Rod Roberts Speech

Tuesday 22 August 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 22 August 2023
The PRESIDENT (The Hon. Benjamin Cameron Franklin) took the chair at 12:30.
The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its Elders
and thanked them for their custodianship of this land.
Bills
ROAD TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (DEMERIT POINT REDUCTION TRIAL) BILL 2023
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION) BILL 2023
STATE INSURANCE AND CARE GOVERNANCE AMENDMENT (ICNSW BOARD) BILL 2023
Assent
The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to
the bills.
Announcements
MEMBERS' LOUNGE
The PRESIDENT (12:31): I note that the Members' Lounge will remain closed for the duration of this
sitting week only. This arrangement will assist the restoration works to progress uninterrupted and conclude more
quickly. Could members please bear these arrangements in mind when proceeding to the Chamber for divisions
this week.
Motions
DARREN BARK
The Hon. CHRIS RATH (12:31): I move:
(1) That this House notes:
(a) the extensive work and significant achievements of Mr Darren Bark during his two-year tenure as CEO of the
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies [NSWJBD];
(b) that the Premier, former Premier, Ministers, Opposition leader, shadow Ministers, members of Parliament, and faith
leaders from across Australia have paid tribute to Mr Bark for his tireless work to advance and enhance our cohesive
society across New South Wales.
(2) That this House congratulates Mr Bark for his work which included:
(a) a State-wide ban on the display of Nazi symbols, leading to the unprecedented charging of three individuals under
this new offence;
(b) securing bipartisan commitments of $25 million to enhance the safety and security of communal institutions across
all faiths, such as schools, shules, and community centres;
(c) securing funds to expand the Sydney Jewish Museum;
(d) establishing a partnership with the NSW Department of Education to increase and augment Holocaust education in
New South Wales schools;
(e) hosting town hall forums with the Premier and Opposition leader in Parramatta during the election to enable
communities to ask questions directly, and arranging this to be broadcast on Sky News;
(f) launching the NSWJBD online reporting portal for students and their families to report incidents of anti-Semitic
bullying and securing a commitment from the NSW Labor Party to introduce a religious bullying hotline and
reporting portal;
(g) his instrumental role in establishing the inaugural NSW Religious Communities Advisory Council, fostering greater
engagement between faith communities and the Government;
(h) the successful communal commemorations and events organised under the leadership of Mr Bark, including Yom
Hashoah and Kristallnacht, and the inaugural NSWJBD Susan and Isaac Wakil Israel Tour;
(i) strengthening ties between the faith communities and in particular the Jewish community and other faith groups
across our State;
(j) his outstanding advocacy on behalf of the Jewish community in the mainstream media; and
(k) his negotiations enabling the Jewish community to attend COVID-safe, outdoor shofar blowing services during the
2021 COVID-19 lockdown.
Motion agreed to.

AUSTRALIA BANGLADESH BUSINESS FORUM
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (12:32): I move:
(1) That this House notes that:
(a) bilateral trade between Australia and Bangladesh has grown significantly in the past decade, with two-way trade
growing at an average of 11 per cent per year and with merchandise trade worth $684 million in the 2021-22 period;
(b) Australia and Bangladesh have significant people to people links, the 2021 Census recorded more than
51,000 people born in Bangladesh living in Australia, an increase from 41,233 in 2016; and
(c) the Australian Bangladeshi community makes a significant contribution to multiculturalism and the enrichment of
the cultural fabric of New South Wales.
(2) That this House recognises that:
(a) the Australia Bangladesh Business Forum held their successful inaugural annual gala dinner on Sunday 16 July
2023, to recognise the importance of the Australian-Bangladesh trade relationship and the vibrant small business
community; and
(b) the event was attended by many individuals representing the New South Wales community, including the following
dignitaries:
(i) Mr Md Shakhawat Hossain, Consul-General of Bangladesh;
(ii) the Hon. Ed Husic, MP, Minister for Industry and Science, Federal member for Chifley;
(iii) the Hon. Mark Speakman, MP, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the NSW Liberal Party, member for
Cronulla;
(iv) Senator Andrew Bragg, Senator for New South Wales;
(v) Senator Maria Kovacic, Senator for New South Wales;
(vi) Dr Mike Freelander, MP, Federal member for Macarthur;
(vii) Ms Anne Stanley, MP, Federal member for Werriwa;
(viii) the Hon. Anoulack Chanthivong, MP, Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for
Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister
for Corrections, and member for Macquarie Fields;
(ix) Mr Greg Warren, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier, Parliamentary Secretary for
Education and Early Learning, Parliamentary Secretary for Western Sydney, member for Campbelltown;
(x) the Hon. Scott Farlow, MLC, shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, shadow Minister for
Housing, shadow Minister for Cities, and shadow Minister for the Hunter and Central Coast;
(xi) Mr Mark Coure, MP, shadow Minister for Multiculturalism, shadow Minister for Jobs, Industry,
Innovation, Science and Technology, shadow Minister for South West Sydney, member for Oatley;
(xii) Ms Charishma Kaliyanda, MP, member for Liverpool;
(xiii) the Australia Bangladesh Business Forum's founding Executive Committee – Mr Abdul Khan Ratan,
Founder and President; Mr Brian Laul, General Secretary; Mr M Z Ahmed Rubel, Vice President; Md
Khandaker Mazharul Islam, Treasurer; and MD Shafik Sheikh; MD Nazmul Hasan; AS MD Muzammel
Hossain; Mohammad Khan; Sumi Akther; Executive members; and
(xiv) the Australia Bangladesh Business Forum's Advisory Board - Dr Ayaz Chowdhury, Dr Serajul Haque,
Shoel Khan, Reza Karim, MA Hadi, Hossain Arju, Mahfujul Chowdhury, Mohammad Zaman, Shafiul
Alam Shahin, MD Nurul Masud, Sayed Akram Ullah, Farash Uddin Bulbul, Alamgir Hossain, Wahed
Khan, Muhammed Ibrahim Khalil Masud, Gynandra Karki, Hari Adhikari, Hossain Kabir, Tanvir Ahmed,
Abu Abdullah, Abu Reza Arefin, Akidul Islam, Shahadat Bin Islam, Masud Parvez, Shah Kamal, Niffar
Sayla, Sayed Rahman, Mohammed Lutfur Rahman, Mustafizur Rahman Talukder, Talat Mahmoud, Faisal
Azad, Ifty Waset, Torun Rahman, and Mohammed Kamruzzaman Bappi.
(3) That this House extends its very best wishes to the continued success and growth of the Australia Bangladesh Business
Forum and their important role in helping establish opportunities for increased economic ties between New South Wales and
Bangladesh.
Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VETERANS ARMISTICE DAY 2023

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (12:33): I seek leave to amend private members' business item No. 307
for today of which I have given notice by omitting paragraph 1 (b) and replacing it with "(b) this Parliament
honours the service of the 17,000 Australian military personnel from the Korean War, and the sacrifices of the
340 Australians who lost their lives, the 1,216 Australians who were wounded in the war and a further 30 who
had become prisoners of war".
Leave granted.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: Accordingly, I move:
(1) That this House notes that:
(a) National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, which marks the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in
1953, is held on 27 July annually;
(b) this Parliament honours the service of the 17,000 Australian military personnel from the Korean War, and the
sacrifices of the 340 Australians who lost their lives, the 1,216 Australians who were wounded in the war and a
further 30 who had become prisoners of war; and
(c) the war has still not ended and the Korean people yearn for peace on the peninsula.
(2) That this House further notes that:
(a) on Thursday 27 July 2023, the Guardians of the NSW Korean War Memorial Incorporation held the Seventieth
Anniversary Commemoration of the Korean War Armistice at the Korean War Memorial in Moore Park, Sydney;
and
(b) the event was attended by many individuals representing a diverse array of the New South Wales community,
including the following dignitaries:
(i) Mr Taewoo Lee, Consulate General of the Republic of Korea;
(ii) Major Ed Chan, Honorary Aide-de-Camp to Her Excellency the Governor of New South Wales;
(iii) the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite, MP, Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans Affairs,
Federal member for Kingsford Smith;
(iv) the Hon. David Harris, MP, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, Minister for Gaming and Racing,
Minister for Veterans, Minister for Medical Research, and Minister for the Central Coast, member for
Wyong;
(v) the Hon. Scott Farlow, MLC, shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, shadow Minister for
Housing, shadow Minister for Cities, shadow Minister for the Hunter and Central Coast;
(vi) Mr Warren Kirby, MP, member for Riverstone;
(vii) Colonel Eric Modderman, Acting Chief of Staff, Forces Command, Australian Army;
(viii) Mr William Joseph Dobbie, Consul General of New Zealand, Mr Ali Sevim, Consul General of Turkey,
Mrs Claudia Granados, Consul General of Colombia and Mr Hugo Maarten Klijn, Consul General of the
Netherlands;
(ix) Defence Attaché Colonel Shane Gries, representing Ms Christine Elder, Consul General of the United
States of America and Mr Costas Yiannakodimos, Councillor of Greece;
(x) Ms Hyo Jin Im, Vice Consul General of the Republic of Korea;
(xi) Councillor Daniel Han, City of Ryde and Councillor Robert Kok, City of Sydney;
(xii) Mr Ray James, OAM, President, RSL NSW;
(xiii) Mrs Pauline James, OAM, RSL NSW Auxiliaries;
(xiv) Mrs Dawn Wellfare, Australian War Widows NSW Limited;
(xv) Mr Roger Selby, NSW Association of Jewish Service and Ex-Service Men and Women [NAJEX];
(xvi) Mr Seung Il Bang, President, Australian Department of the Korea Veterans Association;
(xvii) Mr Youngsin Kim, 625 Association;
(xviii) Lieutenant Colonel Paul Kim and Mr Patrick Lee, Korean Vietnam War Veterans Association in Australia;
(xix) Mr Sung Kwon Jo, Korean Marine Corps Veterans Association of Australia;
(xx) Mr David Buckwalter, The Royal Australian Regiment Corporation, NSW Association;
(xxi) Ms Victoria Benz, Deputy Commissioner NSW/ACT, Department of Veterans Affairs;
(xxii) Mr Dongsik Ko, Chair, Peaceful Unification Advisory Council;
(xxiii) Mr Heung-won Kang, President, Korean Society of Sydney;
(xxiv) Mr Ben Kim, CEO, POSCO Australia;

(xxv) Mr Hyung Kim, Korea Liberation Association;
(xxvi) Mr Philip Shin, Chair, Korean Sports Association;
(xxvii) Mr Seung-Guk (Harry) Paik, Korean Society of Oceania;
(xxviii) Mr Bexon Whang, National Korean War Veterans' Association;
(xxix) Mr John Unicomb, Paddington/Woollahra RSL;
(xxx) Mr Johny Bineham, Veteran of the Australian Navy;
(xxxi) Lieutenant Colonel David Deasey, OAM, Boer War Association; and
(xxxii) members of the Guardians Committee - Mr Nak Yoon Paik, OAM, Ms Namhee Ko, Dr Darren Mitchell,
OAM, Mr Bob Auston, OAM, Major Charles Casuscelli, RFD (Rtd), Mr Bob Durbin, Mr Bill Harrigan
and Mr Jacob Messer.
Motion agreed to.

Committees
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Reports
The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY: I table the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled
Legislation Review Digest No. 1/58, dated 22 August 2023.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Reports
The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY: I table the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled
Legislation Review Digest No. 2/58, dated 22 August 2023.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Reports
The Hon. BOB NANVA: I table report No. 6 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 22 August 2023.
The Hon. BOB NANVA (12:34): According to standing order, I move:
That the following bills not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report, this day:
(a) Crimes Amendment (Breaking and Entering) Bill 2023;
(b) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment (Appointed Persons) Bill 2023;
(c) Electoral Funding Amendment Bill 2023;
(d) Forestry Amendment (Timber Harvesting Safety Zones) Bill 2023;
(e) ICAC and LECC Legislation Amendment Bill 2023;
(f) Revenue, Fines and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023; and
(g) Road Transport Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2023.
The Hon. CHRIS RATH (12:35): I move:

That the question be amended as follows:
(1) Omitting paragraph (c); and
(2) Inserting new paragraph:
"(2) That:
(a) the provisions of the Electoral Funding Amendment Bill 2023 be referred to Portfolio Committee No. 1 – Premier
and Finance for inquiry and report;
(b) the bill stand referred to the committee at the conclusion of the mover's second reading speech in the Council; and
(c) the committee report by 11 September 2023."
The reason for the amendment is to allow Portfolio Committee No. 1 – Premier and Finance to hold a short, sharp
inquiry, reporting back before the sitting week beginning Monday 11 September, to hear evidence from
stakeholders like the Electoral Commission, other political parties and third-party campaigners. The inquiry would
examine all the recommendations in the previous electoral matters committee report, not simply the one
recommendation that has been used to underpin the bill currently before the House. In particular, it would examine
any of the potential unintended consequences of increasing the cap and whether that cap would apply to general
elections, not just by-elections in a particular electorate.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (12:37): The
Government is opposed to the amendment for the following reasons. Firstly, the bill deals with a recommendation
from the key committee that deals with those matters, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There
is also an urgency to the matter. At the moment, if a by-election was to occur—and that is out of the control of
the Government, the Opposition and the Chamber—there is no cap in place in New South Wales. The joint
standing committee supported caps. Both sides of the Chamber have supported caps. That is the reason the
Government seeks to deal with the matter now. The suggestion that it would apply in a by-election is not the effect
of the bill; I can assure the House of that. That is one of the reasons why the Government seeks to deal with that
simple change here and leave those other matters to the Chamber and to the joint standing committee.
The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Bob Nanva has moved a motion, to which the Hon. Chris Rath has moved
an amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided.
Ayes ................... 22
Noes ................... 19
Majority .............. 3
AYES
Boyd Latham Munro
Carter MacDonald Rath (teller)
Cohn Maclaren-Jones Roberts
Faehrmann Martin Ruddick
Fang (teller) Merton Taylor
Farlow Mihailuk Tudehope
Farraway Mitchell Ward
Higginson
NOES
Banasiak Houssos Moriarty
Borsak Hurst Murphy (teller)
Buckingham Jackson Nanva (teller)
Buttigieg Kaine Primrose
D'Adam Lawrence Sharpe
Donnelly Mookhey Suvaal
Graham
Amendment agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Documents
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (12:47): By leave: I table a document comprising a printout of the names
of over 3,621 citizens who have signed an online petition entitled Petition—Stop HumeLink towers; underground
not overhead.
Motion agreed to.
Visitors
VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: I welcome students from Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School in the public
gallery, who are participating in the Legal Studies and the Legislature program conducted by the parliamentary
education team. You are all very welcome.
I also take a moment to welcome and acknowledge the guests of Ms Abigail Boyd in the President's gallery.
Harrison James and Jarad Grice, who are the founders of the Your Reference Ain't Relevant campaign, will be
witnessing their petition being tabled. You are both very welcome here today.
Documents
AUDITOR-GENERAL
Reports
The CLERK: According to the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of a Performance
Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled Regional, rural and remote education, dated 10 August 2023,
received out of session and authorised to be published on 10 August 2023.
Committees
STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT
Reports
The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of report No. 50 of the Standing Committee
on State Development entitled Debt Retirement Fund, dated August 2023, together with submissions, transcripts
of evidence, answers to questions on notice and correspondence relating to the inquiry, received out of session on
18 August 2023. Under the standing order, the report has been authorised to be published.
Documents
LIQUOR AND GAMING DATA COLLECTION
Return to Order
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 28 June 2023, as amended on
3 August 2023, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding the liquor and gaming compliance
checks, received on Friday 4 August 2023 from the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Cabinet Office,
together with an indexed list of documents.
Claim of Privilege
The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Friday 4 August 2023 that are considered
to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that, pursuant to standing orders, the documents
are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
Claim of Privilege
The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Friday 4 August 2023, which should not
be made public. According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 3 August 2023, I advise that the documents
are restricted to viewing by members only.
ALBURY HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT
Return to Order
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 2 August 2023, I table documents
relating to an order for papers regarding the Albury hospital redevelopment, received on Wednesday 16 August
2023 from the Acting Secretary of the Cabinet Office, together with an indexed list of documents.
Claim of Privilege
The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 16 August 2023 that are
considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that, pursuant to standing orders, the
documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT FOR NSW

Return to Order
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 2 August 2023, I table documents
relating to an order for papers relating to an order for papers regarding the recruitment and appointment of the
Secretary of Transport for NSW, received on Wednesday 16 August 2023 from the Deputy Secretary, General
Counsel of the Cabinet Office, together with an indexed list of documents.
Claim of Privilege
The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on Wednesday 16 August 2023, which are
considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled. I advise that, pursuant to standing orders, the
documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
Return to Order
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 2 August 2023, I table an additional
document relating to an order for papers regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Secretary of Transport
for NSW, received on Friday 18 August 2023 from the Chief of Staff of the Minister for Transport, together with
an indexed list of documents
FRIENDLYJORDIES YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Tabling of Correspondence
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 23 March 2022, I table
correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding FriendlyJordies, received on Friday 4 August 2023 from
the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Cabinet Office, responding to an email from the Hon. Jeremy
Buckingham, MLC, attaching a letter from Xenophon Davis bringing attention to documents that were not
provided in response to the order of the House.
CROWN LANDS
The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 16 November 2022, I table
correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding the ownership and management of Crown Lands,
received on Tuesday 8 August 2023 from the Deputy Secretary, General Counsel of the Cabinet Office,
responding to concerns raised by Ms Cate Faehrmann about compliance with orders of the House.
TRANSPORT CLUSTER RESTRUCTURE
CBD AND SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL PROJECT
WESTCONNEX
NEWELL HIGHWAY
The CLERK: I table correspondence from the Cabinet Office received on Tuesday 8 August 2023
attaching a letter from Transport for NSW relating to the Restructure of the Transport Cluster, CBD and South
East Light Rail, WestConnex Contracts and Newell Highway Government Procurement Contracts, requesting that
the original indexes be replaced.
LIQUOR AND GAMING DATA COLLECTION
Disputed Claim of Privilege
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on Tuesday 8 August 2023 the Clerk received from Ms Cate
Faehrmann a written dispute as to the validity of a claim of privilege on a document lodged with the Clerk on
4 August 2023 relating to liquor and gaming compliance checks. According to standing order, the Hon. Keith
Mason, AC, KC, was appointed as Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim
of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed document to Mr Mason. On Tuesday 15 August 2023 Mr Mason
invited a submission from the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, through the Cabinet Office, by Friday
18 August 2023. Correspondence was received on 18 and 21 August 2023 from the Cabinet Office on behalf of
the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, together with redacted versions of documents.
The CLERK: I table correspondence received on Friday 18 August 2023 from the Director, Legal Branch,
Office of General Counsel of the Cabinet Office, together with an updated index and redacted documents Nos (g) 2
and (g) 4.
The CLERK: I table further correspondence received on Monday 21 August 2023 from the Director,
Legal Branch, Office of General Counsel of the Cabinet Office, together with a revised version of redacted
document No. (g) 2.
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the dispute is now finalised.
The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 52 (7),
the Clerk has received correspondence from members identifying documents containing personal information in
certain returns to order requesting that versions of the documents with personal information redacted be produced
and made public. In accordance with Standing Order 57 (7) (d), the Clerk has communicated the members'
requests to the Cabinet Office for redacted versions of the documents to be returned within seven days.
The CLERK: I table correspondence from the Hon. Damien Tudehope relating to an order for papers
regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Secretary of Transport for NSW, received on 18 August 2023.
The CLERK: I table correspondence from Dr Amanda Cohn relating to an order for papers regarding the
Albury hospital redevelopment, received on 18 August 2023.
Members
MINISTRY
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I inform the House that on 3 August 2023 Her Excellency the Governor
accepted the resignation of the Hon. Timothy Carson Crakanthorp, MP, as Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary
Education, and Minister for the Hunter, and as a member of the Executive Council.
I further inform the House that on the same day Her Excellency the Governor appointed the Hon. Prudence
Ann Car, MP, as Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education, and appointed the Hon. Yasmin Maree Catley,
MP, as Minister for the Hunter.
REPRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I inform the House that in the representation of Government responsibilities
in this Chamber I will act in respect of my own portfolios, and will represent the following Ministers:
The Hon. Christopher John Minns, MP
Premier
The Hon. Paul Scully, MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
The Hon. Kate Rebecca Washington, MP
Minister for Families and Communities, and Minister for Disability Inclusion
The Hon. John Graham, Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Music
and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism, will act in respect of his own portfolio and will
represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios:
The Hon. Joanna Elizabeth Haylen, MP
Minister for Transport
The Hon. Jihad Dib, MP
Minister for Customer Service and Digital Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Youth Justice
The Hon. David Robert Harris, MP
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, Minister for Gaming and Racing, Minister for Veterans, Minister for Medical Research,
and Minister for the Central Coast
The Hon. Jennifer Kathleen Aitchison, MP
Minister for Regional Transport and Roads
The Hon. Courtney Houssos, Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources, will act in respect of her
own portfolio and will represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios:
The Hon. Prudence Ann Car, MP
Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Early Learning, and Minister for Western Sydney
The Hon. Ryan John Park, MP
Minister for Health, Minister for Regional Health, and Minister for the Illawarra and the South Coast
The Hon. Yasmin Maree Catley, MP
Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism
The Hon. Anoulack Chanthivong, MP
Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology,
Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections
The Hon. Rose Jackson, Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness, Minister for Mental
Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast, will act in respect of her own portfolio and will
represent the following Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios:
The Hon. Prudence Ann Car, MP
Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education
The Hon. Yasmin Maree Catley, MP
Minister for the Hunter
The Hon. Jodie Elizabeth Harrison, MP
Minister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey, Treasurer, will act in respect of his own portfolio and will represent the following
Ministers in the other House in respect of the following portfolios:
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis, MP
Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and Safety
The Hon. Michael John Daley, MP
Attorney General
The Hon. Stephen Kamper, MP
Minister for Small Business, Minister for Lands and Property, Minister for Multiculturalism, and Minister for Sport
The Hon. Tara Moriarty, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for
Western New South Wales, will act in respect of her own portfolio and will represent the following Ministers in
the other House in respect of the following portfolio:
The Hon. Ron Hoenig, MP
Minister for Local Government
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I inform the House that on 9 August 2023 the Hon. Janelle Saffin, MP,
was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Disaster Relief.
Petitions
PETITIONS RECEIVED
Child Sexual Abuse Sentencing Procedure
ePetition requesting the Legislative Council enact a simple amendment to section 21A (5A) of the
Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 by deleting the words "if the court is satisfied that the factor concerned was of
assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence", received from Ms Abigail Boyd.
Irregular Petitions
COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY
The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition, which is irregular as it is not
addressed to the President and members of the Legislative Council, from 7,750 citizens of New South Wales stating concerns over
the commercial fishing industry reform instigated by the NSW Department of Primary Industries. Marine park closures are a main
concern to both commercial and amateur fishermen in New South Wales. More than 80 per cent of seafood consumed in New South
Wales is imported and this increases every time fishing is closed to access or effort is reduced. The petitioners therefore ask the
Legislative Assembly to seek an independent inquiry into this issue.
Petition received.
Rulings
POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS
The PRESIDENT (12:56): I inform the House that the new standing orders provide for a new regime for
the postponement of business. Under Standing Order 47 business may be postponed by a member in charge of an
item on the Notice Paper by written advice to the Clerk, at the time for postponements in the routine of business
at the start of the day, or at the time an item is called on. However, at the request of any member, the question that
an item be postponed shall be put by the President without amendment or debate.
Personal Explanation
PAULINE HANSON'S ONE NATION
The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (12:57): By leave: I wish to make a personal explanation that I feel I owe all
members of this Chamber. Recent commentary in various media outlets about Pauline Hanson's One Nation,
particularly the New South Wales parliamentary team, has reflected upon my honour, character and integrity. This
sordid saga is not about election results but is purely a grab for money and is something I will not be part of.
Therefore, I advise the House that as of now I will no longer be a representative of Pauline Hanson's One Nation
and will serve as an Independent for the remainder of my term.
I am aware that by doing this I commit political suicide and extinguish any further political ambition I may
harbour. This decision was not easy and was made after deep, extensive consideration. However, it is necessary
because I feel so strongly about the issue of integrity and accountability when it comes to the use of public funding
by political parties—money that is provided by New South Wales taxpayers. In the past Pauline Hanson's One
Nation has attempted to wrongly appropriate New South Wales electoral funding by funnelling it into the hands
of the Federal executive for uses not related to the interests or purposes of New South Wales. I am talking about
a substantial sum; it is a figure in excess of six figures. That was only thwarted by the intervention of the Hon.
Mark Latham and me.
I will not canvass the issue in full here because this is not the correct forum. But the allegations have been
documented in a letter authored by the Hon. Mark Latham, with my concurrence, and have been forwarded to the
Hon. John Graham in his capacity as Special Minister of State. I will not stand by and allow that to occur, nor can
I be associated with a political party that acts unlawfully and without morals. For the record, I am not accusing
any former members of the New South Wales executive of any impropriety—far from it. They have always acted
with integrity beyond reproach. This action has the grubby fingerprints of James Ashby all over it. He is a con
man, a spiv and a fraudster. I warn anybody having dealings with him to be extremely careful. I thank the House
for its indulgence.
Personal Explanation
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (13:00): By leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. I inform the
House that I will be sitting as an Independent in the Chamber, following the recent Queensland takeover of the
One Nation New South Wales branch. I cannot remain as a One Nation MP due to past attempts at defrauding
New South Wales electoral funds and the appointment of a new State executive orchestrated to repeat those rorts.
My concern about the integrity of New South Wales electoral funding paid to Pauline Hanson's One Nation is set
out in a letter to the Special Minister of State, the Hon. John Graham. I seek leave to table a copy of the letter.
Leave granted.
Document tabled.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I move:
That the document be published.
Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions.
Questions Without Notice
DEPARTMENTAL STAFFING
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (13:29): My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change.
What assurances can the Minister give the House and the people of New South Wales that the secretary for the
new department of climate change, energy, the environment and heritage will be properly qualified for the role
and not just a former Labor staffer?
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: Questions should not contain imputations. There was a
clear imputation that being a former Labor staffer is something of concern. Mr President, I ask you to rule the
question out of order.
The PRESIDENT: I do not agree that there is a pejorative imputation in the fact that someone is merely
a Labor staffer. Some would argue that there is a positive connotation to that. That is entirely for individuals to
determine of their own will. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the
Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (13:30): I am very pleased to see that those opposite have realised
that the Government has established a standalone department for energy, climate change, the environment and
heritage, which is something that those opposite failed to do. For the entire time they were in government, they
did not even have a climate change Minister. I am very pleased to see that they have paid attention. In due course,
we will be appointing a secretary to that very important department, who will be in charge of turning around the
mess left by the previous Government. The previous Government left us going backward on 18 out of about
22 measures in the State of the Environment report. The same Government talked a lot about there being more
threatened species than ever seen before, and that was rising. The same Government failed to take any action
when it came to working properly with NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and left it underfunded. It left
biodiversity conservation officers on a financial cliff.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: The Minister is not being directly relevant to the question that was
asked. Mr President, I ask you to draw the Minister back to the question and ask her to be directly relevant to it.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The appointment of the secretary is extremely important. Let us remember
when those opposite appointed John Barilaro. According to those opposite, he was the person best qualified to be
a trade commissioner for New South Wales. It was a completely rorted process that was the subject of much
discussion. Those opposite get very upset when we talk about it. We spent a lot of time talking about it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume her seat. I understand that it is the first day of the
sitting week, but I would be grateful if the Minister would confine her answer to the question asked. I ask
Opposition members to restrain themselves. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: It is very good news for the environment, for action on climate change and
for the move to renewable energy that the Government has seen fit to create a standalone department to tackle
those very difficult questions and problems. There will be a secretary appointed to my department. The process
for that appointment will be very clear. It will be transparent, and it will be made in due course.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (13:33): I ask a supplementary question.
The PRESIDENT: Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his supplementary question, I note that
members were doing so well at the end of the last sittings. It is very important for the good running of the House,
and particularly for Hansard, that there is not a constant barrage of interjections. It does not help anything. The
odd interjection is welcomed, obviously—even though it is disorderly at all times—but there cannot be a constant
stream of thought. I warn members that they will be called to order if they continue in that manner.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Will the Leader of the Government outline the process that will be
adopted for the appointment of the new secretary to her department?
Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (13:34): I hope the new department has the very best person for the
job to tackle the extraordinary challenges that we face as a State and that the Government faces on behalf of the
people of New South Wales.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order—
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If you let me finish my sentence—
The Hon. Wes Fang: If you were being relevant—
The PRESIDENT: I do not want to call the Hon. Wes Fang to order, but I will—not on this occasion, but
probably very shortly. What is the Leader of the Opposition's point of order?
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: I accept that the Leader of the Government is potentially getting to the
question, but it is a very direct question inviting her to outline the process to make sure she gets the very best
person for the job.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If I could finish the sentence, the process is being finalised. It involves
working with my colleague the Minister for Water. It also involves following the appropriate processes that have
been put in place. We learnt what not to do from members opposite. They gave us the book in terms of what not
to do. There will be a process. It will be outlined transparently. I encourage anyone who wants to take on that very
important job on behalf of the people of New South Wales to come and work really hard, to take real action on
climate change, to lead the transition to renewable energy, to turn around the biodiversity crisis and to put heritage
at the middle of everything we do. I encourage anyone who is up for that challenge to apply.
POST-COVID GOVERNMENT SPENDING
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (13:36): My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer
outline the trajectory of Government spending since COVID spending tapered off?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (13:36): I thank the member for his question, which is
quite pertinent. When I became Treasurer, it was a surprise to learn that my predecessor committed the State to
$27 billion of new spending after COVID. That is $25 million per day. It is undoubtedly the case that the State
would have far more fiscal firepower to rebuild our hospitals, schools and disaster-stricken communities if my
predecessor had not tried to buy his way to re-election using public money. Nevertheless, that is the situation the
Government inherited. We heard an explanation from my predecessor yesterday, to defend that extraordinary
decision. It is extraordinary that the former Treasurer said he was proud to support the then-Premier's ambitious
election commitments. It has not taken the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party long to throw Dominic
Perrottet under the bus. It has taken six months. On 24 March he was dead loyal to Dominic Perrottet, but come
August his view is, "I never saw the guy. What was he up to?"
What I found remarkable—and this might explain why we are in the position that we are in—is that my
predecessor said that some of the money was going towards raising the Warragamba Dam wall. That is a bit of a
surprise, because during the election campaign I remember the then-Treasurer saying in a radio debate with me
that there was no money for the Warragamba Dam. Again within six months, he has now said that there was
money for the Warragamba Dam. That raises questions. If he got something that wrong—$4 billion to do the
Warragamba Dam—then there is an obvious reason we are in the position that we are in.
But the very loyal Matt Kean went on. Having already thrown Dominic Perrottet under the bus as Premier,
he did it again as Treasurer. When justifying the electric vehicle [EV] policy that he argued for and defended, he
said:
… I was always happy to support Treasurer Perrottet and the Transport Ministers EV 2021/22 policy ...
Matt Kean is running the Colonel Klink defence of budgets, "I know nothing. I know nothing about it." That
probably explains why we are in the position that we are in. We have a hard job ahead of us to make sure that we
can repair our schools and hospitals. But I tell members this: We will hand down a budget and this Treasurer will
support the Government's policy.
TEACHER WAGES
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (13:39): My question is directed to the Treasurer. When did the
Treasurer first become aware that he had failed to comply with the requirement to disclose the meeting held
between him, the Deputy Premier and the NSW Teachers Federation on 31 May 2023? Is the president of the
Teachers Federation, Mr Angelo Gavrielatos, wrong in claiming that a wages deal was agreed at that meeting and
sealed with "a handshake and a hug"?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (13:39): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for
her question. As I undertook to do the last time I was asked about this, we certainly did double-check the diary
disclosures. On that occasion the former Minister asked me whether we met with the leaders of the Teachers
Federation on 31 March—I did not meet with the Teachers Federation on 31 March. There was certainly no error
in that respect. In respect to a meeting on 31 May, if Opposition members had paid close attention to my diary
disclosure, they would have seen that there was a meeting disclosed.
I am happy to confirm that, in an abundance of caution, I updated the diary to make mention of an
"unscheduled mixed social and policy, mixed electorate and policy, mixed personal policy meeting" so that it was
clear. Dare I say, that was done in an abundance of caution as an unscheduled meeting. Again, if members read
the diary disclosures, it is in keeping with that. That is the first part. The second part of the question was, to be
clear, about the outgoing president of the Teachers Federation. We did have a meeting, where we talked about the
terrible legacy left to us by the former Minister. We raised the former Minister's legacy and the fact that she is
responsible for the worst teacher shortage this State has seen.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: My point of order has two parts. The first is that the member
is clearly reflecting on me. The second is that I asked a simple question as to whether a deal was agreed at that
meeting. That is what I want to know. The unions certainly think a deal was made and the Government is not
honouring it. The Treasurer should tell the truth. Did he do it or not?
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me about the meeting.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Tell the truth!
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Tell the truth!
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I am outlining what was discussed at the meeting.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will place the Hon. Damien Tudehope and the Hon. Bronnie Taylor on calls
to order if they keep on screaming, "Tell the truth".
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I am being completely relevant to the question that was asked. We
had a discussion about the former Minister's terrible legacy, the fact that we have an immense teacher shortage,
the fact that this Government wants to make a dramatic transformation to teacher pay and conditions, the fact that
we want to go from being the national laggard that the former Minister left us to being a national leader and the
fact that we have a strategy to do it. It was absolutely clear that we have a lot in common with the Teachers
Federation to repair the neglect that took place.
The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Bronnie Taylor to order for the first time.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: That is what mature governments do. What mature governments do
not do—and what we did not do at that meeting—is what the former Minister made a career out of doing, which
is insult teachers, insult their representatives and insult their union. That is something we did not do.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: I have been listening to the Treasurer's answer. He is now
reflecting directly on me. The meeting that he is talking about had nothing to do with me. I asked a simple question
about whether there was a deal done at the meeting. He can whip it up all he wants, but he should put it on the
record: Did the Treasurer do a deal or not? Clearly the Teachers Federation thinks he has walked away from it.
The Treasurer should not reflect personally on members on this side of the House because he is under pressure.
You are better than that, Mookhey.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: To the point of order: That is not a point of order. The Treasurer was
directly answering the question about the meeting that he was asked about. He was providing a very concise and
directly relevant answer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might not like the answer, but that is not a point
of order.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: The question was very clear regarding the agreement
that was reached at that meeting and whether it was sealed with a handshake and a hug. That is a yes or no answer.
The Treasurer knows that is the question; he should give an answer.
The PRESIDENT: I will say a couple of things. Firstly, it is not within my gamut to require Ministers to
answer in a particular way. It is inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask for a yes or no answer.
Ministers can answer questions as they wish, so long as they are being directly relevant. Secondly, I hear the
comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I have sympathy with them. It is not helpful for members
to use the second halves of their points of order to make ad hominem arguments about their opponents. That
makes it much less likely that I will uphold their point of order. The Treasurer will be mindful of the comments
of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and confine his answers to the scope of the question for the 32 seconds
he has left.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: As I was saying, what we did not do at that meeting was engage in
gratuitous insults with each other, nor did we leave that meeting and then hold press conferences to insult the
Teachers Federation and nor did we at any point in that meeting or beyond ever say that there are a bunch of union
bosses who have no legitimate right to raise the concerns of their members. What we did at that meeting was agree
on a joint ambition to make teachers in New South Wales national leaders again when it comes to pay and
conditions. There has been no— [Time expired.]
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER VOICE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (13:46): My question is directed to the Treasurer. In the midst of a
cost-of-living crisis and in light of the Government's reported spending restraint in next month's State budget, how
will the Treasurer ensure that no government resources will be put towards propping up the Voice's floundering
yes campaign? Further, given that projects across the board are being cancelled, will the Government cancel its
$5 million treaty consultation listening tool?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (13:47): I thank the remaining member of Pauline
Hanson's One Nation Party, and presumably its punitive leader, for her question and congratulate her. I will work
through the questions in reverse order. Firstly, the Government took a position to the election with respect to
treaty-making having listened closely to First Nations people. As an election commitment, like all election
commitments, it will be honoured. Secondly, with respect to the Voice campaign, the New South Wales
Government respects and supports a First Nations Voice in our national Constitution as the next step forward in
our democracy by making sure that First Nations people are consulted on matters that affect them. That is required
so that we can reach better outcomes for First Nations people.
It is noteworthy that between this parliamentary sitting week and the last the Leader of the Opposition in
the other place voiced his support for the proposal. That is a welcome step forward in the status of national progress
in this respect. As for the issues to do with funding support for the Voice campaign, clear guidance has been given
to agencies about what is and what is not acceptable. We respect the fact that the national Government is
responsible for conducting this referendum. I for one will be campaigning for a Voice for First Nations people
between now and whenever it is that we have the opportunity to make that decision. I encourage all members who
feel like we can do better in our future to also support the Voice.
ROYAL NATIONAL PARK PLATYPUS POPULATIONS
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (13:48): My question is addressed to the Minister for Climate Change,
Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage. It has been three months since the
historic return of platypuses, or platypi, to the Royal National Park. Will the Minister update the House on the
status of this iconic species?
Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (13:49): I thank the honourable member for his question. The
excellent vets and others that I get to meet through Taronga Zoo call them "plats" as their collective noun. In May
this year, 10 platypus were released back into the Royal National Park in the Hacking River on the lands of the
Dharawal people. Prior to this release, platypus had been locally extinct for 50 years. I am pleased to share with
the House that three months later the researchers are continuously tracking them, and I am told that the platypus
appear to be familiarising themselves with their new home and settling into their respective home ranges, and
there might even be a bit of love in the air for two of the platypus. Cross fingers.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Oh, a romance! Keep us posted.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I will. The University of New South Wales installed acoustic retrievers
along the Hacking River and Kangaroo Creek to record platypus movements. UNSW regularly downloads the
received data. As of 14 August, all 10 platypus have been recorded on the monitoring stations. This is important.
These releases often end up with not all of the animals surviving, but the very good news is that so far all 10 are
going very well. This is the first platypus relocation that has happened in New South Wales. It is important, given
that these animals are now considered vulnerable or endangered in two other States, and we know that they are
under serious pressure here.
I report to the House that there is community concern about the impact on the platypus of recent flooding
events following a landslip in Helensburgh in the unused part of the Peabody mine on 6 August 2023. Following
heavy rains, a landslip occurred in the Camp Gully Creek, which flows into the Hacking River, upstream of where
the platypus were released. Since the slip, Environment Protection Authority officers have regularly inspected
works to repair the landslip and ensure clean-up of Camp Gully and impacted areas downstream. I have been
assured that the areas that slumped are not part of the active operations and that scientists have found no immediate
impact to the platypus. Clean-up and stabilisation work is anticipated to take several weeks, and an investigation
will be carried out and regulatory action will be taken if breaches are found.
Platypus face multiple threats across the range. On Sunday I was lucky to join the Premier at Taronga Zoo
to meet a very important platypus known as Matilda, but better known as Tilly. Importantly, zookeeper Rob, who
has basically hand-raised this puggle for the past few months, told the story about platypus, which is, essentially,
that we could write a book more about what we do not know about them than what we do know. In some ways,
this mysterious animal that is going with great success is something that we need to celebrate. Most importantly,
it is a tribute to an important place in New South Wales, which is of course Taronga Zoo, whose logo is the
platypus. It is an important and fitting tribute to the Matildas and their extraordinary campaign in the football
world cup. We thank them very much for their opportunity. Everyone should go and visit Tilly during the school
holidays.
ELECTORAL FUNDING AND RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (13:52): My question is directed to the Hon. John Graham in his capacity as
Special Minster of State. The taxpayers of New South Wales provide funding to registered political parties via the
Electoral Funding Act 2018. Section 59 of the Electoral Act 2017 stipulates requirements for party registration to
receive such funding. For example, section 59 (2) (f) requires party headquarters to be in New South Wales. New
South Wales taxpayers would have an expectation that such funding to registered parties would require those
listed as registered officers and office holders to also reside in New South Wales. However, at present this is not
a requirement. Will the Government make changes to legislation to ensure that office holders and executive
members of political parties registered in New South Wales who receive funding from New South Wales must
also reside in New South Wales?
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (13:53): I thank the
member for his question. Firstly, I recognise the significant personal explanations that both he and the Hon. Mark
Latham made to the House earlier. I recognise that it is a significant political decision that has taken some courage.
Secondly, this is a commonsense question that the member has asked. The Government does believe that matters
of integrity must be dealt with seriously, and I can confirm to the House that these matters are now under
examination.
I have received a letter from the Hon. Mark Latham, who raised concerns about perceived loopholes in the
Electoral Funding Act that may allow the misuse of public funds and allegations that suggest a pattern of conduct
in Pauline Hanson's One Nation party involving possible attempts to improperly obtain public funds. Firstly, they
relate to September 2021, when payments may have been made to One Nation from the Administration Fund
under the Act for administrative expenditure being used for merchandise and equipment in order to raise funds
for a Federal election; and, secondly, in 2019, One Nation planning to claim $200,000 worth of merchandise as
electoral expenditure on the New South Wales election, eligible for funding in New South Wales.
In both those cases, Mr Latham has indicated that he intervened to prevent the schemes being carried out
in full and that at least one of those matters has been referred to the Electoral Commission. However, he does
indicate that he is concerned that recent changes to the party's leadership have been made and may allow similar
schemes to improperly obtain public funding under the New South Wales Act to be carried out in future. They are
serious allegations. I have referred them to the Electoral Commission as the relevant body for investigating such
allegations. My referral letter has also requested advice from the commission, as is normal, about the reform
proposals that have been suggested, including the one that the Hon. Rod Roberts asked about in his question.
I place on record that there are already strong protections in the Electoral Funding Act for regulating the
use of public funds, and a party can only receive payments that relate to actual campaign expenditure of the party.
That does not include expenditure for elections outside New South Wales or Federal elections. I congratulate both
members for raising their concerns. As all members know, every party at times has issues like this, and we rely
on MPs and party members standing up and taking on those issues. The Labor Party has had its own issues.
I congratulate members who stand up against this sort of impropriety.
The Hon. NATALIE WARD (13:56): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. What role did
the Minister play in the appointment of Mr Josh Murray as Secretary of Transport for NSW?
shadow Minister for her question. I have already placed on record some views about this appointment. I am
advised that the Minister recommended the appointment of a secretary with years of experience for this role. That
was Josh Murray. The secretary of the Premier's department, Peter Duncan, confirmed that appointment. It
followed a recruitment process, as members of the House have heard. Members are entitled to ask about these
appointments. I did not play a formal role in the appointment. That was a matter for others. I have great confidence
that Josh Murray is someone who will take on this tough and challenging job.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: It is a huge task.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: This is a big task. The task of coordinating transport across New South
Wales is not a job I would wish on anyone. I emphasise that members are entitled to ask these questions. There
have been other instances. However, I make the point that there are a small number of roles in the public service
that Ministers are entitled to be consulted about, and the role of secretary of one of those agencies is exactly one
of those roles. One of the roles that we are not entitled to be consulted about or to appoint someone to is the role
of Senior Trade and Investment Commissioner in New York. I gently make that point.
The Hon. NATALIE WARD (13:58): I ask a supplementary question. I thank the honourable Minister
for his answer. Papers presented to this House show that steps were taken by the Minister for Transport and her
chief of staff to ensure that the job went to Mr Murray, despite the advice from NGS Global that Mr Murray did
not have enough relevant experience for the job. The Minister talked about the recruitment process and about his
confidence in Mr Murray. Does the Minister still consider Mr Murray's appointment to have followed a robust
appointment process?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: The question calls for an opinion from the Minister, which
the Minister cannot be asked to express.
The Hon. NATALIE WARD: To the point of order: In his answer, the Minister said that he had
confidence in the process, that it was a robust process and that he had confidence in the candidate. He opened the
door. I submit that he is entitled to be asked a further question about that which he has already proffered to the
House.
The PRESIDENT: I rule the question in order because I do not contend that it is asking for an opinion
but for the Minister's view about the process. Both the Clerk and I are of the view that the question is in order.
The Minister has the call.
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (14:00): I have plenty
of opinions, but I simply offer the House three responses to the question from the shadow Minister. First, I am
confident that the Minister has acted within her powers. That was quite clear when I looked at the facts. I do not
know the ins and outs of the process, but it seems clear to me that, on the face of it, that is the case. Secondly,
I emphasise that the House is entitled to ask the question. This House has examined many of such things. I am
sure this issue will be the subject of scrutiny. I do not think there is a problem with that. The Government has
committed to being transparent about that. I commend the Minister for speaking very publicly and directly about
this matter. That is quite helpful.
Thirdly, I emphasise the view that I am confident that the new Secretary of Transport for NSW is up to the
job. This is a tough job. It will lay heavily on his shoulders. I refer not just to the secretary but also to the Transport
team. As an incoming Minister, I have been very impressed with the professionalism of the incoming team. I have
placed on record in the House before, and I do so again, my thanks to the acting secretary, Howard Collins, a very
senior transport executive who, in my view, has stood by the State well and over much time. I thank also the other
Transport officials whom I have had the deep pleasure of working with for a short time, and hopefully for
sometime longer.
The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Anthony D'Adam, I welcome into my gallery Audrey
Margaux-Elardo, who is currently undertaking a university internship in my office one day a week for the next
10 weeks. She is very welcome. My office and I look forward to working with her over that time.
COAL INDUSTRY
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (14:02): I address my question to the Minister for Natural Resources.
Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's plans to create future jobs and
investment authorities to support workers in coal-producing regions?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(14:03): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question. I am delighted to update the House. Since we last
met, the Minister for Energy and I hosted a very successful roundtable meeting in Cessnock with more than 50 key
community leaders from across the Hunter. I acknowledge also that the Hon. Emily Suvaal and the Hon. Stephen
Lawrence were participants on the day.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Are there opals in Cessnock?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: If the Hon. Wes Fang is quiet, he might learn something.
I acknowledge and thank the Mayor of Cessnock, Jay Suvaal, who hosted us in his chambers and helped to
facilitate the conversation. Today, coal accounts for 73 per cent of the State's electricity generation. Coal acts as
the backbone of this State's energy production and has provided prosperity to local communities, driven our
exports and provided important royalties for our State for many generations. According to data released yesterday
by the NSW Minerals Council, almost 25,000 people in New South Wales work in coalmining and production.
Employment is at its highest level in more than a decade. But with a number of coalmines slated for closure in the
coming decades, we have an obligation as a responsible government to manage the future of coalmines and sites
for the people who work in them and the regions they live in. That is why the Minister for Energy and I went to
the Hunter region.
Before the last election Labor committed to establishing future jobs and investment authorities in the
Hunter, Illawarra, Central West and north-west. These authorities will lead the way in establishing jobs, retraining
skilled workers and advancing economic diversification. We have only one chance to put in place the right
structures, policies and supports for communities to flourish in the post-coal era. Government members are
absolutely committed to doing that. The Government cares about workers and acknowledges that they are the
backbone of our industries and they are absolutely vital in our move to a clean energy future. Unlike The Nationals,
Labor listens to regional workers and is committed to responding to their needs.
The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Wes Fang to order for the first time.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: As a government, we have an important role to bring good ideas
together to create a clear plan for the future. We know that our future productivity will rely on the economic
diversification and workforce planning that we do now. I acknowledge the enthusiasm of the participants who
took part in what we thought would be a small round table. We had more than 50 people in the room. This is just
the very start of the conversation. In the limited time I have left, I acknowledge the work of Sydney Gregg from
my office, who coordinated the round table. In accordance with our bet, I congratulate her team, the Lionesses,
on their victory over our valiant Matildas.
STATE DEBT
The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (14:06): I direct my question to the Treasurer. In light of the dangerously
high levels of New South Wales debt, does the Government have the courage to make sweeping spending cuts in
the budget and an across-the-board deregulation program to unleash the private sector and start retiring that debt?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (14:06): I thank the member for the question. In respect
of whether we have high levels of debt, the truth is that we do. That is in part due to the fact that my predecessor
spent $27 billion in the course of nine months, at a cost of $25 million per year, which will see our gross debt go
up to $187 billion. The answer to whether we are going to implement—for want of a better term—the platform of
the Liberal Democratic Party is that we are not going to implement it. But all ideas are welcome; we will accept
all ideas. We going not going to implement the suggestions that have been made by the Opposition since it lost
office either.
When in government, the Opposition, despite not providing funding for 1,100 nurses from July next year,
committed in its alternative platform to the Commonwealth Games, to running two first home buyer schemes, and
to basically everything The Nationals ever dreamed of. The Government has not even introduced its budget yet,
so the Opposition has not provided its budget reply. We will not be taking on the Liberal Democratic Party's or
the Opposition's platform. Members on this side of the House will methodically work through the complex issues
that we have inherited so that we can repair the budget and rebuild essential services.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I call the Hon. Damien
Tudehope to order for the first time.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: We are determined to work through the complicated issues that we
have inherited so that we can rebuild essential services and disaster-stricken communities in this State as well.
That is what members will see from the Government when it hands down the budget in a few weeks. We have
been working through this quite comprehensively—and, dare I say, we have made ourselves quite unpopular. But
we must make choices to ensure that we have nurses in our hospitals, paramedics in our ambulances, police
officers in our stations and teachers in our classrooms. That is a core part of what we must do. Equally, we have
already delivered the biggest pay rise the New South Wales public sector has seen in more than a decade. We
have brought an end to the wage cap and wage suppression policies of those opposite, which was responsible for
shortages of teachers, nurses and paramedics. We will continue our program of work and welcome any ideas from
those opposite, especially if they are good.
The PRESIDENT: Before I call the next member, I welcome to the gallery Carissa Dalgleish, a university
student doing an internship in the office of the Hon. Jacqui Munro for the next 10 weeks.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (14:10): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Despite there
being a highly suitable female applicant for the position of Secretary of Transport for NSW, and the finding that
appointing Mr Murray would carry significant risk, the Minister for Transport has stated, "Josh is a better fit for
my department and for me at this time". Does the Minister consider Mr Murray a better fit for him, as Minister
for Roads?
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (14:10): I will happily
give the House some more opinions on this matter. The Minister has been clear—and I expect she will continue
to be—in a range of forums on the public record about the steps she has taken regarding this matter. I have
explained to the House the role I had and my view of the recruitment process. I do not think there is a lot I can
add to the opinion I am being asked for by the member. However, I do think it is remarkable for a member of the
National Party to ask this question after what happened in the Barilaro scandal. The shadow Minister has pressed
this point. I am happy to answer a question from any member of this Chamber, but if I were a member of the
National Party, I would not have asked that question given what unfolded last year.
The Hon. Scott Farlow: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question about the appointment of
Mr Murray and his views on Mr Murray's suitability for the role. He was not asked about the National Party or
any other matters. I would also argue that he is debating the question.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: To the point of order: Clearly the question related to the process of that
appointment and the Minister was being directly relevant in elucidating the process involved there. There is no
point of order.
The PRESIDENT: While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, the Minister was
not being directly relevant to the process of appointing Mr Murray as Secretary of Transport for NSW. I uphold
the point of order and direct the Minister to come back to the question.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: Perhaps I might confine my remarks to when the House debates the
extensive committee report on the Barilaro matter, which I notice is the first item of business for debate on
committee reports today. We can roll through that then.
[Opposition members interjected.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that we are not chatting; we are listening. The Hon. John
Graham has the call.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I will not respond to Opposition remarks that John Barilaro is not in the
role and Josh Murray is, other than to say that I expect that to be the case for quite some time.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Point of order: I have asked the Minister a very simple question. He would
be well advised to answer the question and stop deviating from it when he is obviously under pressure.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister has the call. I instruct him to remember my previous ruling.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I refer the member to my previous answer to the House. I have put as much
as I can on the record to assist her. If other members have questions, I am happy to do likewise.
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (14:14): I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister for Roads
consider Mr Murray a better fit for him? If he cannot answer the question, I suggest he take it on notice.
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: A point of order has been taken by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, but there is no need.
The question is out of order. A member cannot ask the same question as a supplementary.
WATERLOO SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT
The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (14:14): My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing. Will she
update the House on the Government's plans for the Waterloo South redevelopment?
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (14:15): It is a great
question. When fixing a problem, the first step is to acknowledge you have a problem. Unlike the previous
Government, we acknowledge there is a serious and deep problem in the housing market in New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume her seat. I call the Hon. Wes Fang to order for the
second time. This is a significant and serious issue. The Minister has the call and will be heard in silence.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: It is simply too hard for young families to find a place to live in this State—
to start their families, to start businesses and to get themselves settled. We are losing the best of the next generation
of young people in New South Wales to other States because of our broken housing market. The Government
acknowledges the problem and is getting on with the job of fixing it. We are reforming the planning system. We
are delivering the revenue stream for contributions to infrastructure, which recently passed this House but was
opposed by those opposite. They opposed the funding for the infrastructure to deliver new housing. On top of that,
we are restoring the mandate of New South Wales government agencies—our agencies—to deliver social and
affordable housing at scale. This Government is clear on that commitment.
Yesterday I was proud to announce the next step in our plan to fix social and affordable housing in this
State: our plan for the Waterloo South redevelopment. This is a big piece of work that has been floundering,
neglected and going round in circles on the books of the New South Wales Government since 2015. That
community has had a massive question mark over its head: "What's happening with our homes? When are we
moving? For how long? When are we relocated? Will we be able to return?" Yesterday we answered all those
questions from existing residents whilst making a big contribution to meeting the housing needs of the State.
We will lift the proportion of social housing houses on that estate to 50 per cent. That is the kind of big
change we are making, with hundreds of new homes for people who desperately need them. Housing in New South
Wales is in a crisis and so we need a crisis intervention. Our plan for the Waterloo South redevelopment delivers
new homes for people who desperately need them while showing existing residents the respect and dignity they
deserve. We are reopening the onsite contact office. On the weekend we had people doing letterbox drops to
update residents about the plan and what they need to do.
[Opposition members interjected.]
For those opposite to heckle when for years these residents have had their goods packed in shopping
trolleys in their apartments, not knowing when they would have to move, is audacious in the extreme. We are
taking the renewal of Waterloo South seriously. I am proud to be part of a government that prioritises social and
affordable housing and is lifting the proportion of these dwellings in the Waterloo South development to
50 per cent. That means hundreds more homes on that estate for those who need them—and it is just the beginning.
OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES
The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (14:18): My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture,
representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism. It is reported that offshore wind turbines disrupt
electromagnetic signals used in telecommunications, navigation and radar services; emit radio frequencies; and
even reflect Doppler radar systems. These forms of interference will complicate rescue operations near wind farm
sites and mask smaller vessels or stationary objects under radar, increasing the risk of collisions. As responding
to rescue call-outs off the New South Wales coast is likely to fall to New South Wales police rescue, what
investigations has the Minister's department undertaken to mitigate the risk of potential communication issues and
allow police rescue to do its job safely?
The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,
and Minister for Western New South Wales) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for the question, which
was directed to me representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism. In the previous sitting period, the
member asked me a question about wind turbines and the issues that they may cause in other areas. I am aware
that there are issues. I will have to take the part of his question about emergency services on notice because it is
directed to the police Minister. I will seek an answer and provide it to the Chamber and the member. It is a serious
question and I certainly take it seriously. I am sure that police take it seriously too. I acknowledge the work that
police do, particularly those who do emergency rescue work, such as water rescue operations. We support their
work wholeheartedly. I thank them for it.
HOMELESSNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (14:20): My question is directed to the Minister for
Homelessness, and Minister for Mental Health. Does the Minister agree with the Premier's characterisation of the
alleged actions by two homeless men who may be suffering from mental illness as "a violent act of vandalism"?
Was any violence involved in the alleged acts? Are those comments made by the Premier helpful in addressing
the stigma associated with homelessness and mental health?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: I make the point that, again, the Opposition is calling for the
Minister to express an opinion. In fact, the question asks for two opinions. That is not within the standing orders.
The member can write the question so that it does not ask for opinions, but it clearly does.
The PRESIDENT: The difference between this question and the previous question is that the process that
was being discussed about an appointment was at least within the broad purview of the Minister and it was not
unreasonable to ask his view. This question, asking if the Minister agrees with the Premier's categorisation, is
entirely different and over the line. I rule that part of the question out of order. I am happy for the Hon. Natasha
Maclaren-Jones to recast the question accordingly. I invite a Government member to ask a question and then I will
come back to the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones, if she would like to recast the question.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: It is unclear what incident the question refers to. If the member is going to
recast the question, she should say what incident she refers to.
The PRESIDENT: That is a helpful point. The shadow Minister will include that detail in her question.
ROZELLE INTERCHANGE
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (14:22): My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Will the
Minister please advise the House on the status of the Rozelle Interchange?
honourable member for his question and for his interest in that project. I update the House on one important aspect
of the project. Work has begun with the Inner West Council and Transport for NSW to prepare a new master plan
for a park to deliver the facilities and amenities that were recommended by the Rozelle Parklands Working Group
in 2021. There has obviously been significant disruption to the community while that quite remarkable piece of
engineering has been placed beneath their suburbs.
The working group made the following key recommendations: an oval field with a natural turf surface to
accommodate a range of sports; a rectangle field with a synthetic surface to accommodate a range of sports,
including all-year-round soccer; four multipurpose courts for netball, basketball and tennis; and 90-degree angled
parking on sections of Lilyfield Road. Sadly for the community, in an announcement made by the former
Government in November last year, those items were removed or reduced. The Minns Government is committed
to working with the community to develop the new master plan, which will identify ongoing improvements that
need to be made to the parkland after it has opened.
The master plan will be the vehicle to finalise those next steps and ensure that the inner west community
is getting the best possible outcome for Rozelle Parklands, given how much they have had to deal with over the
course of the road construction. The master plan will consider including disability parking and an accessible toilet,
and how to progress plans for up to 150 new car parking spots on the edge of the park on Lilyfield Road. We will
work with the council to salvage the project and make sure that the community gets the best possible facilities.
That was the original promise. We will work with the community to deliver that. It has been a surprise to me that
councillors were not briefed and did not feel that they had a direct engagement with Transport. It is true that
council staff were briefed by Transport, but the view of the council is that it has been unable to find significant
engagement with the Government.
As I say, we are preparing for the opening of the Rozelle Interchange later this year. As that happens,
Rozelle Parklands will not be the only challenge. I intend to update the House in the future about some of the
other challenges that will be presented, including the traffic impact as the Rozelle Interchange opens. There will
be challenges. Opening WestConnex will not solve everything. I will have more to say on that matter down the
track, but I am pleased to be able to update the House on this matter of importance to the community.
HOMELESSNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (14:25): My question is directed to the Minister for
Homelessness, and Minister for Mental Health. The Premier characterised the alleged acts by two homeless men,
who reportedly suffer from mental illness, in tampering with train signal equipment as "a violent act of vandalism".
What steps is the Minister taking to address the stigma around mental illness and homelessness that could be
created by such comments?
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (14:26): I thank the
honourable member for the question. The link between mental illness and homelessness is obviously well
established. I am trying to rebuild the broken and chronically underfunded homelessness system in this State. The
system has seen an increase in the past 12 months alone—from February 2022 to February 2023, when the member
who asked the question was the Minister for Homelessness—from just over 1,200 to just over 1,600. We know
that there is a real challenge with homelessness in this State and that mental illness is a major contributing factor,
as is drug and alcohol abuse, the lack of affordable housing, and a range of other factors, all of which we are trying
to properly address by rebuilding the system. What am I doing? I have extended specialist homelessness funding
for two years.
The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: I have allowed the Minister to ramble on a bit, but
the point of the question was specifically about mental illness. The Minister acknowledged that there is a direct
link, but the Premier made comments alleging that people with mental illness are violent. I ask the Minister what
steps she is taking to address that.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: To the point of order: The Minister was being directly relevant to the
question that was asked of her. She was outlining exactly the steps that she is taking, doing excellent work as a
Minister. The previous Minister did not like the answer and took a point of order. That is not a point of order.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: The question asked me what steps I am taking to try to deal with the impact
of homelessness in our community. I am taking a number of steps, such as extending specialist homelessness
service funding for two years and reforming the way temporary accommodation works.
The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: Point of order: The Minister is flouting your ruling, Mr President.
The question was about the stigma associated with the comments made by the Premier. It was about mental health,
not about services.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister is not flouting my ruling because I said there was no point of order. The
Minister has the call.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: There is stigma associated with mental illness. There is stigma associated
with homelessness. There is stigma associated with drug and alcohol abuse. There is stigma associated with
residents in public housing. I address a range of difficult cross-cutting challenges every day in my portfolio as the
Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness, Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Youth. The fact
that the Premier has grouped those portfolios together is a clear recognition from this Government that those
cross-cutting issues and multiple layers of disadvantage must be addressed together. That is why I am
implementing a range of changes.
One specific thing that I have done to address the stigma associated with being homeless is remove the
seeker diary for people in temporary accommodation. This does not get a lot of coverage, but it specifically goes
to the issue of the former Government's policy forcing homeless people, in our broken rental market, to go to open
houses and try to apply to get a rental and fill in a diary proving that they are legitimately homeless. That is exactly
the kind of policy that stigmatises homeless people and makes them feel like it is their fault that they are homeless.
That is exactly the policy that we are rejecting.
I have made clear multiple times that homelessness is not a personal failure. There is nothing wrong with
you because you are homeless. You are homeless because the system has failed you. It is a policy failure, and
I am systematically working through every single touch point in the homelessness system and the mental health
system to try to drive down the instances of homelessness and the stigma associated with it.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions
I suggest they place them on notice.
Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (14:30): To ensure that I am always accurate before the House—and
this is dedicated to the Hon. Rod Roberts—I want to provide some additional information to one of the answers
that I gave today. As I was explaining about the failed environment policies of those opposite, there was an issue
around the indicators in the State of the Environment report and I wish to update the House. There are
43 indicators. Four were improving, 18 were getting worse and 20 were stable to poor.
Supplementary Questions for Written Answers
TEACHER WAGES
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (14:31): My supplementary question for written answer is directed to
the Treasurer. Is the president of the New South Wales Teachers Federation correct in stating that an agreement
on a wages offer was made with the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier in the meeting held on 31 May 2023?
Questions Without Notice: Take Note

TAKE NOTE OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWERS
The Hon. ROD ROBERTS: I move:
That the House take note of answers to questions.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (14:32): I take note of the answer provided to my question by the Hon. John
Graham. I acknowledge his interest and appreciate his concern in relation to the issues I raised. When dealing
with taxpayer money, we must be absolutely certain that it is being spent appropriately and with the best interests
of the New South Wales taxpayer at heart. Political parties are registered with the NSW Electoral Commission
and are there to provide the opportunity to citizens of New South Wales to vote at elections for a party that they
believe will best represent their interests. I believe that it is both appropriate and necessary to provide funding to
enable the smaller parties to be able to compete against the two major parties and to be able to cater for a diverse
range of views and interests within our State. This is what leads to a healthy democracy.
However, there need to be strict checks and balances in place to ensure that moneys provided by the
Electoral Funding Act support only parties that are based in New South Wales and are in the best interests of New
South Wales citizens. At present there is no legal requirement that registered officers and executive members be
residents of New South Wales. In reality, this allows residents of other States, for example, Queensland, to
determine how the money provided by New South Wales taxpayers for the administration of a New South Wales
political party is, in fact, spent. This is clearly an anomaly in the legislation and is not in the spirit of what is
intended. Presently all political parties are required to have a registered office in New South Wales, and I suggest
that the legislation needs to be amended to ensure that office holders face the same requirement—that is, being
domiciled in New South Wales.
One would assume that community expectations would demand that New South Wales political parties,
registered and approved to provide for the New South Wales electorate, would be administered by people based
in New South Wales, clearly with the best interests of New South Wales at heart, particularly when it comes to
their money. To allow otherwise, I suggest, would not pass the proverbial pub test. This loophole needs to be
closed so that it cannot be exploited. It is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity and propriety of the New
South Wales political system.
TEACHER WAGES
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (14:33): I take note of the answer given by the Treasurer today in
relation to my question about the meeting on 31 May between himself, the Deputy Premier and the Teachers
Federation. I make a couple of points. The first is that I did ask about this meeting in the last sitting, and I did get
a supplementary answer. There was some confusion about the date—between 31 March and 31 May—but what
became very clear is that, after I was asking the Treasurer about that meeting where the deal supposedly took
place, the Treasurer, Deputy Premier and Minister went and updated their diaries to disclose the meeting. I find
that quite curious. It certainly raises questions about what meetings are being disclosed by those opposite. The
Teachers Federation president, Angelo Gavrielatos, explicitly and publicly said that that was where a deal was
done with a hug and a handshake, yet had we not asked a question about whether that meeting was disclosed, the
people of New South Wales would have no idea whether that meeting ever took place. I think that raises the
integrity questions that we need to dig a bit deeper into.
I also want to talk about the Treasurer's answer when he actually refused to confirm whether a deal was
done. There was a bit of talking and grandstanding about those on this side of the House when we were in
government, but it was not actually clear, from what the Treasurer said, as to whether a deal was done. Again,
I find that very curious. I am very happy to put on the record that I worked with the Teachers Federation for a
number of years when I was the education Minister, on a range of issues, including how we managed the pandemic
and how we dealt with things like teacher vaccination. Of course, we had disputes on wages policy, and they were
very public. But I will happily put on the record that, in my dealings with him, Angelo Gavrielatos was always
honest. He was always up-front about what their position would be, what was agreed to, and what was not agreed
to. Never once, in the many years that I worked with Angelo, did he say one thing and do another.
So the question now remains: Was a deal done at that meeting? Who is not telling the truth here? Who is
correct or incorrect? Because I think that goes to the very heart of why we see teachers so upset. The fact is that
we were a mere month into a Labor Government that promised the world and had all the empty rhetoric in
opposition of how it was going to fix education in this State. Yet, less than six months into a new Government,
we have got teachers picketing out the front of the Premier's and Deputy Premier's offices. The hashtag
#HonourTheDeal is going off on social media, and teachers are angry because they were told one thing by this
Government, when in opposition, that has not been delivered by it in government.
Those opposite need to realise that you cannot say things that are not true. If you are going to deliver
something, you have to tell the truth and you have to be honest about it. There are serious questions to be asked
about whether a deal was done. Meanwhile you have got many angry teachers across the State. Vacancy rates
continue to rise. They are not going down under those opposite. Again, despite all the prophesying about the great
fixes that were going to come from those opposite, the issue here is about honesty, integrity and transparency, and
I would back Angelo in being honest over those opposite.
COAL INDUSTRY
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (14:36): I take note of the answer given today by the Minister for
Finance and thank her for her excellent answer regarding the future jobs and investment authorities that our State
Government is establishing—a key election commitment that has been welcomed across the State. I look forward
to those authorities doing critical work in those four regions across the State. I have long advocated for solutions
for coal communities when dealing with the transition to renewable energy. It is one thing to come in here and
say that we need to close coal-fired power and move away from coalmining. It is another thing entirely to develop
a road map for that, and I hope that those authorities do that.
It is heartening to hear from the Minister that so many people attended the forum in the Hunter Valley, and
I know that there were participants there from Lithgow. I put on record this afternoon how important it is that this
House, this Government and New South Wales look after the people of Lithgow, because they have looked after
us. There is a long history of coalmining in Lithgow—the small arms factory there—keeping the lights on with
Wallerawang and continuing now with Mount Piper. But coalmining in this State is coming to an end, and it is
coming to an end in a significant way in Lithgow. I congratulate Lithgow City Council and the local community,
which have put in a special rate variation to develop the Lithgow emerging economies plan—a key piece of local
government planning that is going to guide the future of their transition away from coal as Centennial Coal and
Mount Piper come to an end. They are the tip of the spear in terms of the transition. Maree Statham, Craig Butler
and Martin Rush are working on the transition because Lithgow does not have the diversification that the Hunter
has. It is exposed and it cannot export the coal. I will raise again and again with various Ministers in the Parliament
the need to make sure that these authorities function and act in an expeditious way so that the planning undertaken
by the councils is enacted to ensure a transition that looks after the people who have kept the lights on in this
State.
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER VOICE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING
COAL INDUSTRY
The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (14:39): I take note of answers provided by the Treasurer to questions from
the Hon. Tania Mihailuk relating to the yes campaign. In doing so, I extend a heartfelt thanks and congratulations
to the Parliamentary Friends of Reconciliation, who a couple of hours ago held an event on the rooftop garden
where we took a photo in support of the yes campaign. I acknowledge the member for North Shore, Felicity
Wilson, and my friend and colleague the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of
Reconciliation, for their work to organise the photo, and all the members present in support of the Voice 23 yes
campaign.
The Hon. John Graham: And the ones who were late.
The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL: And ones who were late and could not be in the photo. There were many
things happening at that time. There is overwhelming support in this place for the yes campaign. I also take note
of answers provided by Minister Rose Jackson relating to the Waterloo South housing development. I welcome
the announcement made in the previous days around the development. I acknowledge Mr Ron Hoenig in the other
place for his work in advocating for these communities for many years. The Government has sought to have a
minimum of 15 per cent of all new social and affordable homes dedicated for Aboriginal people, helping to keep
them on country and to work towards closing the gap. I commend all Ministers for their work in that space and
the increase in the delivery of housing that was announced.
I also take note of answers provided by the Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources.
Recently I attended the roundtable in the Hunter. It was a wonderful and robust conversation. There were many
attendees who made very valuable contributions to the day. We could have sat there all day listening to
contributions. I commend her for the work that she has undertaken to get the roundtable up and running. It was
just the first step in what I am sure will be a magnificent transition to establishing this authority in my hometown.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (14:43): Although not the subject of a question—but it has been
mentioned in the take-note debate—I commend you, Mr Deputy President, for standing up for what you believe
in. I have not always agreed with you, and you often gave me quite a challenge when I was a member of the
previous Government, but I have a deep respect for you and his integrity. Well done to you. My goodness gracious
me—what a question time! I have watched and listened very carefully. I have a great respect for people on all
sides of the Chamber—some, not all. I watch them and I think there are good people on all sides. I have never in
my life watching politics seen such a demise of a first-term government.
Let us have a look at some of the answers given today. It is interesting because when members are under
a lot of pressure and do not want to answer something, it is very tempting to get personal. That is exactly what
happened here today with Government Ministers. They got personal, instead of answering the questions.
Questions were asked of the Treasurer, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. I think he is a very clever
person. He, along with the new Minister for Transport, instigated an attack on the previous Government's integrity,
transparency and processes. It shows the hypocrisy of what is happening now, with this Government not following
process. Ministers can get up and talk as much as they want. Yes, a Minister can make an appointment, but they
should not run a sham process and waste over $100,000 of public money to make themselves feel better. What an
absolute joke.
I feel for some members whom I respect in this place having to defend the Government's actions. It is
acutely obvious that they find that very difficult. It does none of us any good to see this happening. Because,
again, people are saying, "The Labor Party came in and called all this out. It talked about transparency, process
and all of these things that it stood for. It was not in government for a jolly week before it appointed one of its
own, then ran a sham process." It is a disgrace and it is disappointing for the people of New South Wales, because
one by one they are finding out the truth about this Labor Government. The hypocrisy is unbelievable, like nothing
the State of New South Wales has ever seen. I give a shout out to the answer with the platypus named Matilda
because I thought that was very good.
THE HON. DANIEL MOOKHEY
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (14:46): I take note of answers to questions about what meetings were
held, what was said, what was the deal. I remind those opposite of their record and the way they handled
negotiations. We are in open dialogue with teachers, nurses, paramedics and their unions in a respectful way to
deliver on our promises. The previous Government's policy was to simply disengage and put a 2.5 per cent wage
cap on working people for 10 years. Those negotiations with the Teachers Federation and their members, the
teachers and support staff, have resulted in the biggest increase in permanent uptakes of teachers and support staff
we have seen in a generation. There have been 8,500 people take up offers as a result of this Minister's reforms to
that sector.
On top of that, as we sit here today, teachers will receive the biggest single pay rise in a generation;
10 per cent in the first year averaged over all the steps of teachers. The out years are in discussion. We will resolve
that because we are about sitting down with unions and their members and having a genuine discussion on how
we can resolve issues, instead of telling the people who saw us through the pandemic, who teach our kids, who
look after our sick and vulnerable that, bad luck, they will cop 2½ per cent, it will stay that way and we will not
engage in a dialogue.
Those opposite ask, "What was the deal? What was said? How much was it?" and that is fair enough. They
deserve to ask those questions. The reality is that under this Government working people will get a far superior
deal because we believe in what we took to the election and we intend to deliver on those promises. As I said, the
Minister in the other place is doing an excellent job of engaging in respectful dialogue with the Teachers
Federation, and the out years, two, three, and four, will be resolved. Members will find this issue will be finalised
in short shrift and teachers will be more satisfied than they could ever hope to have been under that lot.
The Hon. WES FANG (14:48): I contribute to the take-note debate, in particular to the answers given by
the Government about the appointment of Josh Murray as Secretary of Transport for NSW. I note that the Minister
for Roads took great exception to the question and refused to answer it. That was interesting because when he was
a member of the Public Accountability Committee in the former Parliament, he moved a number of amendments
to the interim report of the inquiry into the Senior Trade and Investment Commissioner to the Americas. At the
bottom of page 91 of the interim reporting under "Finding X" the Hon. John Graham moved:
That former Minister for Trade Stuart Ayres MP's discussions with Mr John Barilaro about the New York Trade positions following
his Ministerial resignation showed poor judgement and was inappropriate.
Further up the page the now finance Minister, the Hon. Courtney Houssos, moved:
That paragraph 2.145 be amended by inserting 'It was improper for Mr Ayres to discuss the position with Mr Barilaro as it was also
improper that he forwarded him a copy of the advertisement for the position' before 'The committee concludes'.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: It was supposed to be an independent process. The Premier said it was an
independent process but we discovered that it was not an independent process.
The Hon. WES FANG: I note the interjection from the Minister for Finance. She has got her hackles up
a bit because she has been shown to be a hypocrite. This is the hypocrisy of Labor.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Point of order: The member has called me a hypocrite and I ask that he
withdraw that.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): There is no point of order.
The Hon. WES FANG: We have seen the hypocrisy of Labor on this issue. We now know that it was the
chief of staff of Jo Haylen, the Minister in the other place, who forwarded the advertisement to Josh Murray. If it
was appropriate for the Hon. Courtney Houssos to move that amendment to the report last time, why are Labor
members now closing their eyes and saying "nothing to see here" on this issue? This is Labor hypocrisy writ large.
Labor members say one thing then do another when they are in Government, so much so that the roads Minister
moved a finding to reference that section moved by the Hon. Courtney Houssos. They should answer the
questions. They should have an inquiry and tell us the truth about the appointment of Josh Murray. [Time expired.]
The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (14:52): I take note of answers given by the Hon. John Graham and
the Leader of the Government about the appointment of Josh Murray as Transport secretary. It was reassuring,
but not surprising, to hear Minister Graham indicate that Minister Haylen had acted properly and that she clearly
had acted within her power. Those statements should not be surprising to anybody and, in particular, anybody
with a working knowledge of the Government Sector Employment Act, which is clear in its terms that a Minister
can appoint a secretary at their discretion. There is no need, for example, to appoint a recruitment panel. To my
understanding, it would have been quite open to the Minister to simply email the relevant part of the public service
and order the appointment of a particular person.
It has been suggested—and some of the questions canvassed this—that there is some inconsistency
between appointing a recruitment panel and doing a recruitment search and ultimately appointing a particular
person. I say that as somebody who has been involved in a number of CEO appointments and who has been
involved in a ministerial office in a number of judicial appointments. There is absolutely no inconsistency between
appointing a recruitment panel that might reach out to people, interview and assess them for a role, and make
recommendations to the person who ultimately has the power, and then that person appointing a particular
candidate. It happens all the time. A Minister appointing a recruitment panel does not mean delegating their power
to that panel. The fact that a person who is not recommended, for example, is appointed is not to say that it was a
waste of time. It was a search for talent. It was an interview process and ultimately it is clear that the Minister
retained the power to make the appointment.
Minister Haylen has not done a thing wrong. It was helpful to hear the answers because they were given
in the context of all the media coverage in the past few weeks which cast aspersions of impropriety. None of those
aspersions, however, engaged with the clear power of the Minister in the legislation to make the appointment, nor
did they engage with the fact that to appoint a recruitment panel, do a talent search and receive recommendations
do not derogate from the power of the Minister to make the appointment. It is all totally unfounded and it was
good to have it cleared up by the Hon. John Graham and the Hon. Penny Sharpe in their contributions. Let's hope
the matter rests there but I am sure that it will not.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (14:55): I take note of answers given today by the Minister for Housing
with respect to the Waterloo South announcement from the Government yesterday. The Minister for Housing said
that people were out there letterboxing. We saw before the election that the member for Heffron was out there
letterboxing. He was delivering letters entitled "Hands Off Waterloo" that told the residents of Waterloo South,
"You have the opportunity to stop the sell-off of the Waterloo public housing estate and protect your house". It is
clear from the member for Heffron. As if that letter was not sufficient, the member also sent texts that said, "Only
Labor will stop the sell-off and privatisation of public housing in New South Wales." If members have any
confusion as to what Labor's policy was, they could look to the City of Sydney councillor Linda Scott, who went
out there with her commentary saying, "Your home will not be sold and you will not be relocated." That was the
message that Labor had to the residents of Waterloo South before the election.
After the election not much has changed now compared with what was going to happen with Waterloo
South under the former Government. We believe Waterloo South does need to be renovated and revitalised. That
is why we had a plan to deliver 3,000 new residences there but the members opposite opposed it. The Minister
talked today about what a broken plan it was but the only thing that has changed is the composition of social and
affordable housing. We had a composition of 34 per cent for social and affordable housing. Labor have now come
forward with a composition of 50 per cent. That raises the question of how the development will be funded with
50 per cent social housing. It means that the Treasurer, who comes into this House and cries poor every single
day, is going to have to find more money to pay for the development.
Labor needs to come clean and say how it will actually pay for this proposal. Previously it was a funded
proposal that had four consortiums interested in it. We are led to believe that those four same consortiums are still
interested but we are seeing the redevelopment take longer, with the Government announcing yesterday that it
will not be until 2024 until those consortiums are announced. The Minister says that there will be a right of return
for local residents and that they will be housed locally in social housing. A new office will be established to be a
drop-in centre. All these things were in place under the former Government. We had the policy that people would
be accommodated in the local area in social housing that was coming online. We had the policy that people who
were currently in social housing there would have the right of return and we also had a dedicated relocations
officer for each and every one of those tenants. So not much has changed except for Labor's policy.
The Hon. BOB NANVA (14:58): Mr Deputy President, I take note of answers given by the Special
Minister of State to questions raised by you on administrative funding and the activities of the One Nation party.
I commend you on the principled position that you have taken on such important matters. In the course of your
contribution, I was reminded that electoral laws and administration laws vary widely between jurisdictions
between States, and at the Federal level, particularly as New South Wales undertakes a continuous process of
reform to its political donation and election funding laws for the better. Those funding regimes are becoming
increasingly more divergent rather than harmonised and that is not a good thing. I hope in the fullness of time
there can be greater cooperation between State, Territory and Commonwealth governments to rectify that point.
The public has a real interest in the organisation of registered political parties, not least of which is because
those parties receive significant taxpayer funds to subsidise their electoral campaigning and administration of their
organisations. I am well aware of what happens when standards of control are not met in political organisations,
the damage that causes and the significant reputational risks to those political parties. It is right that the public
should expect that political parties not only have controls but also abide by those controls and abide by detailed
financial policies and procedures. But at the moment, whether or not that is the case in political organisations,
those parties receive significant administrative funding in full, regardless of whether there are financial policies
and procedures in place, internal controls in place and risk management frameworks in place. I do not think that
is a sustainable position in the long term.
I am reminded of ICAC's recommendations from Operation Aero into the activities of the Labor Party.
That process was very sobering for our party but ultimately for the better for the Australian Labor Party. Part of
those recommendations was to make the receipt of administrative funding from the Electoral Commission
contingent on acceptable standards of party control, including accounting for funds, roles and responsibilities of
staff, and risk management. That is a good thing.
TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(15:01): I acknowledge the strength and integrity in the question asked by the Hon. Rod Roberts during question
time, and in his personal statement and his other contributions this afternoon. Clearly he has had to make a difficult
decision. It is a testament to his character, in the way that he has conducted himself. He is held in high regard by
the members of this place. In question time we saw an interesting display from the Opposition, which one might
characterise as "leading with your chin".
The former education Minister asked questions about relationships with the Teachers Federation. The
shadow Minister for Homelessness asked questions about the links between mental health and homelessness
despite doing nothing during her term as Minister for Families and Communities. I am incredulous that members
of the National Party asked questions about public sector appointments. There has been a bit of a turnover in this
place since the last election; I am told it is the biggest turnover in quite some time. I welcome the enthusiasm and
the excellent contributions in this place of our new members in particular.
I will put a few facts on the record. Under the previous Government's Minister for Education and Early
Childhood Learning, we saw the biggest teacher strike in a generation. Teachers were not complaining on social
media; they were marching on this very building. The legacy of the previous Government is that we have the
lowest paid teachers in the country and the highest vacancy rate, which is continuing to increase because the
conditions the previous Government had in place remain in place. It is true that the Government is undertaking a
negotiation process at the moment. I commend the Treasurer and the Premier, and I particularly commend the
Deputy Premier, and Minister for Education and Early Learning for her integrity and the excellent way she is
conducting negotiations.
The offer on the table from the Government will make first-year teachers and our most experienced
teachers the most highly paid in the country. That is a significant change in the way that teachers are paid in this
State. We are very proud of that because billions of dollars have gone into the education system over the past
decade, including from Gonski funding, and there has been a decline in the State's results. The Government is
prepared to invest in our teachers because we know that is the single biggest factor in the success of a child in a
classroom. That is what we are proud to do. We are going through a negotiation process. The Opposition is not
familiar with that.
The idea that National Party members would ask questions about public sector appointments—this
afternoon we are going to discuss the attempted appointment of John Barilaro to the plum job of senior trade
commissioner in New York. The Minister for Roads, and the Deputy Leader of the Government in this place made
a very important distinction. A handful of positions in the public service are within the remit of Ministers to choose
and have a role in selection. One of those is the secretary of a department. There are huge problems to fix in
Transport for NSW; we are confronting enormous problems.
The Leader of the Government, the Deputy Leader of the Government, the Treasurer and I saw the rot of
the previous Government up close. We uncovered it forensically through orders for the production of documents,
parliamentary inquiries, questions without notice and the behaviour of the National Party. For members of The
Nationals to have the gall to ask questions shows how out of touch they are. The new Government has huge
problems to fix. As the Treasurer outlined, the previous Government spent $27 billion in nine months, which is
$25 million a day. There is a huge mess but the Government is up to fixing it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Deferred Answers
COVID-19 ROYAL COMMISSION
In reply to The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (1 August 2023).
Environment, and Minister for Heritage)—The Minister provided the following response:
I am advised:
NSW Health has published two reviews of the NSW Health response to COVID-19 from both the health system and public
health perspectives:
As one system - the NSW Health system's response to COVID-19 is publicly available at:
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/evidence-hub/Pages/as-one-system-report.aspx
and
Public Health - NSW COVID-19 response is publicly available at: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-
19/evidence-hub/Pages/phr-report.aspx
BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS

In reply to The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (1 August 2023).
Environment, and Minister for Heritage)—The Minister provided the following response:
The Apsley and Muswellbrook battery energy storage systems will be able to supply the equivalent of over 100,000 households for
two hours during the typical evening peak demand or for eight hours at non-peak demand. These calculations are based on typical
household evening peak and typical household non-peak demand respectively as assumed by the Australian Energy Market Operator.
While the Apsley and Muswellbrook battery energy storage systems will supply both households and businesses, different types of
businesses have very diverse electricity needs, and there is no typical peak demand defined for businesses to calculate the number of
businesses that could be supplied.
INDIGENOUS STUDIES CURRICULUM AND GENDER

In reply to the Hon. MARK LATHAM (1 August 2023).
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)—
The Minister provided the following response:
I am advised by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Early Learning, Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education
and Minister for Western Sydney that:
On 31 July 2023, the NSW Education Standards Authority released the draft New South Wales kindergarten - year 10 history
syllabuses for the Have your say period from 31 July 2023 to 11 September 2023.
Students do not study the topic of gender diversity in the History kindergarten - year 6 or year 7 - year 10 syllabuses.
Written Answers to Supplementary Questions

TEACHER WAGES
In reply to the Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (4 August 2023).
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer)—The Minister provided the following response:
No.
I refer the member to M2015-05-Publication of Ministerial Diaries and Release of Overseas Travel Information which sets
out the requirements for disclosure of meetings.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I will now leave the chair. The House will
resume at 4.00 p.m.
Business of the House
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: On behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe: I move:
That Government business notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.

Committees
PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
Reference
The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE: According to paragraph 10 of the resolution of the House
establishing the Independent Complaints Officer, I inform the House that on Monday 21 August 2023 the
Privileges Committee resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:
Inquiry into the review of Independent Complaints Officer system (2023)
(1) That, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the resolution of the House establishing the Independent Complaints Officer, the
Privileges Committee review the operation of the Independent Complaints Officer system and associated investigations
protocol tabled on 17 November 2022, and whether any changes are needed, and in particular:
(a) the confidentiality provisions applying in respect of complaints and investigations under the system;
(b) the timeliness of complaints assessments and investigations conducted under the system; and
(c) the provisions applying with respect to standing for complaints and retrospectivity under the system.
(2) That, in undertaking the review:
(a) the committee consider the recommendations of the Independent Review of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and
Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliament Workplaces, commonly referred to as the Broderick Review, in relation to
the role of the Independent Complaints Officer, the Code of Conduct for Members, training for members and any
other related matter;
(b) in accordance with Standing Order 226 (a), the committee have leave to take evidence, deliberate and make joint
reports with the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics; and
(c) the committee consult the President, the Clerk and other key stakeholders as appropriate.
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND THE ARTS

Reference
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I inform the House that in accordance with paragraph (6) of the resolution
of the House relating to the establishment of committees, Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and the Arts
resolved on 7 August 2023 to adopt the following reference:
Current and future public transport needs in Western Sydney
(1) That Portfolio Committee No. 6 – Transport and the Arts inquire into and report on the current and future public transport
needs for Western Sydney, particularly the:
(a) availability and accessibility of public transport services across Western Sydney, the adequacy of connectivity
between public transport hubs and commercial hubs and any gaps in services;
(b) current and anticipated levels of demand for public transport services and the public transport requirements to meet
this demand;
(c) changing nature of public transport needs due to shifting demographics, new suburbs, planned infrastructure and
increased density;
(d) social, economic and planning impacts of vehicle dependency and poorly integrated public transport;
(e) affordability compared with other areas of Greater Sydney and New South Wales and relative to means;
(f) role of public transport and future transport technologies to reduce car dependency in Western Sydney, including
barriers to improving public transport services;
(g) role of the public and private sector, including local government and the use of innovative funding models, such as
transit oriented development and value capture mechanisms, in public transport provision;
(h) staffing and future workforce planning, taking into account predicted service demand based on predicted population
growth in Western Sydney; and
(i) any other related matters.
(2) The committee report on its findings by 29 March 2024.
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND THE ARTS

Reference
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I inform the House that in accordance with paragraph (6) of the resolution
of the House relating to the establishment of committees, Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and the Arts
resolved on 7 August 2023 to adopt the following reference:
Pressures on heavy vehicle drivers and their impact in New South Wales
That Portfolio Committee No. 6 – Transport and the Arts inquire into and report on the pressures on heavy vehicle drivers and the
impact of these pressures on driver practice and observance of regulatory obligations in New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) the characteristics of the heavy vehicle industry in New South Wales that shape driver practice;
(b) the current and future extent, nature and impact of pressures on driver practice and observance of regulatory obligations by
heavy vehicle drivers in New South Wales, in particular:
(i) its contribution to the ongoing occurrence of over height vehicle incidents; and
(ii) its impact on the use of rest areas and other fatigue management practices.
(c) the impact, effectiveness and enforcement of current mechanisms to address current and future pressures and their impacts
on heavy vehicle drivers in New South Wales, in particular:
(i) training requirements for heavy vehicle drivers;
(ii) training and education requirements for companies employing heavy vehicle drivers;
(iii) penalties for over height vehicle incidents;
(iv) other mechanisms to address over height vehicle incidents;
(v) the availability, suitability and accessibility of, and priority locations for heavy vehicle rest areas in metropolitan
Sydney, and rural and regional New South Wales;
(vi) the suitability of heavy vehicle rest areas in terms of size, facilities, lighting, signage, and safety;
(vii) the use of heavy vehicle rest areas and emergency stopping bays for fatigue management and logbook obligations;
(viii) the relevance, practicality and timeliness of existing heavy vehicle rest area strategies and programs given best
practice fatigue management and regulatory requirements;
(ix) identification of international best practice design guidelines and requirements for heavy vehicle rest areas and their
suitability for New South Wales; and
(x) the maintenance of heavy vehicle rest areas and management of public use of heavy vehicle rest stop facilities.
(d) the capability for new and emerging technologies to assist in reducing pressures for heavy vehicle drivers and effect driver
practice and observance of regulatory obligations, such as through training, implementing safety measures and fatigue
management; and
(e) any other related matter.
Bills
ICAC AND LECC LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from 3 August 2023.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (16:44): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the ICAC and LECC
Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This modest bill would give effect to the Government responses to the Joint
Standing Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption reports entitled Review of the
2020-2021 Annual Reports of the ICAC and the Inspector of the ICAC, released on 20 October 2022, and Review
of aspects of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, released on 15 December 2022. It would
also make changes to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016. These changes are designed to
improve oversight over the ICAC and increase the powers of the ICAC and Law Enforcement Conduct
Commission [LECC] inspectors.
The bill would introduce minor administrative changes to improve handover provisions when a new ICAC
inspector is to be appointed. I note in respect to this that it also contains provisions for the temporary appointment
of short-term ICAC commissioners. It also would provide that both the LECC inspector and assistant inspector
will be appointed to serve for the same period of time as the ICAC inspector—that is, 10 years. Additionally, the
bill extends the existing provisions for witnesses to seek confidential medical support to also apply to people
required to produce information to ICAC.
There is no doubt that an appearance before ICAC, even if to produce documents, would potentially be a
traumatic event—although I am happy to say I am not personally aware of that circumstance. However, certainly
there are reports of circumstances where people are traumatised by that. The availability of services to assist those
people who deal with the ICAC is of course important. I note that this provision requires an amendment to the
secrecy provisions of ICAC so that those people who seek that assistance from a medical officer can disclose to
them the fact that they have been required to appear before ICAC.
Finally, the bill takes what I would call a timid step towards addressing the notorious, unacceptable delays
in the provision of ICAC reports. However, as it currently stands, the bill allows ICAC to set its own time standards
and then report against these standards. The Opposition will be moving amendments to provide a more robust
regime that will prevent inordinate delays in delivering ICAC reports. Although this is a modest bill, it is a sensible
one. Subject to it being improved as a result of Opposition amendments, the Opposition will support this bill.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:48): I contribute to debate on the ICAC and LECC Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. My main purpose in doing so is to support the proposal of time limits at ICAC, which has
been a point of contention held by members on all sides of the Chamber. Certainly the organisation has gained a
reputation for long-winded, seemingly infinite investigations followed by the longest report-writing in history.
A lot of this is at the expense of innocent people.
The classic example, which I have raised time after time, concerns John Sidoti. There was fanfare and
expectation that the ICAC inquiry into Sidoti some four years ago would look at illegality and wrongdoing
regarding property located on the sites of proposed metro stations. However, it turned out to be none of that;
rather, it was what you would have to say were trivial issues with shopping centre decisions where he lobbied
local councillors on behalf of other shop owners. There was no great wrongdoing by Sidoti but he lost his political
career, his time as a Minister, his place in the parliamentary Liberal Party and his Liberal Party endorsement. For
someone who had no proven serious wrongdoing against him, he lost his political career. ICAC, of course, in
some instances, has done great work. To rid Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and others from this Chamber and public
life was a great service. But that does not excuse the instances when innocent people lost their political careers.
One of the great failings of ICAC—and maybe this is a factor of bureaucracy and Max Weber would have
commented on the self-justifying nature of bureaucracy to have a self-fulfilling existence—is its habit of starting
an investigation into anyone and anything and always finding wrongdoing. By objective standards, anyone would
have to say, "That wasn't necessarily the case," a la John Sidoti. Over the many years it has been in place—how
long is that? It was since the time of the Greiner Government—ICAC has never backed out of an investigation
and said, "We started this, we've taken some evidence, we've had a good look at it and now we have to admit that
there's nothing here that requires further investigation. We are terminating the inquiry." It has never done that over
its 35 years of existence. Surely, it investigated some cases and thought "There's not much here. We need, in all
fairness, to back away." But it does not do that because of the self-justifying and self-fulfilling nature of the
organisation.
We not only need the time limits recommended in the bill but also a practice of ICAC producing interim
reports, clearing people who have performed no wrongdoing and providing proof of why the inquiry needs to
continue. I think the Parliament has placed ICAC on notice about its performance. Yes, it has produced some great
work and achievements in the past to rid corruption from public life in New South Wales. But, in more recent
times, it has produced long-winded and excessive reports that have taken forever and damn the innocent on the
way through. The Opposition complains about it, but the most recent example was the length of time ICAC took
to produce the report into Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire under Operation Keppel. It took way too long.
It cannot take forever—years and years—to write a report on some fairly straightforward matters. There are
700 pages in the report. After reading the material, I imagine that it could have been summarised and dealt with
within a couple of hundred pages.
On substance, ICAC was right about Berejiklian. This Chamber took a close interest in the activities of the
then Premier. Certainly, she had a close personal relationship with Daryl Maguire that needed to be declared.
There are a raft of matters surrounding Maguire. He was like the Arthur Daly of Wagga. He was into everything
that he could get his hands on. The spiv from down south, specialising in land development in Western Sydney,
was into everything. There were a whole raft of matters that came before the Cabinet. His close personal
relationship with the Premier should have been declared by Gladys Berejiklian.
That was the first wrongdoing found against her. The other is the obvious obligation under section 11 of
the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act that if anyone knows of a wrongdoing, they should report
it. As a Premier, that is a supreme responsibility. Every time in telephone conversations she said, "I don't need to
hear that," having already heard it, it needed to be reported to ICAC, particularly after the outing of Maguire and
his illicit activities at Canterbury council in 2018.
The other fascinating aspect of the Berejiklian report—and none of these transcripts were made available
at the time—concerns what is a fraudulent position that Berejiklian took about the role of women in public life.
She was supposed to be a heroin for feminism in New South Wales politics, but there is a transcript where she
was in a meeting with Maguire and ticked him off as the Premier and he came back in private complaining about
that as her close personal partner. She said:
Because you know what I tell you why because normally you're the boss and it's hard when we have to switch it around that's the
truth.
Maguire said:
Yeh but I am the boss, even when you're Premier.
Berejiklian said:
I know. So therefore it's hard when I had to switch it around.
Maguire said:
Glad even when you are the Premier I am the boss alright.
Berejiklian said:
Yes I know.
What sort of champion of women's rights in politics would submit herself to that rotten spiv from Wagga by
saying, "Yes, Daryl, you are the boss in the relationship." She was apologising for standing up for her duties as
Premier and for ticking Maguire off at a meeting to do with public policy. Can you imagine any lower act than
that? Her claim to be a champion for women in politics was blown apart. She might as well have given that claim
away after she submitted herself to someone like Daryl Maguire, kissing his feet and bowing to him as her boss
in life. There were interesting aspects of the Berejiklian report, but it took way too long. It should have been
produced much earlier. The introduction of time limits is necessary. We must send a strong message from the
Parliament to ICAC that it needs to lift its game, produce more timely reports and, where necessary, own up to
the fact that an inquiry is no longer needed, as it should have done in the Sidoti matter.
There is probably a feeling around the place that the Parliament cannot say much about ICAC and reform
it in any significant way. When I got here, some four years ago, coat tuggers in the corridor were saying, "You've
got a big mouth. You say a lot of things. Can you get stuck into ICAC?" I said, "Why don't you?" Those were
people from the major political parties who were scared to say anything about ICAC, thinking that I was the sort
of lunatic who would charge into it. I have made some criticisms over the years, but there is certainly a feeling
around the Parliament, in private and in contribution to debate, that we need to put ICAC on notice. While it is
part of the Executive Government, it is legislated by the Parliament and ultimately responsible to the wishes of
the Parliament. These debates are healthy to send criticisms to ICAC about how it can improve its performance.
I support the bill to that effect.
Ms SUE HIGGINSON (16:55): I contribute to debate on the ICAC and LECC Legislation Amendment
Bill 2023 on behalf of The Greens. We support the bill, which certainly reflects a number of the recommendations
made by the ICAC committee in its various reports. It does not address all of the recommendations, but it goes
some way to progressing necessary reforms. We need to remember that this State has been on a long, winding and
at times quite sordid road to shining a light on corruption. We need to remember that members of both the former
Coalition Government and the former Labor Government and their mates engaged in conduct that is really
unbefitting of this State and the communities that they served at the time.
The bill seeks to address the balance, to some extent, between the powers to investigate alleged corruption
and protecting the reputation of those who are accused, including those perhaps to be found wrongly accused of
corrupt conduct. But we need to accept that that is a tension that will never find a perfect resolution because we
are talking about sometimes what is really hard to detect and deeply entrenched and covered up wrongdoing. We
have a terrible history of corruption. Some of the acts of corruption captured and dealt with by ICAC and the
State-sanctioned corruption that we have seen has been about protecting those interests that seek to exploit power
and also the environment, in many ways. We saw that going way back to the Obeid matter and the coal licences
and the harm and the damage that occurred through that form of corruption and self-interest. We see it so much
in the interests of property developers, through gambling and, of course, through fossil fuel corporations.
We are not there yet. We have not found the end of corruption. The question is whether we ever will. In
terms of protecting people's reputations and political careers, we stand in this place and we work in our positions
on the basis of an extreme doctrine of absolute trust. We need to be cautious of how we exercise power and how
we are influenced. In that sense, while the powers of ICAC should not be unlimited or unfettered, they certainly
should be as broad and deep as they need to be in order to get to the bottom of the cesspit of where some of this
awful conduct takes place.
The bill does not go anywhere towards looking at the reforms around the Law Enforcement Conduct
Commission, which still remains a toothless tiger in many ways. In May the agency's own report, tabled in this
place, said that its powers, to some extent, are illusory. Yet I cannot see any ambition in the Government to put
forward any reform, even when the agency itself is saying that reform may be needed. So I urge the Government
to look at that agency too, because it is a very important one, when looking at the integrity of oversight functions.
The Greens support the reforms in the bill, but it would be great to see us go further and be a bit more
ambitious in relation to these integrity bodies. In terms of finding the balance between reputational risk and the
powers of investigation, the interest that we need to prioritise is the State being run in the best possible manner
that befits the people served by this place, above and beyond the excessive need to protect reputations. Reputations
of political and public officers can be restored but, at the end of the day, the powers of ICAC to do its job are of
absolute primacy.
The Hon. BOB NANVA (17:01): The ICAC is a fundamental aspect of our political system and is
crucially important to the proper functioning of political parties and to government public office. Like all aspects
of government, we must make sure that its efficacy and capability are protected and improved over time. These
amendments to the ICAC and LECC legislation will ensure that several of the recommendations of the Inspector
of the ICAC and the ICAC committee are implemented. They are modest but important changes in upholding
transparency and accountability in public life and, by improving anti-corruption measures, ensuring that we are a
government that the people of New South Wales can trust.
I know from personal experience, as the former general secretary of the New South Wales branch of the
Australian Labor Party, just how important and formative a strong, independent anti-corruption body is to political
parties, government and politics at large. The ICAC's investigations into the Labor Party were sobering and
enabled our party to wipe the slate clean. We came out of it much the better and ready to serve the people of
New South Wales. My experiences as a party official have reaffirmed my respect for and commitment to an ICAC
that is well governed, is broadly supported and has the confidence of the community. Since its implementation
there is no question that the ICAC has improved the culture of politics and government in New South Wales. The
requirement for the ICAC to provide responses to recommendations made by the inspector, and introducing a
pathway to escalate those, is appropriate and will no doubt be utilised in the many months and years ahead. It will
also ensure that the ICAC remains well governed and broadly supported by the public. Allowing recommendations
by the inspector to be considered by both this place and the ICAC itself will ensure the ultimate responsibility for
how the ICAC is governed remains with this Parliament, as it should be.
In recent months there have been several attacks on the commission by some, in defence of old friends
who have made mistakes, which have eroded public confidence in the ICAC unnecessarily. We must all ensure
that is reversed because confidence in a commission that can continue to do its job fearlessly and diligently is
critical to ensuring confidence in government. The concern I have about recent attacks on the commission is that
they are done in a context where the commission is simply unable to publicly defend itself against or provide
commentary on criticism. In providing a forum for genuine constructive criticism of the commission, as the bill
before the House will do, we can continue to defend and improve this institution without destroying the public
confidence that is so critical to it. I commend the bill. I have concerns about amendments, which we will address
shortly, but providing a forum for legitimate concerns around the operation of the ICAC, as the bill will do, is an
appropriate step forward and an appropriate step change for this critical institution in New South Wales.
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (17:05): On behalf of the Hon. John Graham: In reply: I thank those
who have made a contribution to the debate: the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Mark Latham, Ms Sue
Higginson and the Hon. Bob Nanva. As members will be aware, the bill proposes amendments to the Independent
Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 to
implement a number of recommendations arising from various reports. I will briefly detail some matters raised
during the debate, including the issue of time frames and the Opposition's proposed amendments. The bill is about
strengthening the ICAC. The people of New South Wales are right to expect the highest standards of behaviour
from those who stand as elected representatives. It is a privilege to serve the people of New South Wales in this
place. People enter public life knowing that it brings scrutiny and requires the highest standards of behaviour.
Since being elected in March 2023, the Government has swiftly delivered on its integrity agenda by
banning political donations from registered clubs that operate gaming machines and strengthening the regulation
of government grants. The Government is also committed to an independent funding model for the ICAC. It is
not appropriate for me to comment on the issue of the specific findings of the ICAC in Operation Keppel. I urge
members to focus on the bill before the House and not on other matters. I cannot say anything further and risk
interfering with any criminal proceedings that may arise from the ICAC's report. The Government consulted with
the Chief Commissioner and the Inspector of the ICAC and the Chief Commissioner and Inspector of the LECC
on the terms of the bill. Both the ICAC and the LECC are supportive of the bill.
As I detailed in my second reading speech, the bill implements recommendations of the joint Committee
on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which I have called the ICAC committee. These reports are
Review of the 2020-2021 Annual Reports of the ICAC and the Inspector of the ICAC and Review of aspects of the
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. The bill also implements a recommendation of the
Inspector of the ICAC regarding improved witness welfare from the Special Report 2023/01: Audit of the welfare
of witnesses and other people involved in ICAC investigations. The ICAC and LECC Legislation Amendment Bill
2023 strengthens the ICAC and the LECC by equipping both integrity agencies with legislative frameworks that
enable the efficient and effective exercise of their principal functions. I commend the bill to the House.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question is that this bill be now read
a second time.
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill
as a whole. There is one sheet of amendments, Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2023-072A.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (17:10): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on
sheet c2023-072A in globo:
No. 1 Commencement
Page 2, clause 2, lines 5–8. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
This Act commences on the date of assent to this Act.
No. 2 Time frames for completing reports under section 74
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 26—
[1A] Section 74 Reports on referred matters etc
Omit section 74(4)–(8). Insert instead—
(4) The Commission must provide a report prepared under this section to the Presiding Officer of
each House of Parliament—
(a) within six months after the conclusion of evidence before a public inquiry, or
(b) the later date decided under subsection (6).
(5) If the Commission considers that, because of exceptional circumstances, it will not be possible to
provide a report within the period specified in subsection (4) (a), the Commission must provide a
statement to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament that specifies—
(a) the reasons, including details of the exceptional circumstances, the report will not be
provided within the period stated in subsection (4) (a), and
(b) that the Commission is seeking an extension of time, to the date specified in the
statement, for the preparation of the report.
(6) If the Commission provides a statement under subsection (5), Parliament may, by resolution of
both Houses of Parliament, grant an extension for the preparation of a report under this section to
the date specified in the resolution.
(7) For subsection (6), the date specified in the resolution may be—
(a) the date requested by the Commission under subsection (5) (b), or
(b) an earlier date decided by both Houses of Parliament.
No. 3 Publication of information about time within which investigation and reports to be completed
Pages 3 and 4, Schedule 1[2], line 27 on page 3 to line 7 on page 4, proposed section 74E. Omit all words on the lines.
No. 4 Reports under section 74
Page 4, Schedule 1[3], lines 10 and 11. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
(bb) for each report prepared under section 74 for which an extension was sought under
section 74 (5)—
(i) the reasons the extension was sought, and
(ii) whether Parliament granted the extension, and
(iii) if Parliament granted the extension—the date by which the report was required
to be provided and was provided to the Presiding Officer of each House of
Parliament,
In brief summary the amendments generally relate to time limits which would attach to the investigation and
provision of a report to the Parliament. There are two principal principles upon which we ought to proceed. The
first is that delays in delivering outcomes, as the Hon. Mark Latham articulated in respect of John Sidoti and
others, are circumstances which give rise to serious concerns about the impact on those individuals and their
careers.
The second guiding principle is that the ICAC and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission [LECC]
are creatures of the Parliament and the reporting ought to be determined by the Parliament and both of those
organisations should be accountable to the Parliament in respect of their performance. I note that the bill as
currently agreed to seeks to impose some obligation on the ICAC and the LECC to the extent that they provide
reports, to do so in time frames which are set by them. The bill seeks to include time frames which the Parliament
directs for conducting inquiries and then a report back to the Parliament after that time. It is Parliament that should
have the obligation of oversight about the manner in which the ICAC conducts itself.
The first amendment means that the commencement date of the bill starts from the date of assent, not from
a date some time later. If this bill is agreed to, the time limits have already been set and it does not require the
ICAC to go away and set time limits itself. The first amendment means that if amendment two is agreed to the
bill can be assented to immediately and there is no need to wait three months for the commencement of the bill.
The second amendment is the crucial amendment which the Opposition moves. This is an amendment where the
Opposition disagrees with the Government amendment, which is proposed in section 74E. Section 74E would
continue to allow the ICAC to set the times when it delivers its reports after an investigation, without any oversight
or control by the Parliament. As I mentioned, the ICAC is a creature of Parliament, it is independent of Parliament,
and rightly so. However, the ICAC must conform to basic expectations of its performance by the public as
represented by the Parliament.
A circumstance where it takes four years to complete an investigation, and while not necessarily wanting
to quibble with any of the findings of ICAC, a four-year period where someone has had a complaint made against
them and investigations are conducted does significant damage to the individual and potentially to the totality of
the social group and community within which they move and, as articulated by the Hon. Mark Latham, can have
a significant impact on their career. Recently the ICAC has shown itself to be seriously wanting in the delivery of
its report into corruption which it was investigating, requiring a more prescriptive approach than suggested by the
Government's proposed amendment and the previous reports to the Parliament.
I go through some of the chronology in relation to the ICAC's reporting and investigation into former
Premier Berejiklian. The chronology is telling. In May 2016 the ICAC lawfully intercepted telephone calls
between Mr Maguire and Mr Michael Hawatt. In July 2018 Mr Maguire gave public evidence before the ICAC
and resigned his seat in the Parliament shortly thereafter. Nearly two years later, in October 2020, Gladys
Berejiklian first give public evidence before the ICAC. A year later, in October 2021, Ms Berejiklian was publicly
identified—that is October 2020 to October 2021 being the difference between first being interviewed and
publicly identified as a person of interest—and gave evidence for a second time, with the public inquiry
concluding on 1 November 2021. The ICAC did not hand down its report into the matter it called Operation
Keppel until 29 June 2023—nearly 20 months after the conclusion of the evidence in the public inquiry.
It should be understood that the system of hearings in the ICAC is what is called an inquisitorial rather
than a traditional mode of hearing in a court, which is called a contested or adversarial hearing. The difference is
that the judge in a contested hearing knows nothing about the evidence in the matter or issues prior to the
commencement of the hearing, which is, with a few exceptional instances, always held in public. Good judicial
practice involves delivering a judgement within six months of a hearing when the judge has effectively a standing
start at the commencement of a hearing. By contrast, an inquisitorial hearing, like the ICAC, is directed and guided
by the commissioner presiding at the hearing. Counsel assisting is not independent of the commissioner but assists
the commissioner inquire into the circumstances within the terms of reference determined by the commissioner.
The evidence is obtained by investigators employed by the ICAC and directed by the commissioner. The
commissioner therefore does not have a standing start, like a judge at the start of a public hearing, but has been
working on the case from the inception of the investigation. Therefore, the Opposition amendment proposes as an
alternative to guidelines for the delivery of judgement, a different section (4) (a) which requires good judicial
practice of six months delivery of judgement after the conclusion of evidence in a public hearing as the outer limit,
recognising the considerable advantages that the commissioner of ICAC has over a judge.
When a judge finishes a case, she or he is given further hearings but often still delivers judgement within
six months of the hearing. By contrast, not only does an ICAC commissioner have a deep understanding of the
case before public hearings, but the ICAC commissioner can defer other hearings until a report is concluded.
Accordingly, the imposition of a six-month time limit for an ICAC commissioner is very reasonable. But
recognising that issues can occur with commissioners, like sickness, urgent matters may interrupt the preparation
of a report, and the like, a mechanism is included in the amendment whereby proposed section (4) (b) and proposed
sections (5) to (7) allow the ICAC to request further time upon the provision of details for requiring in exceptional
circumstances more than six months. Parliament would be able by resolution of both Houses to agree to such an
extension.
These provisions are a very good balance between the public interest and receiving determinations by
ICAC which are both just and timely. Even the staunchest defenders of ICAC like the Hon. Anthony Whealy and
Geoffrey Watson, SC, could not justify the delay in the Berejiklian matter. Whealy described the inordinate delay
as a black mark against ICAC, commenting, "They've not been able to get that commissioner to perform with,
what I would call, a moderate standard of efficiency." Watson commented, "The inquiry, which was not terribly
complex, took too long to conduct and now this delay, which undermines public confidence in ICAC. It's very
damaging." The Government's proposed amendments to new section 74E would do nothing to prevent a repetition
of the roundly criticised Berejiklian delays, but the Opposition amendment would.
Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment upon amendment No. 2 because it takes out the
alternative approach proposed by the Government. Amendment No. 4 is another consequential amendment to the
six-month rule and alters the proposed changes to new section 76 (2) (bb) so that it allows for a time of either six
months or such further time as is resolved by the Parliament under an extension of the six-month period.
I recommend the amendments to the Committee.
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (17:20): I speak on amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2023-072A. The
Government does not support the amendments. The ICAC and LECC Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to enact
a framework which allows ICAC to develop its own time frames for publishing its section 74 reports and requires
it to comply with those time frames. The proposed amendments undo that framework. Amendments Nos 2 and 3
remove from the bill the requirement that ICAC develops and publishes its own time standards for completion of
section 74 reports, as well as the requirement that ICAC publishes any reasons for failure to meet its own time
standards in the relevant section 74 report. These proposed amendments seek to require ICAC to provide section
74 reports to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament within six months after the conclusion of evidence
before a public hearing, or at a later date if exceptional circumstances apply. An extension of time is granted and
decided by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment No. 1 removes from the bill the delayed commencement of the time standards provision. This
is in the bill to give ICAC the time to prepare for the development and implementation of time standards.
Amendment No. 4 removes from the bill the requirement that ICAC publishes details about its compliance with
time standards in its annual report. It replaces that with a requirement that ICAC publish consequential details
about any extension sought by it from Parliament.
I will consider the proposed amendments collectively as they are all designed to implement the same thing:
to legislate a specific six-month time frame for ICAC to publish section 74 reports. The issue of time frames for
ICAC reports was addressed in detail in the second reading speech of the bill. I refer to the reasons set out in that
speech and supplement them here. The parts of the bill that the Opposition seeks to remove by these amendments
give effect to recommendation 1 of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Independent Commission
Against Corruption entitled Review of aspects of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
Recommendation 1 of that report is that the Government amends the ICAC Act to require ICAC to develop and
publish time standards for completing section 74 reports, and to report on its own performance against these
standards. The Government accepted this recommendation, which is a recommendation of a bipartisan, expert
committee of this Parliament.
The Opposition's proposed amendments are inconsistent with the recommendation of the ICAC committee.
In its report the ICAC committee considered and rejected the idea of legislating specific time frames for ICAC.
The ICAC undertakes complex and often lengthy investigations. By allowing the ICAC to set its own time frames
the Government recognises that the ICAC is best placed to develop flexible standards that meet its investigative
requirements. Requiring ICAC to develop its own time standards and measure its performance against those
standards would increase transparency and public accountability of ICAC's reporting functions and reduce delays
without imposing inflexible restrictions on the ICAC. Legislating a fixed time frame for the ICAC to deal with
corruption matters, as the Opposition has proposed to do, may impede the ICAC's work and would not reflect the
fact that its investigations vary greatly in scope and complexity. For these reasons, the Government opposes the
proposed amendments.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Damien Tudehope has moved Opposition amendments
Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2023-072A. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 16
Noes ................... 20
Majority .............. 4
AYES
Carter MacDonald Munro
Fang (teller) Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)
Farlow Martin Ruddick
Farraway Merton Taylor
Franklin Mitchell Tudehope
Latham
NOES
Boyd Graham Moriarty
Buckingham Higginson Murphy (teller)
Buttigieg Houssos Nanva (teller)
Cohn Hurst Primrose
D'Adam Jackson Sharpe
Donnelly Kaine Suvaal
Faehrmann Lawrence
PAIRS
Ward Mookhey
Amendments negatived.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM: I move:
That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House without amendment.
Motion agreed to.

Adoption of Report
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM: On behalf of the Hon. John Graham: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.

Third Reading
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM: On behalf of the Hon. John Graham: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.

Committees
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
Reports
Debate resumed from 20 June 2023.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:35): I take note of the report of the Public Accountability Committee's
inquiry into the appointment of Mr John Barilaro as Senior Trade and Investment Commissioner [STIC] to the
Americas. We went through many hearings. The inquiry was always in search of a smoking gun, which it never
found, and the interim report lay bare. I think some other members of the committee may have had some
misgivings about the politically charged nature of the inquiry. There is the old adage that wherever there is smoke,
there is fire. In this case, that did not seem to bear fruit. As we heard constantly from the witnesses in the inquiry,
the inferences suggested by the then Opposition and the roles played in the appointment were not there. We
determined that there was a process, and we heard that it was a messy and imperfect process.
We saw the report from NGS Global, which found that Mr Barilaro was the best candidate for the role.
That was a little bit different to some reports we might see now from NGS Global. I note the comments made
recently about that organisation. In the case of Mr Barilaro's appointment, NGS Global ran a fairly comprehensive
process which involved several members. It was an imperfect process because a whole multitude of factors
occurred at the time. There was a reorganisation of ministerial arrangements as the department moved from
Treasury, which created a level of confusion. Ministerial changes occurred during that time. We were coming out
of a COVID pandemic, and it was not a front-of-mind issue for most people.
The inquiry was filled with some great hits and lines throughout, however as it continued we heard no
evidence of the original allegations, particularly when it came to Minister Ayres having any role to play in
determining that process. Minister Ayres indicated that there was an advertisement for the role, and it seems like
this Government thinks it is appropriate to alert somebody to a public advertisement for a government role. We
did not see any evidence of the Minister getting involved in the process and determining who the successful
applicant was. That was a decision made by the panel and confirmed by the secretary.
The Agent-General role had a Cabinet determination, and I am sure we will spend more time on the final
report which dealt with the Agent-General. We heard that there was some consideration of that role being a
Cabinet appointment. That was a mistake and was rectified for the North America STIC appointment, which did
not go to Cabinet. It was an appointment that was notified, but it was not an appointment that was determined by
Cabinet because it was determined that it was a public service role and therefore governed by the Government
Sector Employment Act.
The inquiry was a show trial. Some great media came from it. I remember knowing that it was a very big
issue in Australian politics when somebody alerted me to the fact that our questioning was being live streamed
that day and that there were camps lined up on Macquarie Street. It had the political histrionics that made it a
scandal, but when we delved further into the evidence it did not bear out to be the scandal that people may have
thought it was. An eminently qualified candidate, a former trade Minister, was appointed to that role. We heard
from those sitting on the panel that they determined that individual was the most suitable candidate because he
had a mix of knowledge of New South Wales and of international trade.
Many people would be suitable for such a role, and we heard about some through that inquiry. The former
leader of the Labor Opposition, Jodi McKay, was considered for the position in India. I know through my work
with Jodi McKay on the Australia India Business Council that she is doing an exceptional job there. She would
be eminently qualified and suitable for appointment to such a role. Pru Goward was considered for a role in
Singapore, and Kerry Chikarovski might have been considered. They are people who have given great service to
New South Wales and have a great understanding of the State. They are people who would be able to sell New
South Wales on the world stage, which a role like that requires and which the STIC Americas role required.
For all the time that we spent on the inquiry, the minutiae and the details, the process was certainly
imperfect. It was a process that we can learn much from by not repeating it. Sadly, those in Government do not
seem to have learnt that lesson. But we never saw the smoking gun. We never saw the fire that was alleged. We
saw what was borne out as being a reasonable appointment, on merit, if made through an imperfect process. As
such, the committee's findings were not based on the evidence before the inquiry but on a political narrative borne
out through that inquiry. It was a very successful political narrative prosecuted by the then Opposition, but it was
not informed by the evidence presented before the inquiry.
I commend the secretariat for the work it does in administering inquiries, even though we may not
necessarily have been impressed with some of the mechanisms undertaken throughout the inquiry. I thank my
Coalition colleagues who served on the inquiry, none more notable than the Hon. Wes Fang and the Hon. Peter
Poulos—for all of our sins. I thank the House for its indulgence and I note the report before the House.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): The question is that the House take note of the report.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
Report and Government Response
Debate resumed from 20 June 2023.
The Hon. WES FANG (17:43): I take note of report No. 16 of the Public Accountability Committee
entitled Appointment of Mr John Barilaro as Senior Trade and Investment Commissioner to the Americas: Final
report, dated February 2023.
The Hon. John Graham: Correct the record!
The Hon. WES FANG: I note the interjection of the Minister to correct the record. I gleefully take that
opportunity. What we saw was less of a show trial and more of a kangaroo court that was prosecuted by those
opposite in an attempt to aid their electoral advances. As my colleague the Hon. Scott Farlow noted in his
contribution, there was some success in that. However, the report on the inquiry created untold damage to New
South Wales. That is the legacy that the Labor Party will leave from the last Parliament. The Senior Trade and
Investment Commissioner [STIC] positions were vitally important for New South Wales because trade and
investment decisions are not just determined in the State. They are determined at a broader scale, and sometimes
that means they are determined internationally. The positions were put in place by the former Liberal-Nationals
Government to leverage trade and investment across the globe.
Not only did we look at the appointment of John Barilaro to the STIC Americas position, but we also
looked at some of the other appointments. One of those was the position of Agent-General in the UK. We had
somebody who was eminently qualified to lead the trade and investment position of New South Wales in the
United Kingdom. A hatchet job was done to somebody who was eminently qualified for that position by
politicising the legitimate raising of a number of issues about the payment of rent and other issues relating to the
deployment of somebody overseas, including where the offices were located, which the inquiry determined were
common practice amongst the other trade and investment commissioner positions not only within the United
Kingdom but also across the globe.
That has done untold damage to the prosperity of New South Wales for years to come. In a short-sighted
and political move, politicising and demonising those positions in the way the Labor Party did will create issues
for us in the future. I note that whilst we had a number of positions overseas, other States such as Queensland and
Victoria already had those positions established, had quite a number more than New South Wales, and had
deployed those people successfully to increase the amount of trade and investment that was flowing in and out of
the States.
I turn to the substance of the report and to what was a political hit job on a number of people. The way it
was done was an absolute disgrace. Evidence was leaked and taken, out of context, to the media through a press
release, a press conference or a media drop prior to that evidence being tested. When I took note of the interim
report, I spoke about the politicisation and media coverage of what were supposed to be smoking guns, such as
the report from Mark Connell, which was tabled without being tested and without Mark Connell ever appearing
before the inquiry. It only went to show that it was a political hit job, done without any veracity and without any
tests being put on the evidence, which was ultimately proven to be rubbish.
This is the Parliament of New South Wales. Yes, there are political overtones to everything we do. But, at
the end of the day, this is a Parliament that strives to uphold the rule of law, procedural fairness, and the equity
and justice of the system the Parliament was built on. So much of that was abandoned in the inquiry. We were
less than a year out from an election. The then Opposition had the opportunity to create a firestorm and the media
ate it up. Ultimately, the reports show that the issues that were prosecuted in the media, either through drops or
by putting them out of context prior to being tested, led to nothing. The positions were appointed on merit and
with a rigorous recruiting process. There was a focus on two of the six positions, with the other four predominantly
focused on delivering for New South Wales. The fact that they got drawn into all of this is a great travesty for
New South Wales moving forward.
We should draw parallels between what this report and the previous interim report say about the conduct
of Ministers and their offices in relation to these appointments. During the take-note debate today I raised some
of those issues. The Special Minister of State and the Minister for Finance both had a hand in proposing
amendments to the interim report that demonised the contact between a Minister's office and a potential candidate.
The forwarding of a job ad in particular was noted numerous times, not only in the report but in the finding that
was proposed by the Hon. John Graham. It strikes me as amazingly naive that a Labor Minister's office has now
forwarded a job ad to a prospective candidate and the Government thinks that there is nothing to see. This process
destroyed the careers of the former trade Minister, John Barilaro, and the then trade Minister, Stuart Ayres, for
forwarding on a job ad, yet the chief of staff of Minister Haylen in the other place also forwarded a job ad on to
the person who ended up receiving the secretary position.
Labor members can argue as much as they like that they are different roles which perhaps should be looked
at in different ways and that there is some justification for all of this. Labor members say one thing in opposition
but do whatever they want in government, and there is no greater demonstration of that hypocrisy than the
appointment of Josh Murray. The fact that they proposed the amendments that they did and then did not hold
themselves to the same standard with the same rigour that they expected of the previous Government in the last
Parliament will, I suspect, haunt them for weeks and months to come, if not for the next term of government. The
inquiry showed the power of the Legislative Council's Standing Order 52 call for papers process, for which the
Parliament's committees, through its hearings, are a vehicle. It demonstrates the power that we have in this House.
As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. In this instance that power was abused, and we should
be sorry for what happened to those people.
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (17:53): I do not
intend to speak for long. The reports speak for themselves and they are on the record. However, I will respond to
a couple of the comments of the Hon. Wes Fang, given the strength of his views. I stand by the reports, which
raise important issues that were taken very seriously by the House, as they should have been. Members are entitled
to make any contribution they choose, but I point out that the last contribution blurred the lines dramatically
between Government Sector Employment Act appointments and other appointments, to which different rules
apply. That has been well canvassed in the House. I will not press that more formally. Of course, there were
politics around this inquiry, but there were also very serious facts. Members can make their own judgment about
those, as the public has.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:54): This was another report that was looking for a smoking gun and
did not find it. This time the smoking gun that the Government was looking for came at the expense of then
Premier the Hon. Dominic Perrottet, the member for Epping in the other place. They were trying to find his
involvement in the process of Mr Stephen Cartwright being appointed as Agent General to the United Kingdom.
The inquiry was another imperfect process that stopped and started. There was also a misconception that it was a
Cabinet appointment. We must be mindful that it all happened during the COVID pandemic and there were certain
levels of interest. I put on the record, as I have previously, that I advocated for the return of the Agent General to
the United Kingdom because New South Wales had been missing out on opportunities in the UK.
This was not a political mate; he was an eminent businessperson who was the head of Business NSW.
From being in business he had certain expectations commensurate with conditions in the corporate world that
were part of the discussions he had with members of the then Government, including former trade Minister
Barilaro. Nothing changed in the process. In fact, Mr Cartwright's expectations were not met. He did push for
more because he had a perception that he would be able to receive more from discussions, but at every twist and
turn he was subjected to the constraints in the Government Sector Employment Act in New South Wales.
Throughout negotiations, he tried to get an increased amount of compensation in his package for living in
the United Kingdom—and he was of the belief that he could—but he received no joy. He was stopped at every
turn by government. People along the way said to him, "Yes, have a chat with somebody. Yes, that sounds
reasonable", but at every turn when that was presented and there was a discussion within government about his
appointment the advice of the bureaucracy was followed. Of course, he raised with the bureaucracy—and changes
were made—that the packages for other agents general in the United Kingdom included State provision of
accommodation. That was included in his package and was in line with the conditions available in other States.
People face additional costs when going overseas. The inquiry heard that Mr Cartwright's family were not
able to join him for his role as the Agent General to the United Kingdom. Of course, other candidates were
considered as part of the process. When it comes to the agent general role, as the Hon. Wes Fang spoke about,
there is a perception and a reality that New South Wales has fallen behind other States. When it was mentioned
to the Victorian Premier that New South Wales was getting rid of its agent generals and senior trade and
investment commissioners, he welcomed it because he thought it would be better for Victoria.
We need to have people of a certain calibre to be able to hunt down these deals and arrangements and to
put New South Wales front of mind in international arrangements. New South Wales has had a smaller workforce
doing that than other States, particularly Queensland and Victoria. In the UK, the leading State was probably
South Australia. When Bill Muirhead was its agent general, who was formerly the head of Saatchi and had a
strong reputation in the UK, he was very well known for being able to attract deals for South Australia, particularly
in the defence space.
We need to have that person of a certain calibre. In this case, it was deemed to be a person from industry,
who had great New South Wales industry connections, and there could be no-one better than the head of
Business NSW. That is who the panel determined was the best candidate for the role. We heard from panel
members to the effect that Mr Cartwright, although a late entrant to the process, was no doubt somebody who was
eminently suitable to be appointed, and that is how the panel had come to that determination. Of course, that was,
mistakenly, an appointment that was made by the New South Wales Cabinet as well and announced by then trade
Minister Mr Barilaro and then Treasurer, the member for Epping, in the other place.
In terms of that appointment process and everything we went through, again, there was no smoking gun.
It was a politically charged inquiry. All the evidence we heard was that we got the best person for the job. Other
candidates were involved. In a sense, we got a better deal because the trade and investment commissioner was the
second-preferred candidate and took on the job as trade and investment commissioner as well. That person had
good experience, great experience, in the UK and was eminently suitable for that position. Indeed, the panel had
found that Mr Cartwright was more eminently qualified for that agent general role, which is the equivalent to the
senior trade and investment commissioner role in the UK context. In recent months, Mr Cartwright has indicated
that he has stepped down from that role and has left the UK. That is a shame for the people of New South Wales.
It is quite easy to sell stories about the amount of money that people are paid in these roles, living a glamorous
life in London. The reality is that we need people of immense calibre and quality to be able to bring great gains
for New South Wales.
I hope that the Government is not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater on our trade and
investment apparatus across the world and the Global NSW strategy to make New South Wales more hungry to
seek overseas investment opportunities and overseas trade opportunities. In many ways, it is an area that
New South Wales has rested on its laurels. The whole idea behind Global NSW was that we would improve and
increase our global apparatus and improve the calibre and quality of people we had. When we were in government,
I visited South Korea—privately funded—and did some work on behalf of then Premier Berejiklian in association
with our office in Seoul. It was remarked that we had one person sitting in Austrade's Seoul office and Queensland
had its own operation, not just in trade and investment but also specifically for tourism and overseas education
opportunities. We were being outplayed by that Queensland apparatus when it was in South Korea.
Similarly, it has long been known that Victoria has had a strong footprint in the Indian market, which has
often led to Victoria being a leading destination for international students to come to universities in Victoria.
Deakin and Monash universities have leveraged and marketed there and are supported by the Victorian
Government. The work of Victoria in that jurisdiction has led to greater opportunities than what New South Wales
has achieved. Now that the show is over and the caravan has moved on, I hope that the Government will continue
to remain committed to Global NSW and to increasing New South Wales trade opportunities overseas. That helps
our economy in New South Wales, that helps to create jobs in New South Wales, and that also creates opportunities
for our education sector and tourism sector in New South Wales.
After what happened throughout this inquiry that led to this report and for all of the hunting for an
involvement from then Treasurer Perrottet, no evidence was borne out of Treasurer Perrottet being involved in
the appointment process. Despite all the hunting from the then Opposition, we saw that it was not something that
was on the top of the then Treasurer's mind, considering the state we were in during the pandemic. Of course, he
had some interactions with the process, particularly considering that at times during that process trade was situated
within Treasury. We also saw briefs that may have been cited were not actually signed by the then Treasurer and
he may not have seen them. The evidence that we heard with respect to his chief of staff at the time was that it
certainly was not a high-priority issue for him. This committee report should be read through the proper lens that
it had at the time, which was a politically charged inquiry before an election—one which I will grant that the then
Opposition and now Government was successful in prosecuting, but we should not rely on it as a Parliament
because of its political nature.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): The question is that the House take note of the report.
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House
The Hon. BOB NANVA: On behalf of the Hon. Aileen MacDonald: I move:
That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 3 be postponed until the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.

The Hon. BOB NANVA: On behalf of Ms Sue Higginson: I move:
That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 4 be postponed until the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.

Committees
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE
Government Response
Debate resumed from Tuesday 27 June 2023.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): The question is that the House take note of the
Government responses to the report entitled 2022 Review of the Compulsory Third Party insurance scheme and
the report entitled 2022 Review of the Lifetime Care and Support scheme.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Government Response
Debate on the Government response to the report entitled Impact of the Western Harbour Tunnel and
Beaches Link called on and adjourned.
Adjournment Debate
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF SUSTAINABLE FASHION

The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (18:07): During the last sitting week the Parliamentary Friends of
Sustainable Fashion held its inaugural meeting.
The Hon. Mark Latham: Sustainable fashion?
The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE: You are most welcome. It was exciting to be in a room full of people
from across the political spectrum who are interested in learning about, developing and advocating for sustainable
fashion in New South Wales.
The Hon. Mark Latham: I only own one suit.
The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE: Fabulous. That is a very sustainable approach. I endorse that entirely.
I encourage members in this place to consider joining the group and consider how we can all make more
sustainable fashion choices for our parliamentary wardrobes. Making a sustainable fashion choice can be as simple
as buying from an op shop or as complicated as trying to trace the supply chain of the clothing we buy, including
where the source materials are grown and the treatment of the workers who make the clothing.
In reality, it can be hard for many people to make consumption choices based on sustainability criteria. It
is hard to buy sustainable fashion and clothing because if it is not in an op shop then it can be more expensive.
I am aware that in some cases it is a privilege to be able to make those choices, but I hope we can consider other
ways of making sustainable fashion more affordable. Fashion supply chains are often not transparent, and it can
be difficult to keep companies accountable. Again and again we hear of labour rights abuses in the supply chains
of fashion companies that claim to operate ethically and within local labour laws. Many of us would have seen
the recent Four Corners episode—although it did conflict with the Matildas game, so I watched it afterwards—
that exposed the horrific conditions of workers who worked in the factories of controversial fast fashion giant
Shein.
The episode revealed that workers in those factories are paid by the piece, and they are not paid very much
per piece at that. Often they work well above the maximum working hours to meet the minimum quota of
500 pieces of clothing a day. I cannot even comprehend how one could manage to get through that quota. In
combination with long work days, workers are rarely able to take a day off. Describing those conditions as
exploitative is an understatement. Conditions are poor for those who live in factory accommodation. Workers do
not have access to hot water, facilities are broken and there is mould on the walls. I wish I could say I was shocked
to hear about those conditions, but it reminded me of a study I was involved in where I met with Vietnamese
workers in Thailand and Malaysia. Granted, that study focused on electronic supply chains, but the conditions
were similar and equally appalling. Those workers were living in shipping containers and were denied many basic
rights.
It is really disappointing to continue to see that workers across the world are still subjected to such
conditions. But it is not only overseas fashion industry workers who are at risk. Many people do not know that
the textile clothing and footwear sector provides jobs within Australia. Of course, the fashion industry is a big
employer. A large number of workers in the manufacturing part of the industry are vulnerable workers from
migrant backgrounds. We know that the risks for exploitation are high, and it is even worse for outworkers.
I welcome the announcement made at Labor's national conference last week to provide important financial support
to Ethical Clothing Australia, which is a unique, world's best practice accreditation system that sees employers
and unions working collaboratively to attempt to stamp out exploitation in manufacturing supply chains. Granted,
it is local, but it is still really important.
To gain accreditation with Ethical Clothing Australia, a business's manufacturing supply chain is audited
to ensure that all workers in Australia receive their minimum legal entitlements and safe working conditions.
While I noted before that tracing a supply chain as a consumer can be difficult, accreditation systems like this do
work, and it helps when one is trying to make a choice about ethical consumption. They make it easier for us to
make those choices and purchase products with the knowledge that the workers who produce that clothing are
treated ethically. I look forward to finding more sustainable fashion brands that operate in Australia, particularly
ones that we can support in New South Wales.
VIRTUAL HEALTH CARE
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (18:13): I speak on one of my favourite topics: regional health. Recently,
the Bureau of Health Information [BHI] released a report on virtual care, and the results were absolutely
incredible. It is very exciting, and the news came to me thanks to a media release from Ryan Park, the Labor
health Minister. The BHI surveyed 2,301 patients on their experiences, and almost nine in 10 patients said their
health professional always explained things in an understandable way, and around eight in 10 patients, or
83 per cent, said they felt involved in decisions about their medical treatment at their most recent virtual care
appointment.
I focus on that because, as we all know, a robust rural health committee inquired into the system. At times
it was very confronting to hear about all of the issues out there, and I felt there was often a tendency to demonise
virtual care. I have always said that virtual care should never replace face-to-face care—and that came out in the
committee—but it is a very good adjunct. Technology is changing industries right across Australia. In the
agriculture industry, cropping, farming, water sustainability and environmental outcomes are very good because
of technology. We rely on technology for a lot of things, and the same can be said for rural health care. We had
to be courageous and committed to invest in virtual care. That is why I am always passionate in this place about
ensuring that it is not constantly talked down, as has happened often.
The new Telestroke Service is absolutely phenomenal. The evidence demonstrates that someone in a rural
or regional area who suffers the symptoms of a stroke can go to a hospital with a Telestroke Service and receive
treatment faster than if they were in a metropolitan centre. That is amazing, and we should be very proud. In places
like Coonabarabran, there are virtual chemotherapy clinics. Picture being in Coonabarabran, where there is no
oncologist. There are nurses, and they have what is called a "portable nurse", which links directly to Dubbo to
speak to the amazing oncologist, Florian. The system allows a patient to be treated in Coonabarabran so they do
not have to travel extra kilometres for chemotherapy. That is amazing. It is working and it is fantastic.
We heard from one gentleman whose wife was in an aged-care facility. She could no longer walk or eat.
They were very happy with the care she was receiving in Nyngan and they did not want to move her every time
her percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG] tube blocked up. That is what we use when someone cannot eat
any more; it is a feeding tube that goes directly into the stomach. With the assistance of virtual care, the woman's
PEG tube could be safely and effectively changed in Nyngan, so she did not have to spend the day going to and
from Dubbo in an ambulance. That is a really great use of virtual care, so I was really pleased to see that. I was
very pleased also to see that the Minister for Health and Regional Health put out that media release about virtual
care clinics. I commend him for complimenting them and for being positive about telehealth. We must continue
moving in that direction.
There is no simple, cookie-cutter answer to the issues we face in regional New South Wales, such as
distance. But, as I continue to say—and some members in this place do not like it when I do—there continue to
be positive stories about this, and they must be told and embraced. We must embrace virtual care. We have seen
massive success in the mental health space. Interestingly, psychiatrists have embraced the virtual care model quite
exceptionally, as we saw during COVID, and there is demonstrated evidence to prove that. When virtual care is
used as an adjunct to face-to-face care, the possibilities are endless. It is really exciting that all of the work that
has been worked on for the past 10 years is coming to fruition, and that a Labor health Minister has the tenacity
and humility to call that out and say how fantastic it is.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (18:18): Earlier today the Chamber learnt of the decision of the Hon. Rod
Roberts and myself to leave Pauline Hanson's One Nation and sit as Independents due to the Queensland takeover
of the State executive, which was orchestrated to repeat earlier attempts at funding misappropriation that I was
able to block. The details are set out in my letter to the Special Minister of State, now tabled and published for the
benefit of Parliament. New South Wales is one of the few States where taxpayer's funds are paid for party-political
administration. In September 2021 I had to threaten Queensland One Nation with going to the police in order to
recover $102,000 in administration funds it had misappropriated. The money had been spent on equipment and
party merchandise, which was sitting in Brisbane warehouses. Pauline Hanson's One Nation national director told
me the intention was to sell it and/or use it for the Federal election campaign across the country. This was a terrible
rort and a misuse of New South Wales public money transferred to other States. Certainly it had absolutely nothing
to do with the New South Wales party administration it was intended for.
A similar rort had been attempted by James Ashby in the 2019 New South Wales election campaign. In
both cases I stepped in to stop the illegality. Now the New South Wales One Nation State executive has been
recast by the rorting Queenslanders to get their hands on the administration funds again, especially with the
appointment of Steve "Mav" Mavrigiannakis as party treasurer.
Rod Roberts and I pride ourselves on our integrity. If we could not stop the rorts inside New South Wales
One Nation and they rendered us powerless, we had no choice but to resign and sit here as Independents. Any MP
who gives encouragement to these Queensland rorters obviously has no standards of their own. Such is the way
of treachery in minor party politics: those who walk both sides of the street. Nonetheless, One Nation has genuine,
dedicated rank-and-file members in New South Wales. I thank them for their support as party leader over five
years. We achieved some good things for New South Wales before the spivs and opportunists took over the
New South Wales branch.
Most of all, I am delighted to again be working closely with my friend and colleague the Hon. Rod Roberts
as a pair of Independents in this Chamber without outside interference. He is a great colleague, a great person and
widely respected in this Parliament for the work he undertakes. We will not relent. We will stand up for integrity
in public life, especially when public money is involved. I will continue to represent the values and policies Rod
and I have campaigned on and advocated for since 2018—essentially One Nation without the rorters who have
wrecked the party. Important reforms to our electoral laws are needed to head off further Queensland abuses.
I hope the Government moves as quickly as possible. Integrity should be something that unites this Chamber
across the aisle. Those without it should be driven from public life.
I have written to the Special Minister of State advocating three reforms to the electoral laws in New South
Wales. The first is to outlaw expenditure of New South Wales administration funds on merchandise given the
potential for Ashby-style money laundering and reallocation of election spending outside New South Wales. This
becomes a cash economy arrangement. Currently, under section 84 (10) (b) of the New South Wales Electoral
Funding Act 2018 a number of expenditure purposes are outlawed—but not merchandise. The Pauline Hanson's
One Nation Brisbane office engages in merchandise promotion and sales well beyond the normal practices of any
other political party, a good deal of it for money laundering purposes in this cash economy political party.
The second reform is that all officials and executive members of a registered political party should live in
New South Wales, as the Hon. Rod Roberts said today. Finally, the third reform is that all funds paid to registered
parties by the NSW Electoral Commission should be deposited directly with New South Wales party units in
New South Wales-held bank accounts and only ever spent in New South Wales. The Pauline Hanson's One Nation
practice of holding moneys in its Brisbane office and systematically misusing them must be outlawed. I look
forward to the implementation of these important integrity reforms for our State.
I believe what Rod Roberts and I have done today is an important stance. At a minimum, it shines a light
on practices that the NSW Electoral Commission needs to police more vigorously. In some cases it has been slow.
It seems to be remarkably tolerant of some of these malpractices. I would advocate to the Electoral Commission
that after evidence of the misuse of money—certainly when it occurs on a number of occasions—the obvious
penalty is to withdraw the money and not provide any further funding. That is the penalty that would smarten
these people up. For the likes of James Ashby, absolutely obsessed by money rorting, it is probably the only
language he understands.
MAPLE LEAF HOUSE
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (18:23): Honourable members would be aware of the serious concerns
I have expressed publicly regarding a NSW Health facility known as Maple Leaf House. The facility opened on
1 April 2021 to treat children and adolescents who may be or are gender dysphoric. At two separate 2022-23
budget estimates hearings held on 7 September and 27 October last year I questioned the then Minister for Health,
the Hon. Brad Hazzard, about a range of concerns regarding the facility. Instead of answering the questions both
directed to the Minister for Health and taken on notice, he was unresponsive.
Last December I initiated a Government Information (Public Access) Act [GIPAA] application with the
Hunter New England Local Health District [HNELHD], wherein Maple Leaf House operates. Following a number
of discussions with Hunter New England Local Health District, some answers to certain questions I posed were
forthcoming. They included:
1. As at 24th September 2022, how many children and adolescents, who are transgender or gender diverse, are receiving
treatment at Maple Leaf House? (calculated from its opening date)? — 487
2. As at 24th September 2022, how many children and adolescents, who are transgender or gender diverse, are receiving stage
one puberty blocker treatment at Maple Leaf House (calculated from its opening date)? — 95
3. As at 24th September 2022, how many children and adolescents, who are transgender or gender diverse, are receiving stage
two gender affirming (cross-sex) hormone treatment at Maple Leaf House (calculated from its opening date)? — nil response
4. As at 24th September 2022, how many employees including consultants (measured as full-time equivalents [FTEs]) worked
at Maple Leaf House? — 11.76 FTE
Importantly, I sought a breakdown in the answers to questions (1), (2) and (3) by natal sex, that is, born female,
male or intersex. Furthermore, if a total figure could be provided regarding numbers on stage one puberty blocker
treatment for question (2), why not a total figure regarding numbers on stage two gender-affirming—cross-sex—
hormone treatment for question (3)? I will not take up the time of the House by going through the lengthy steps
taken to secure the outstanding information via a review of Hunter New England Local Health District's decision
by the Information and Privacy Commission and an application to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
However, I quote directly from correspondence to myself from the Crown Solicitor's Office dated 3 July 2023.
It states on page 2:
I am instructed that the HNELHD does not hold a document of any kind which records the following:
 the total number of children and adolescents who are receiving treatment at Maple Leaf House, broken down by reference
to whether a patient's natal sex is male or female or whether a patient is intersex;
 the total number of children and adolescents who are receiving stage one treatment at Maple Leaf House, broken down by
reference to whether a patient's natal sex is male or female or whether a patient is intersex; or
 the total number of children and adolescents who are receiving stage two treatment at Maple Leaf House, broken down by
reference to whether a patient's natal sex is male or female or whether a patient is intersex.
Regarding question (1), Hunter New England Local Health District had to collate data from the digital patient
information system in order to calculate the total number of children and adolescents receiving treatment at Maple
Leaf House, that is, there was no ongoing record of the total figure being maintained. Regarding question (2), data
had to be collated from a manual register maintained by Maple Leaf House in order to calculate the total number
of children and adolescents receiving stage one puberty blocker treatment at the facility, that is, there was no
ongoing record of the total figure being maintained. Regarding question (3), stage two gender affirming—
cross-sex—hormone treatment, there was no extractable data field in the patient information system which records
whether a patient is receiving stage two treatment, nor is a manual register maintained with respect to this
information.
In the Crown Solicitor's Office letter referred to above, it was asserted that the only way to obtain the data
would be by undertaking a manual review of each patient's file. It was further asserted that such an exercise would
take at least three weeks. Accordingly, not only is Maple Leaf House still in the dark regarding the critically
important data I sought but was not provided, but so are Hunter New England Local Health District and
NSW Health.
I invite honourable members to ask themselves this question: Where else within NSW Health would a
facility get away with such poorly maintained record keeping practices? However, as deficient as the record
keeping practices are at Maple Leaf House, the much larger question is this: What else is going on at this facility
that should be subject to complete transparency, rigorous oversight and strict accountability? Time will only tell.
However, the red flags have gone up—and indeed have been up for some time, going back to the previous
Coalition Government and the then Minister for Health, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, who arrogantly brushed away the
concerns. The time has well passed for Maple Leaf House to undergo a full external, independent review of its
operations. Furthermore, the review must be made public.
NETBALL
The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (18:28): How great is netball? Australia won the 2023 Netball World
Cup on 6 August. First held in 1963, the tournament is 60 years old and Australia has won 12 titles in total. Back
in June some of my colleagues from both Houses and I ventured to Ken Rosewall Arena to play netball against
the New Zealand parliamentary team. However, in contrast, our training did not appear to make any difference to
the final score so I will leave that story for another day.
Later that day, almost 10,000 people packed the arena to see the NSW Swifts and the Giants play a brilliant,
fast, action-packed game of netball. The players were fierce and energetic throughout the four quarters of the
afternoon, and audience participation was inspiring. What pleased me the most was seeing families, netball teams
and young girls all turned out to support their team. During the quarter breaks, the cameras would pan the crowd
looking for audience members who were cheering loudly, dressed in team colours, doing the netball moves and
being proud supporters. The hairs on my arms tingled when I saw young fathers with their daughters, encouraging
them to support their teams and the game they love.
The break ended and the audience then cheered and barracked for their favourite player and team. The third
quarter was a bit of a nailbiter as the score tightened. The roar of the crowd grew louder and the pressure mounted
on each team member to perform at their best. They did not let us down. We were kept on the edge of our seats
to the final seconds of the game. I felt privileged to be an audience participant, watching the athletes compete at
the top of their game, inspiring the next generation of girls to achieve their sporting endeavours. The girls were
seeing their idols and then later, I imagine, reliving the experience on netball courts across the nation.
It is particularly pleasing that the netball participation rate has grown steadily over the past three years. In
fact, just last year data from AusPlay revealed that there are over 874,000 women and girls participating in netball
across Australia, and that more boys and men are picking up netball as a sport. More than 126,600 men and boys
participated last year alone. That is remarkable when we consider that, just three years ago, we were in the grips
of a pandemic, which hindered community sport in so many ways.
Netball NSW commenced in 1929 from humble beginnings, and now New South Wales alone boasts over
115,000 members playing netball at all levels of performance and all across the State, from the city to regional
New South Wales. Netball is now the third most popular team participation sport in Australia. Would members
believe that netball participation is overtaking Australian rules football? I am sure that Active Kids vouchers
assisted with the popularity of the game.
It is not hard to understand why netball has such a huge following and such great grassroots participants
and supporters when the rules of netball are basically equal opportunity, fair play and respect for an opponent's
skill and safety. I have never seen a cross word on the sidelines of a netball court. With those rules at its core, one
could say that netball is a platform for empowering our young girls. Experience tells us that girls encounter major
obstacles and discrimination in their lives, and they experience them early. From netball grew the Confident Girls
Foundation. The data explains that girls are more likely to experience domestic violence, less likely to play sport
as they get older, and experience other barriers based on their gender.
Netball has the power to change lives and inspire communities. It promotes the empowerment of women
and girls through inspirational role models and award-winning development programs. Statistics reveal that over
50 per cent of females stop playing by the time they are 17 years old. Whilst there are many reasons for that, the
main reason is that they think they are not good at it. Seeing netball role models and the popularity of the sport
will empower young women to keep at it and be the next Liz Ellis or Diamonds team member.
Prior to that recent game, it had been 10 years since I last watched a netball game that I was really excited
about, and that was watching my daughter play centre for her school team on countless weekends at the Armidale
netball courts. For her, there was no pressure. She was able to enjoy being with her school friends, playing a sport
that she adored. I loved the action then and I loved it on that day, even more so now when I see how it empowers
our young women. Go the Diamonds!
ASIA-PACIFIC RELATIONS
The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (18:33): I stand in solidarity with the Labor Party left, or at least those
members on the Labor left who have not abandoned their anti-militaristic instincts in exchange for some union
jobs in Adelaide. On that subject, I also stand with The Greens. But they too have been disappointingly quiet at
this moment. I unashamedly stand with Paul Keating and urge this nation to reflect on what we could be
sleepwalking into: superpower conflict in the Asia-Pacific. Such a conflict would make Australia the equivalent
of Sicily in the Punic Wars—the meat in the superpower sandwich that gets pulverised.
The AUKUS agreement is extraordinarily expensive at $366 billion, but we all know that government
projects have a nasty habit of being over budget. That money would be well spent if it prevented war. I fear it
increases the chances of war in the Asia-Pacific. There is a tendency of many who think themselves well-informed
to interpret all geopolitical issues through the lens of what Germany did in the 1930s. Those geniuses have done
more than watch Hollywood; they have also read Wikipedia and watched the History Channel.
But why should we give such supremacy in our strategic thinking to an extraordinarily unusual episode in
history? There are endless other lessons from history in which we can learn. The first is that peace between nations
is the norm of history, and war is a rare and terrible aberration. While we hear an excessive amount about the
lessons of the origins of World War II, we never hear about the woeful errors leading up to World War I, which
I fear we are now repeating. In the two decades before 1914—arguably the most pointless war in history—
European politics was dominated by endless arms build-ups and military alliances. Then all we needed was a July
1914-style succession of freaks events and the world was at war over nothing, with 20 million dead.
America's engagement with the Asia-Pacific is and always will be optional. Australia's engagement with
the Asia-Pacific is obviously permanent. How many military entanglements can we have with another nation? We
have the Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty, the Quad, the Five Eyes and now AUKUS.
Australia has evolved into being America's deputy sheriff in the Asia-Pacific. That would be of benefit if we knew
that America would be committed for centuries, but what if America opts to disengage from the Asia-Pacific?
That looks unlikely now, but good foreign policy thinkers think in terms of decades and centuries. What if one
day America has a sharp turn to the populist left or the isolationist right? What if America declines significantly
and, given the outrageous persecution of the Republican Party frontrunner, decline cannot be ruled out? If America
recedes from this part of the world, we will be the deputy sheriff, with no sheriff in town.
This is not an anti-American contribution. My political party, the Liberal Democrats, reveres the American
founding fathers more than any other party. George Washington in his farewell address warned of the dangers of
foreign entanglements and President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex dominating American
foreign policy. American foreign policy in the twentieth century was, on balance, noble and made the world a far
more peaceful place. Thank you, America.
But, in the twenty-first century, we have had four American-led—or should I say neocon-led—wars that
were catastrophic. I fear the Ukraine war is becoming a fifth. Five bad wars on the trot, but regardless our political
leaders unthinkingly sign up for more and more entanglement. There is a better way. Australia is a proudly western
nation and our geography is permanently Asia-Pacific. Australia has a profoundly good mission to fulfill: to ease
superpower tension in the Asia-Pacific. We are friends with Asia and we are family with America. Christ taught
us "blessed are the peacemakers". That is Australia's role in the Asia-Pacific, not being the deputy sheriff.
FIFA WOMEN'S WORLD CUP
The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (18:38): I reflect on the FIFA Women's World Cup and the fantastic
performance from the Matildas. I managed to watch every game on television that the Matildas played in.
I watched one game between South Korea and Colombia in person. It was great. Everyone involved in the
tournament should be congratulated for a wonderful event.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): The question is that this House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 18:38 until Tuesday 23 August 2023 at 10:00.

Rod Roberts Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Rod Roberts Speech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rod Roberts Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday 22 August 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VETERANS ARMISTICE DAY 2023

(xxiv) Mr Ben Kim, CEO, POSCO Australia;

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (12:35): I move:

Amendment agreed to.

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT FOR NSW

Motion agreed to.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER VOICE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT FOR NSW

Questions Without Notice: Take Note

ELECTORAL FUNDING AND RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORT FOR NSW

BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS

INDIGENOUS STUDIES CURRICULUM AND GENDER

Written Answers to Supplementary Questions

Motion agreed to.

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND THE ARTS

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND THE ARTS

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF SUSTAINABLE FASHION

You might also like