and to address the economic competitiveness of New South Wales. Infrastructure NSW will be at the forefront of addressing the infrastructure backlog in New South Wales, with a mandate to make recommendations to government and prioritise projects to address emerging infrastructure challenges driven by population growth. I emphasise the word "mandate". This was a crucial policy of the Government when in opposition and a policy that the people of New South Wales clearly embraced when they voted at the last election. The former speaker, the Hon. Steve Whan, appears to take objection to the Government reminding the House about the results at the last election. He feels the Government should stop doing that and move on. When he considers his many colleagues in the former Government who lost their seats at the last election and the very small number of Labor members who now sit in the lower House, he should be embarrassed. The people of New South Wales made very clear what they thought of the former Government—the Hon. Steve Whan's colleagues—when it came to spin. The people of New South Wales had had enough; they did not want to hear it anymore. They did not want to deal with Labor anymore and, most importantly, they did not want to vote Labor anymore. The Hon. Steve Whan should stop criticising the Government for introducing a bill in accordance with the mandate that it was given by the people of New South Wales.

Projects to be funded by the Restart NSW Fund will be considered as part of the detailed five-year infrastructure plan and 20-year State infrastructure strategy, with Infrastructure NSW to make recommendations as to which projects will be funded. Restart NSW will fund projects such as public transport infrastructure; hospitals and health infrastructure; road infrastructure to address urban congestion, black spots and missing links; economic infrastructure to address the economic competitiveness of New South Wales, including freight, intermodal facilities and water; local infrastructure in regional areas that are affected by mining operations; and improvements to workplaces for front-line workers, including law and justice officers, teachers and nurses. The Government is committed to providing better infrastructure across the entire State, with 30 per cent of the fund reserved for projects in regional areas. The Government is determined to address the previous Labor Government's neglect of our State's infrastructure.

Restart NSW will help New South Wales to regain its reputation as Australia's number one place to live and to do business. Perhaps members opposite do not want New South Wales to be number one again because they definitely made sure of that over the past 16 years. It is extraordinary that New South Wales went from being the number one State in Australia to where those opposite have taken us. By regaining that reputation, the Government will reveal the Opposition's failures. Funding for Restart NSW will include appropriations by Parliament and the budget process, including any such money certified as windfall tax revenue in excess of budget forecasts. Funds spent from Restart NSW will be open and transparent, with the Auditor-General reporting annually to Parliament to ensure that moneys have been invested in line with the fund's investment mandate. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [6.23 p.m.]: I support the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011. The bill introduces an Act to establish the Restart NSW Fund as the New South Wales Government's infrastructure fund to build certain essential infrastructure. Introducing legislation to create Restart NSW was a key component of the Government's 100 Day Action Plan. The Government is getting on with the job of funding vital infrastructure projects such as public transport, road improvements to reduce congestion, water utilities, freight and hospital upgrades. Infrastructure NSW will be at the forefront of addressing the New South Wales infrastructure crisis. Projects to be funded by the Restart NSW Fund will be recommended by Infrastructure NSW and assessed in the budget process against the five-year infrastructure plan and the 20-year State infrastructure strategy. Restart NSW will fund projects such as public transport infrastructure; hospitals and health infrastructure; roads infrastructure to address urban congestion, black spots and missing links—such as those across the Chamber—economic infrastructure to address the economic competitiveness of New South Wales, including freight, intermodal facilities and water—

The Hon. Steve Whan: Do not read the same speech again.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: No, I added the bit about missing links across the Chamber. Other projects will include local infrastructure in regional areas that are affected by mining operations, and improvements to workplaces for front-line workers, including law and justice officers, teachers and nurses. Funding for Restart NSW will include appropriations by Parliament and the budget process, including any such money certified as windfall tax revenue. Did I say that slowly enough for the Hon. Steve Whan? I repeat that the funding will include windfall tax revenue in excess of budget forecasts; borrowings, including the issue of Waratah bonds to the people of New South Wales; and the interest proceeds from investment of money in the fund. Any additional borrowings used to fund the Restart NSW Fund will be undertaken in strict compliance with the State's fiscal commitment to maintaining a triple-A credit rating—have Labor members got that? Restart NSW will fund a range of future New South Wales infrastructure projects, with 30 per cent reserved for projects in regional areas. I say again for the benefit of the two Country Labor members—the only remaining members of faction across the Chamber—that 30 per cent of the fund will be reserved for projects in regional areas.

[Interruption]

Sorry, did I not speak slowly enough? Funds spent from Restart New South Wales will be open and transparent, with the Auditor-General reporting annually to Parliament to ensure that moneys have been invested in line with the fund's investment mandate. This is an important bill. Fundamentally, it ensures that politics will never again corrupt the prioritisation of capital works in New South Wales. Under Labor, this State experienced some of the most disgraceful and inept management of infrastructure that has ever blighted this country. The $500 million wasted on the metro disqualifies Labor from government for the next generation. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [6.27 p.m.]: In considering the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011 I turned to the Hansard of the debate on the bill in the other place. It was an absolutely fascinating read—in fact, I recommend it to those members with a few moments to spare. In his contribution the Hon. Steve Whan commented on how all the speeches by Government members in the debate in the lower House commenced with the same opening paragraph—almost the same as that read by the Hon. Scot MacDonald today. Lower House members were obviously guilty of tedious repetition during debate on the bill, but the contributions of some of the new Coalition members in the lower House were very interesting.

I understand that new members can get quite excited, but their bolshie speeches were dripping with hubris. There was a constant mantra that nothing had happened for the 16 years. Obviously those new members have not yet realised that what is said in Macquarie Street will find its way back to their electorates. The danger is that someone will take them up on it. Some of the contributions were fantastic. In particular, I was quite drawn to the contribution made by the member for Bathurst, who clearly is ambitious. If I were the member for Murrumbidgee, I would be a tad concerned about my position as Deputy Leader of The Nationals. I think the member for Bathurst is eyeing him off; I think he is biding his time on the backbench, conniving and scheming.

The Hon. Steve Whan: They all are.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: They all are—that is the problem. The member for Bathurst is conniving to be the next Deputy Leader of The Nationals. If I were the member for Murrumbidgee I would be a tad concerned about that. What was said in the other place about this bill is the clincher.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The House continued to sit.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: As I was saying, this is the clincher. The member for Bathurst said:

Apparently there was no infrastructure spend at all in the Bathurst electorate. That means that the member for Bathurst cannot conscionably accede to his name appearing on a plaque at an opening of any of recent infrastructure.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Perhaps a hospital?

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Maybe the brand new base hospital. That would be infrastructure, would it not? It probably is—but the member for Bathurst does not know about it. Not only should he not have his name on a plaque, he also should not have the audacity to attend the opening of any infrastructure project—because he said it did not happen. The member for Bathurst is on dangerous ground. The contribution by the member for Toongabbie was interesting. He has an outstanding memory. Labor members know not to challenge the member for Toongabbie because he has such a good memory. In his contribution he thought it was important to list some of the infrastructure spends in the Bathurst electorate. He said that a new hospital was built in Bathurst, a new hospital was built in Lithgow, multipurpose service centres were built in Blayney, Oberon and Rylstone, a new CAT scanner was provided in Bathurst, a new fire station and a new TAFE building were built in Bathurst, Kelso High School was rebuilt, and a number of rural fire sheds were built.

The Hon. Steve Whan: I know; I opened some of them.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: The Hon. Steve Whan opened some of these rural fire sheds. He has his name on a plaque.

The Hon. Steve Whan: The member for Toongabbie probably opened some, too.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: That is probably right. The Hon. Steve Whan knows that because he knows the infrastructure spend that occurred. Some $10 million was allocated for the Mount Panorama race track. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham was talking to me about the infrastructure spend on the Mount Panorama race track. It is apparent that the member for Bathurst—I suggest he is Toole by name but fool by nature—has gone out of his way to set a high benchmark. Apparently none of the infrastructure I mentioned exists. But it was provided. The member for Bathurst will have to become a high achiever during his term because people will be watching his contribution with regard to infrastructure spends.

There were interesting contributions in the other place. As the Hon. Steve Whan said, the opening paragraph of the contributions by each Government member was exactly the same as the others. We expected something different in the contributions by Government members in this place, but the Hon. John Ajaka and the Hon. Scot MacDonald trotted out the same opening paragraph. However, the Hon. John Ajaka made an interesting comment. He said that we should have set up an infrastructure fund. That is interesting because in 2008-09 the former Labor Government set up the State Infrastructure Fund. However, the Hon. John Ajaka would not have known that because that detail was not provided in the speeches prepared for members opposite. One great thing about this bill is that it helps us fill in some time because the Government does not have any work.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.35 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens on the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011. This legislation establishes a fund—effectively a bank account—to facilitate receiving funds from the State and spending those funds on infrastructure. The purpose of the fund is to improve economic growth and productivity in the State. The bill sets out that Restart NSW will fund major infrastructure projects that will result in the provision of a variety of infrastructure, such as public transport and roads as well as infrastructure required for economic competitiveness, local infrastructure in regional areas, hospitals and other health facilities and services, and workplaces for law and justice officers, teachers, nurses and other staff providing services to the public. That is fine, except it misses out on one key issue, which is the environment. There is not a single mention of a key purpose in the twenty-first century—the environment.

The previous Government abolished the Environment Protection Authority. In this State the environment always runs a poor second, but the environment is not sitting back and waiting; it is creeping up on us. We saw that with the imbroglio in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage was involved in relation to the appalling Orica spill in Newcastle, and we will see it increasingly with the pollution of our waterways and the increasing impacts of human-induced greenhouse effects. Although that appears to be a major fault with this bill, it is only one issue associated with this legislation. I note that two Labor members asked: Why do this? What is the point? Why do we need this fund? Why did Treasury not simply set up a bank account and be done with it?

The Hon. Steve Whan: And they can.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Treasury could set up a bank account. I remind Labor members of the ill-fated Community Infrastructure Fund Bill. If there were more Labor members in the Chamber who were around at the time they would cringe at the memory of it. That bill was to set up the Community Infrastructure Fund and was moved by Michael Costa as part of his attempt to privatise the electricity generators and retailers. That bill was to be former Treasurer Michael Costa's vehicle for collecting the dollars from the sale of the retailers and the 50-year lease of the generators. There were different details of how the fund would operate, but the outcome would have been exactly the same. It was exactly the same idea as the idea underpinning this bill—sell off the State, park the ill-gotten gains in a specialist bank account and use that to justify infrastructure spending.

Selling one piece of infrastructure to buy another does not advance the State at all. All it does is run down the State's net worth. The reality is that if the previous Government had been interested in building up the wealth of the State, it would have invested in it. What about the current Government? Who is calling the shots in the current Government? We know it is not Gladys Berejiklian in Transport. We know that the real shots in Transport are being called by Nick Greiner and Max "the axe" Moore-Wilton. We know that the real power base of the Liberal Party and this Government is Nick Greiner. Realising that he did not get away with selling the electricity retailers, the wires and poles and the generators when he was in Government, he is coming back for a second shot at it. He is the puppet master who has been put in charge of Infrastructure NSW. What will he do now? The pressure is on the Government to sell the wires and poles. After they sell the electricity industry's wires and poles to reap assets from the distributors and the transmission company, what will they go for next?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Why is the pressure on?

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is a good question. It is because an awful lot of the Coalition's mates are from the big end of town—just like there were Labor mates from the big end of town—who are out there to make a killing with privatisation. Privatisation serves one key purpose: It makes the banks wealthy, it makes the merchant banks wealthy, it makes the consultants wealthy, it makes the money market wealthy and it makes the people who buy the assets wealthy. The Government Whip might well argue with this, but I dare him to go before the people of New South Wales with a little bit of honesty and talk about what he and his Government really will do. They will sell off the wires and poles, but they did not say so during the election campaign. They will begin selling off the water pipes owned by Sydney Water and Hunter Water.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about your carbon tax?

Dr JOHN KAYE: But they did say that during the election campaign. The Greens discussed a carbon tax during the election campaign. Next the Coalition Government will sell off the rail lines. The Victorians did it and this Government will do it too. I notice that Jeff Kennett visited New South Wales last week to pay his respects and brought his privatisation poison with him. Anything that turns a dollar is up for sale. It is very clear what the long-term impacts of this legislation will be for the people of New South Wales. It will fatten up the big end of town but it will impoverish everybody else.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Earlier I had to ask a member not to shout over the contribution of the member with the call, which behaviour I regard as unparliamentary. Now I ask the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps not to shout over the top of the contribution of Dr John Kaye.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you, Mr President—and I recognise that those of us who are doctors should behave in a doctorial fashion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Dr John Kaye that he should direct all his remarks through the Chair.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I thank you for the reminder, Mr President, and I shall.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That arcane rule was adopted for good reason, and that is to depersonalise debate in the Chamber to ensure that members concentrate on playing the issue rather than the person.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Which indeed we shall do. I appreciate your ruling, Mr President. This Government already has made it clear that it proposes to sell off the desalination plant. As the Government says, the effect of that will be to clean up, balance the books and use a lazy asset. However, let us look behind the reality of this. Already this Government, which has been in power only for 150 days, has taken the axe to $6 million dollars worth of water efficiency programs. Those programs alone saved 8.8 billion litres of water in 2010-11, reduced household water bills, reduced the stress on the environment and prolonged the time we can live within our existing water budget. As a result of those programs being axed, 800 million litres of water will be used this financial year that otherwise would not have been used.

It is very clear what is going on here. The desalination plant is being fattened up for sale. By getting rid of the water savings programs, the Government is increasing the demand for water from the desalination plant. The Government is increasing the value of the desalination plant and fattening it up to obtain a larger sale price. Households and the environment are being sacrificed for the sake of a privatisation.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is a far too much interjection.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Fattening up the desalination plant for sale will impose higher water bills on households and a greater burden on the environment. I was fascinated by the contribution of the shadow Minister, the Hon. Steve Whan, who said the desalination plant is there for times of water emergency. When I searched the web, I noticed that Mr Whan was a member of Cabinet in the previous Government when it approved the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan. Mr Whan possibly was not in the room when that was approved, but if he had been, he would have noticed that the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan had the desalination plant operating whenever Sydney's water storages fall below 70 per cent and turned it off only when they got above 80 per cent. What that shows is that this is not an emergency measure.

The desalination plant was being used by the previous Labor Government as a regular water supply source, even though it is some three to four times more expensive per kilolitre than water from the Warragamba Dam and its treatment plants. The reality is that this Government is now killing off water conservation programs to fatten the desalination plant for sale. The previous Government was running the desalination plant to save themselves from the embarrassment of having approved a white elephant. Both major parties in this State are putting water politics ahead of the environment and ahead of households. It is the mug householder who is the loser in all this. The reality of the desalination plant is that it should be shut down.

The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Peter Phelps to order for the first time.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Greens are saying that the plant should be closed down, the membranes should be taken out and the membranes should be sold. There is a viable market for the membranes. The plant should be kept and a water pipeline to Erskineville that services it should be put on ice and held against the day we get down to 20 per cent of water storage in our dams. We are currently at 78 per cent. What is the point of operating an emergency water supply when we are at 78 per cent? It should be mothballed, as the 2006 and 2007 Metropolitan Water Plan suggested—mothballed and left with a very low holding cost until we reach a time in the future when perhaps it is genuinely needed. Operating it now is bad economics, bad for the environment, and bad for household water bills. The shadow Minister should know that. The Government should know that. They should give up on privatisation. They should give up on trying to milk poor Sydney households of yet more money.

The Greens agree with the Government but disagree with Labor in relation to the idea of bonds. Bonds are a sensible way for governments to raise money. Before the Government Whip becomes excited, I point out that there is nothing radical about bonds. Almost every American municipality raises its funds using bonds. They build sewerage and water infrastructure as well as transport infrastructure off the back of bonds. It is a perfectly sensible and reasonable way of financing community infrastructure. It is long overdue in New South Wales and The Greens support it. But I note that the Treasurer in his agreement in principle speech referred to the all sacred, almighty triple-A rating and how important a triple-A rating is. Let us think about that before we bow down to it, before we allow Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Fitch to write the State's economic policy. Let us just go behind this and ask ourselves what these ugly sisters, these merchants of reputation for sale, were doing throughout the last decade?

I will tell the House what they were doing. They were busy driving the world into a global financial crisis. They were busy issuing triple-A ratings to subprime mortgage products—products that were effectively no more than Korean credit card debt and no more reliable than banking on personal loans in dubious circumstances. They were sitting there waiting for a downturn in the economy and for businesses to go belly-up, and that is exactly what happened and exactly what they did. They made the entire Western economy incredibly sensitive to a minor downturn. The triple-A ratings given to these liquidated assets, these subprime mortgage products, in effect were the trigger that brought down Lehman Brothers and brought on the global financial crisis.

Triple-A ratings amplified a small fluctuation in creditworthiness of a number of low creditworthiness borrowers into a major crisis that brought down the institutions of Wall Street and created massive unemployment, the outworkings of which are still being played out today in the American economy and sadly throughout the global economy through massive unemployment. These merchants of reputation for sale, these shonky merchants, these people who went out there and gave triple-A ratings to anybody who would pay for a triple-A rating, are the very same people who the New South Wales Government and the Labor Opposition are suggesting should be driving Australia's economic policy. I would prefer to put year 12 students at Cheltenham Girls High School in charge of the State's economic policy. They would have a better approach and a more honest understanding of the economy of this nation than Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch and the parasites who surround them and who are still trying to make money, even though they should hang their heads in shame.

[Interruption]

I am fascinated by the Government Whip's interjection. He should look at the report of the United States House subcommittee on economics. It is full of people like Henry Waxman.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Now there's a conservative.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Not a conservative but a man with a huge reputation. If the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps bothered to read reports of investigations, he would understand the appalling behaviour of those people. The reality is that borrowing is an important function of government. As this State and nation and the economies in which they are enmeshed head into a downturn, the capacity to maintain employment will be determined by the ability of this Government to borrow. Being terrified of losing the triple-A rating will restrict the State's capacity to defend the most vulnerable elements of our workforce from unemployment. We should not allow that sort of behaviour to be driven by people whose reputations are not worth anything.

The Government talks about a tight budget and needing to get money into its Infrastructure Fund and it talks about so-called windfall tax revenues. Over the past 100 days the Government has introduced a number of measures that collectively will squander an estimated $1.1 billion over the next three years, and some over the next four years. The empty-nesters stamp duty exemptions will cost an estimated $10 million, although Labor suggests it is more like $20 million—the exact cost is unknown. With respect to the regional relocation grants, no Government member could tell us how many people will relocate but this scheme will cost taxpayers $280 million over the next four years. The abolition of the ad valorem component of the Torrens assurance levy is estimated to cost $429 million over the next four years. The clubs' poker machine tax break, which will be debated shortly, will cost $285 million that will be taken out of State revenue and handed over. So much for Barry's black hole and so much for the fantasy that the State faces a crisis. If we are really in a crisis, why did the Government chuck away $1.3 billion?

The bill has the virtue of referring to infrastructure, but then states it must put money into communities affected by mining. But what about communities affected by drilling? We are told over and again by the industry that coal seam methane drilling is not mining. Will communities that will be more adversely affected than those affected by mining receive anything? What about communities affected by tourism—communities such as Byron Bay, Waverley and the mid North Coast—that have a massive influx of tourists every year? What is the number of tourists?

The Hon. Jan Barham: There are 1.6 million for 30,000.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Each year 1.6 million people come to Byron Bay, which has a population of 30,000 but no direct money is provided to support the community to cope with those tourists. Where is the money for Byron Bay, Waverley Council or the mid North Council to help improve infrastructure and help those communities cope with the influx of those people? The bill does not deal with the real needs of the people of New South Wales. Although the Greens do not oppose the bill, we acknowledge there are a large number of problems with it.

[Interruption]

There is no purpose in opposing it. If we did and for some reason it was not passed by this Chamber, the Government would just set up another bank account and do it anyway.

The Hon. Steve Whan: I didn't know they could do that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I think they can. I think I was told they could, and that a previous Government did that. This is a show pony Government exhibiting show pony behaviour, but the economic ideology behind it shows that New South Wales is in for a very rough time under the Coalition. It is perpetuating the mythology of the triple-A rating and the mythology that privatisation makes States wealthier. It is perpetuating the same neoliberal fantasies about economic management rather than undertaking what governments should do, which is invest in the State, thereby leaving the State in a wealthier and more successful condition than it was in when they came to power.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.55 p.m.]: It is with much pride that members on this side of the House support the Restart NSW Fund Bill 2011, which delivers on a major infrastructure commitment of the O'Farrell Government as part of our 100 Day Action Plan. It was widely publicised. The Liberals and Nationals campaigns attest to the fact that the people of New South Wales knew the Labor Party had mismanaged their taxes—their money—for 16 years. This bill provides for the establishment of the Restart NSW Fund to set aside funding to secure the delivery of major infrastructure projects. We will report on those infrastructure projects at regular intervals. We will be transparent, we will be accountable, we will publicise every step we take—every tender call, every start of construction, time frame, time line and budget accountability, unlike the Labor Party.

All electors of New South Wales know why we need the Restart NSW Fund. We could have set up another account, but we are legislating and making the point loud and clear because the people of New South Wales want to know what we are doing. Although members opposite do not like to hear it, New South Wales Labor's record for the past 16 years gets people angry whenever they think about it. It is why you lost so many seats in the country and in the city. You lost seats everywhere—in the Illawarra, on the Central Coast, in the steel country of Newcastle, in western Sydney and country New South Wales. The reason was that you were hopeless in government and now The Greens are in bed with you. At the next Federal election the people of New South Wales will tell Labor and The Greens what they think of them because the carbon tax will decimate Labor. It is coming. You do not understand the economics of the country or the State.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: I find it difficult to hear the excellent contribution of the Hon. Marie Ficarra over the very loud interjections from the distant corner of the Chamber.

The Hon. Steve Whan: To the point of order: Mr President, would you ask the speaker to address her comments through the Chair rather than saying "You did this" or "You did that", or "You are in bed with whoever".

The PRESIDENT: Order! I refer the Hon. Marie Ficarra to my earlier ruling and remind all members, including the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Indeed the years of reduced economic and housing activity have led to lower stamp duty revenue, to say nothing of the very true deficit we have been left with, which we calculate to amount to $5.2 billion. When the New South Wales budget is delivered it will show more clearly the true state of fiscal affairs in New South Wales. That was the legacy left to us from 16 years of Labor. We have seen a succession of bad CommSec reports on this State's economic performance showing that New South Wales has repeatedly been one of the lowest performing States. What a disgrace. In fact, in the most recent report we trailed behind Tasmania. New South Wales was at position number eight. It is a clear objective of the O'Farrell Government to make us number one again.

Let us recall that during the past 16 years, 12 rail lines were announced but none was completed. We all know that Labor's infrastructure record was pathetic. In its recent report the NRMA revealed that 78 per cent of businesses claim that it takes their employees significantly longer to get to work today than it did a year ago and no-one is surprised that the quality of life in Sydney, due to traffic congestion, has deteriorated. The Minister for Roads and Ports knows this better than anyone. This congestion is not only a cost to business but to the workers lifestyle and the lives of their families. Sound investment in infrastructure is essential to the prosperity of this State. Investment in infrastructure underpins business activity, employment and growth, and it has been neglected for so long in New South Wales.

We need to restart the New South Wales economy. We need to regain the reputation of New South Wales as Australia's number one place to live in and to do business. The O'Farrell Government understands this is an urgent priority. Infrastructure NSW will identify and prioritise the infrastructure projects that will help grow the New South Wales economy and improve the lives of our constituents. We need to be able to fund these infrastructure projects through the Restart NSW Fund to increase our economic productivity. Projects to be funded will be recommended and assessed in the normal budget process after a five-year Infrastructure Plan and a 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy.

Restart NSW will fund projects such as public transport infrastructure; roads infrastructure, addressing urban congestion and missing road links; economic infrastructure to improve the economic competitiveness of New South Wales, including freight, intermodal facilities and water; and local infrastructure in regional areas—it is very important that regional areas are covered—and that will be reported on regularly. Other projects to be funded are hospitals and health infrastructure; and improvements to workplaces for front-line workers such as law and justice officers, teachers and nurses.

[Interruption]

There are interjections but those front-line workers are the people who really count. We will make sure that we improve their quality of life over time. This Government is committed to a holistic development approach that will address critical infrastructure needs outside the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, with 30 per cent of funding reserved for rural areas, including mining-affected communities. Payments from Restart NSW will be made in a transparent manner with the Auditor-General reporting annually to Parliament to ensure that moneys have been invested in line with the fund's investment mandate. This will include the extent of investment of funds in non-metropolitan areas. At all times we will be accountable.

Restart NSW will be funded from appropriations by Parliament and the budget process, including any money certified as windfall tax revenue; realisation of capital invested in assets, such as from the Sydney Desalination Plant—a bad decision that we have to live with, manage, and on which we must endeavour to make a return to the people of New South Wales—and borrowings, including the issue of special bonds to the people of New South Wales, such as Waratah bonds. Additional sources of funding will include interest proceeds from investment of money in the fund, money directed or authorised to be paid into the fund by an Act or law and money voluntarily contributed to the fund by a government agency or other person or body.

This bill provides the Government with a dedicated fund to regain New South Wales' reputation as Australia's number one State in which to do business. Infrastructure NSW will be at the forefront of addressing New South Wales' infrastructure crisis, identifying priorities by independent experts on a methodology that is clear and transparent, and providing funds to get this State moving again. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Marie Ficarra and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.05 p.m.]: I move:

PAY EQUITY

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [7.05 p.m.]: I refer to Equal Pay Day to be held on 1 September 2011. Equal Pay Day marks the day on which Australian women's annual earnings catch up to those of Australian men in the previous financial year. On average, women in Australia need to work an additional two months—to 1 September this year—to reach average male earnings at 30 June. Two years ago on 1 September 2009, I spoke about Equal Pay Day. I noted then that "Australian women earn 17 per cent less than their male counterparts." Since that time, rather than progress on the issue of equal pay, things have gone backwards. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports in a survey of average weekly earnings from May 2010 to May 2011 that male wages outstripped female wages by 17.5 per cent. That is the biggest gap since 1982. In some industries it is as high as 30 per cent.

But what does pay inequality mean for women? It means less lifetime earnings for women, giving them a lifetime of fewer choices. It means that there are some women in chief executive officer and finance positions who earn less than half of their male equivalents. It means that the average superannuation payout to a woman is estimated to be $150,000—about half of the average payout to a man in 2010-11. It means single mums and working families lose thousands of dollars annually to the wage gap and it means that if things do not change, the average 25-year-old-male will earn $2.4 million over the next 40 years, yet for the average 25-year-old female, that figure will be just $1.5 million. Why is that the case? Why do women continue to earn 83¢ for every $1 earned by men? And why in 2011 are women's earnings still so far behind their male counterparts?

One reason is that women are more likely to be employed in industries such as manufacturing, education, childcare, and social services. On average those industries are lower paid than industries like mining which are male dominated. Work like childcare historically has been seen as an extension of the domestic realm and has been undervalued. The social and community services sector, where women make up about 85 per cent of the workforce working for organisations caring for disabled people, homeless people and people in crisis, has the highest number of multiple tertiary degree holders. Yet workers in the sector earn approximately $45,000 a year—about $20,000 less than the national average wage.

Fair Work Australia has found that social and community service workers are not receiving equal pay and that a significant cause of the pay gap is because of gender. This Government has the dubious honour of being the only jurisdiction in Australia yet to commit to funding the outcome of the equal pay case currently before Fair Work Australia, relegating community sector workers in this State to ongoing wage inequality. This is something that it must and should commit to and will make a difference to tackling wage inequality for women in New South Wales. The differences between the wages of men and women cannot simply be explained by looking at the differences between industries. Women are earning less than men in the same industry.

Eva Cox recently wrote that this difference stems from an in-built gender discrimination, which undervalues the types of jobs that women are more likely to do. That is, that even in the same industry, men and women are seen to be doing different work and assumptions are made about the expertise required and the worth of that work. In reality, though, not all of those assumptions stand up and they can be challenged. For example, in the finance industry the gender pay gap is about $600 per week. Eva Cox points out that financial skills are seen as highly valued and are highly paid, particularly in comparison to human resources and administration roles. Those types jobs often require similar levels of skills and qualifications. They often require tertiary degrees, albeit in different fields. But human resources and administration roles tend to be dominated by women.

Eva Cox argues that we need to seriously consider how we value different sets of skills and competencies, and how these judgements are inherently gendered. Is a chief financial officer more valuable than a director of human resources? Is making money a more valuable skill than managing people? Without effective people management how successful would such companies be? Without a serious look at these issues, we cannot fully understand the impact of the gender pay gap, and it goes some way to explain the lack of progress over many decades.

Each year on Equal Pay Day, some people try to undermine the significance of the pay gap by pointing to women like Gail Kelly, head of Westpac, or Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person. They are an elite few and, while they provide great role models for women to look to, the reality is that women in Australia continue to earn lower wages than their male counterparts. According to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling report released in March 2010, simply being a woman accounts for 60 per cent of the difference between men's and women's earnings. In 2011, surely we should expect better. I hope that in 2012 we will be able to report some progress.

MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT CONFERENCE

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [7.10 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to talk about the recent New South Wales Mineral Exploration and Investment Conference held at the Wentworth Sofitel Hotel on Thursday 18 August. I will also talk about some of the shonks in The Nationals. It is important that the community, which was barred from this event due to the $900 per head price tag, understands what happened at the conference. We saw the Minister with about 115 mining and coal seam gas executives planning for a massive carve-up of the State. We saw Minister Hartcher, who is winning friends and influencing people wherever he goes, saying things like, "Mining is at the very heart of the economy of this State" and that opposition to mining is irrational and not based on reason and science. He even fired a shot across the bow of the New South Wales Farmers Association by hinting that some leaders of particular groups were being unreasonable and not basing their opposition on reason but on emotion.

The Minister went on to say that New South Wales is, in American terms, a coal State. I think that would be of grave concern to the people of New South Wales, who are sick to death of ever-expanding coalmines and the prospect of more coal seam gas scarring the landscape, destroying farmlands and destroying our beautiful and wonderful water resources. What the Minister failed to recognise and this Government is failing to address, is that the ever-expanding mining industry and coal seam gas industry come at the expense of our tourism, agriculture and education, which deliver more jobs and a more sustainable footing for our economy into the future. That has been recognised by the community. The community groups that protested at this event came from places like Bunnan, Boggabri, Casino, Coonabarabran, Illawarra—a broad constituency of good Australians.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Newtown, Stanmore, McDonaldtown—

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The honourable member wishes it was Newtown, but it is his heartland, and that is the point. His heartland is starting to see things like Andrew Stoner's shonky performance today in relation to solar panels.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Point of order: The member is now casting aspersions on a member of the other place. It would be my submission that if he seeks to cast such aspersions he should do so by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The honourable member used the name Andrew Stoner rather than "the Deputy Premier" or "the honourable member". Mr President, you have ruled several times on that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: The member had mentioned only the member's name and had not had an opportunity to cast any aspersions whatsoever.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is wrong. The word "shonky" was attached to that name.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It was, yes.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is indeed correct that no reflections should be made on members of another place without those reflections being part of a substantive motion. It is correct also that if the member had said the words attributed to him about a member of the other place, the words would have been ruled out of order as being unparliamentary. I caution the member against transgressing the standing orders on those particular issues in the time that he has remaining to contribute to the adjournment debate.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The communities that The Nationals purport to represent are very concerned about the behaviour of the leadership of the party. They see John Anderson out there fronting Eastern Star Gas, selling the wares of a multinational coal seam gas company at the expense of our food security and our farmers, and they see Mark Vaile doing his best to turn Boggabri into a coal pit. They hear the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure talking about the benefits of Shenhua and they see the Deputy Premier today involved in what could be described as a scandal regarding the solar panels issue. It is causing grave concern and they are losing confidence at a rapid rate.

It is often said in this Chamber that The Greens will never win support in those areas. That is changing. In Balmain in 1999 The Greens got 7.8 per cent of the vote. At the recent election we got 30 per cent of the vote. If The Nationals continue to do what they are doing in elections to come, our vote will grow and grow in regional areas. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and people are looking at actions, not words. People are looking at The Nationals and they are very disappointed. They are wondering where The Nationals are on this issue. Their strategic land use policy does not deal comprehensively with mining issues. I remind The Nationals that, in relation to The Greens, from little things big things grow. [Time expired.]

CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY DOCTOR TRAINING

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [7.15 p.m.]: Recently, along with some colleagues, I was briefed on proposals by Charles Sturt University to establish a training facility with the objective to add to the number of doctors who practise in rural and regional areas where workforce shortages continue to exist. While the proposal is commonly referred to as the establishment of a new medical school, it is a proposal to integrate the teaching of doctors with the education of dentists, oral health technicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, physiotherapists, rehabilitation specialists, nutritionists and social workers, among others, all of whom are currently being trained by Charles Sturt University as one means of addressing the health workforce needs of rural and regional communities. It is envisaged that intakes in such a facility will be biased towards students with a genuinely non-metropolitan background or from an Indigenous background, or those disposed towards practising in a rural environment. Importantly, in the later years of their studies, students will be able to be streamed so that they can focus on developing procedural skills, such skills being in particular short supply in rural areas.

This proposal, in my view, should be seen as a move that would be complementary to the excellent work undertaken for a number of years by other universities, such as the University of Sydney, with its school of rural health, which has campuses in Dubbo and Orange—the latter preparing to mark its tenth anniversary next year—and rural clinical schools in various country and coastal locations as well as medical schools such as the University of New England and the University of Newcastle school of rural medicine and joint medical program. Professor John Dwyer, who is the emeritus professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales, is acting as a project consultant to the Charles Sturt University plan. He says that the concept has strong support throughout rural Australia and points to Charles Sturt University's very strong record of educating health science graduates with a rural background who go on to practise in rural and regional areas. Professor Dwyer and others point to the disparity in health profiles of rural populations compared to urban ones with respect to such indicators as cancer deaths and survival of premature babies. A great deal of work still needs to be done to close the city-country gap.

For the project to go ahead there needs to be a vision for, firstly, Federal Government funding, as is the case with all new university projects, and from the State Government's point of view ultimately places for interns in rural and regional hospitals and rural placements. The teaching model envisaged by Charles Sturt University has attractive elements. As professor Dwyer points out, the way ahead for the education of health professionals will be to have integrated learning across disciplines so as to produce patient-centred care.

Among other things, the training will involve health and medical training in a hospital setting with primary health care and dental care in an integrated primary health care centre that is being established as part of the vision for the future in Bathurst. It will provide for what Charles Sturt University calls team learning for team practice. That particular medical practice of the future will focus more on interdisciplinary or interprofessional work environments and the World Health Organisation has said that this is the way of the future, rather than teaching doctors separately to other health professional silos. As doctors are expected to work in teams, Charles Sturt University believes they need to be trained in such an environment from the start. The curriculum will include e-health, and the health and medical services precinct at Bathurst will allow for a greater emphasis on prevention and community care that will assist in taking pressure off hospitals by reducing avoidable admissions.

Professor Dwyer points out that about 80 per cent of New Zealand doctors already work in integrated practices and many prefer working in a salaried practice, rather than fee for service. It is interesting to note that this trend was also recognised in the recent discussion paper released by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Julian Skinner, "Securing a Stable Medical Workforce for Rural Communities". That discussion paper, along with Charles Sturt University's vision for a new integrated health and medical training facility, points the way forward for future training of doctors in New South Wales.

AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [7.20 p.m.]: I congratulate The Australian Local Government Women's Association on celebrating its sixtieth anniversary this year. The association was founded by Councillor Marjorie Propsting in 1951, the jubilee year of the Commonwealth of Australia. She was concerned about the lack of female representation in local government, where women were woefully underrepresented at the time she stood for Lane Cove Council in 1949. Councillor Propsting served on Lane Cove Council for 22 years, including a term as mayor. Marjorie Propsting encouraged other like-minded women to form a group to work towards more gender equity among the decision-makers in the community. She firmly and rightfully believed that women brought the "necessary woman's point of view". She would be pleased to know that the Australian Local Government Women's Association thrives nationally, with branches now in all States and Territories, including recently the Tiwi Islands.

Since the association's inception in 1951 the membership base has broadened over the years to include local government employees and other people who are interested or involved in council. It has demonstrated political clout, influencing State, Federal and local government policy relating to women's issues with submissions and representations. In New South Wales it was a driving force behind the Joint Ministerial Advisory Council for Women in Local Government and members actively participated on the judging panel for the Ministerial Awards for Women in Local Government. Both of these initiatives have been successful in raising the profile of and celebrating both councillors and female staff who work so tirelessly in our local government communities.

The association has also achieved some great outcomes nationally, contributing to the Senate inquiry on paid parental leave; advocating for paid leave for victims of domestic violence and the establishment of the 50-50 Vision Program for Gender Equity in Local Government and were proud sponsors of the 2010 Year of Women in Local Government. It is a not-for-profit organisation, the activities of which are coordinated by a voluntary committee. To celebrate its diamond jubilee in May this year the Australian Local Government Women's Association New South Wales held its conference and annual general meeting at Blacktown. The conference theme was "Strong Women Influencing Future Trends". Michelle Rowland, member for Greenway, opened the conference, while master of ceremonies Robyn Moore entertained and engaged the delegates. Both former Australian netball captain Liz Ellis, AM and Detective Superintendent Deborah Wallace of the South East Asian Crime Squad gave inspirational speeches.

I congratulate the following women who have recently been elected to the New South Wales executive: newly elected president, Julie Griffiths from Blacktown council; secretary, Vicki Scott from Gosford council; city vice-president, Nicole Campbell from Ryde; country vice-president, Colleen Fuller from Gunnedah; treasurer, Jennifer Lecky from Muswellbrook; and immediate past president, Karen McKeown from Penrith. I also congratulate the executive committee, Councillor Darriea Turley from Broken Hill; Councillor Jackie Greenow; Bev Spearpoint and Helen Cooper from Penrith; Councillor Gabrielle O'Donnell from Ryde; Councillor Denise Wilton from Mosman; Councillor Sharon Cadwallader from Ballina and Councillor Yvette Whitfield from Holroyd. In particular, I single out Councillor Darriea Turley from Broken Hill—national president—and Councillor Karen McKeown, immediate past president New South Wales and 2011 ministerial award winner for city councillor of the year, on their being awarded the honour of life membership of the association.

On 19 June Australian Local Government Women's Association hosted its Diamond Jubilee Dinner at Old Parliament House in Canberra. The event was attended by 240 guests and was opened by Her Excellency, the Governor-General of Australia, Ms Quentin Bryce, AC. She spoke of her admiration of women's achievements and praised those women "on whose shoulders we stand". The Hon. Kate Ellis, Federal Minister for the Status of Women, welcomed everyone and acknowledged particularly the women who had travelled from interstate to attend the memorable occasion. It was a gathering of many past presidents, both State and national, life members and past members such as Glen Rose, a former alderman on Lane Cove Council who served with Marjorie Propsting, the founder of the association.

It is with some sadness that I note that former national president Kaele Way, who made a courageous effort to attend the celebratory dinner, lost her battle with cancer 12 days later on 1 July, and passed away peacefully at her home in Melbourne. Association members across Australia are truly saddened by Kaele's passing. It is a testament to her passion and commitment to the Australian Local Government Women's Association that Kaele continued her advocacy for women in local government to the end. Vale Kaele Way, AM.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY CONTRACTING

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [7.25 p.m.]: I raise the case of William Hodge from Campbelltown whose battle with Skyton Constructions and DMW Bricklaying has highlighted the continued plague of sham contracting in the Australian construction industry. Sham contracting is not new but it is illegal and is still a common practice in the Australian construction industry. It is estimated that more than 170,000 people are employed under sham contracts. Sham contracting occurs when a company employs workers as independent contractors under Australian business numbers rather than hiring them as permanent employees. Sham contracting allows companies to undermine workers' rights and avoid paying workers their due entitlements. Employees on sham contracts miss out on paid sick leave, holiday leave, long service leave, overtime and public holiday rates, protection against unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, superannuation payments from employers, workers compensation insurance, fares, travel allowances and more.

The community is ripped off just as much as the workers by sham contracting. By hiding employment relationships behind sham contracts companies skirt their tax obligations. When companies avoid their superannuation obligations through sham contracts taxpayers are left to pick up the bill for the cost of workers in retirement. Sham contracting also gives an unfair advantage to the companies that do the wrong thing and helps to lower work and safety standards in the construction industry.

William Hodge, despite being persuaded by his employer to take out an Australian business number, has worked for 11 years for DMW Bricklaying. Superannuation and employment law indicates that if 80 per cent of your time is spent with one employer and that employer determines your hours and conditions, you are a permanent employee entitled to superannuation. Over 11 years of working for DMW Bricklaying, William has not received a cent of super, holiday pay or sick pay. In total DMW Bricklaying owes William Hodge more than $70,000 dollars.

William has taken to the picket line outside a Skyton development in Parramatta to fight for what he is owed. Skyton regularly subcontracts DMW Bricklaying and is therefore equally culpable in this case. William's cause is being supported by his work mates, the community and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. William is taking a principled stand on behalf of many others in the same situation. The union State secretary, Mr Mal Tulloch, has said that DMW Bricklaying has employed hundreds of brickies over the years and it would appear that it has paid little or no superannuation to any of them.

As I have said, sham contracting is illegal yet still very common in the construction industry. There are many ways that we could crack down on sham contracting, including pressing developers to submit realistic tenders and not excessively cheap tenders which create sham contracting; calling on Government to stop awarding contracts to developers who use sham contracting; insisting the principal contractors take responsibility for the payment of 100 per cent of wages and entitlements by all of their subcontractors; and banning from the industry companies caught using sham contracts. I fully support William Hodge's campaign to be paid what he is owed by DMW Bricklaying and I encourage other members of this House to do the same.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.30 p.m.]: In my view the following inspirational words of Anatole France best describe our nation's continuing journey towards the reality of a national disability insurance scheme:

To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream, not only plan, but also believe.

On 10 August another important milestone on this journey was reached with the long-awaited release of the Productivity Commission's final report, which found that the current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient. It gives people with a disability little choice, no certainty of access to appropriate support and little scope to participate in the community. People with disabilities, their carers, service providers, workers in the industry and governments all want change.

Most people know little about Australia's current disability system and how poorly they would be served were they to need it. The system is marked by invisible deprivation and lost opportunities. Major disability can happen to anyone at any time. A simple fall can lead to quadriplegia and an illness to severe brain damage. Most families and individuals cannot prepare adequately for the large costs of lifetime care and support, which can be so high that the risks and costs need to be pooled. As a parent of a child with disability—which is a misnomer in many ways as my beautiful daughter is blessed with many abilities—I have personally experienced the invisible deprivation and the lost opportunities that characterise our current system. Whilst my family is fortunate to be able to meet my daughter's needs, I am not too proud to admit that we, too, struggle from time to time, and I cannot help worrying about what the future might hold for our daughter. One of the submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry gives some insight into the frustration felt by many parents. It stated:

Another submission, from a senior psychiatrist, testifies to the hopelessness felt by some under the current system. It reads:

The regularity with which I meet parents with murder suicide ideation as they have been unable to find adequate help for their child is both alarming, but also a marker of the failure of coordination of any service ... I also note that murder suicide in these families is becoming a more recognised event, as recently occurred in Victoria.

These are confronting facts. A national disability insurance scheme offers the only real hope of a better future. The Productivity Commission's proposed scheme would cost about $6.5 billion more each year than is currently spent on the disability sector—an increase of about $290 per Australian. Around 410,000 people would receive direct funding from the scheme, which would cover existing and new cases of disability. Funding would be provided federally through a direct budget allocation, with State-run systems providing individualised support based on the choices of the disabled person and their family. To start, the scheme would cover those most in need and begin in a few regions of Australia in July 2014. It would then extend across Australia from mid 2015 and continue to expand until all cases of significant disability were covered by mid 2019.

On 19 August the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] welcomed the public release of the Productivity Commission's final report, and agreed on the need for major reform of disability services in Australia through a national disability insurance scheme. The New South Wales Government and the responsible Minister, the Hon. Andrew Constance, have long supported the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme. I congratulate the Minister on immediately offering the Hunter as an ideal region for trialling the proposed scheme in 2014. Notwithstanding the critical political support at State and Commonwealth levels, the journey towards long-awaited justice in the disability sector through the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme is not nearing an end—rather, it has reached another new beginning. To finally accomplish this great transformational reform we must continue not only to act but also to dream, and not only to plan but also to believe in a better future for all disabled persons and their families.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m. until Thursday 25 August 2011 at 11.00 a.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 24 August 2011, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links