Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 2 May 2012, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 2 May 2012

__________

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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [10.09 a.m.]: Tomorrow the House will deal with private members' business as normal. However, a number of members have indicated a wish to attend a memorial concert at the Sydney Opera House commencing at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow to celebrate the life of James Oswald Little, otherwise known as Jimmy Little, AO. It is expected to run for up to two hours. Consequently, on behalf of the Government I propose that any divisions or quorums called tomorrow morning be deferred until 12.30 p.m. to allow members the opportunity to attend celebrations that will acknowledge an icon of Australian music history and an Indigenous person who has contributed greatly to the Australia we know and love.

SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (BOARD MEMBERS) BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 April 2012.

Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [10.11 a.m.]: I am pleased to note a requirement of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 that the board must include members with qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection. This will ensure that board members have the proper skills to manage the catchment and protect the valuable environmental assets within national parks within the greater Blue Mountains, including the Blue Mountains National Park, Kanangra-Boyd National Park and Nattai National Park. I am pleased also that the bill will require board members to have practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government and planning in the catchment area. Because of a range of unique factors in my electorate, development in the Blue Mountains area is very carefully monitored and controlled, given its location within Sydney's drinking water catchment, the proximity of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage National Park and the risk of bushfire in some areas.

These factors make it essential that organisations such as the Sydney Catchment Authority have a good understanding of the local government and planning process to ensure that regulation remains efficient, effective and workable. In order to protect our drinking water catchments the authority has a range of regulatory functions, including managing access to inner catchment special areas and working with councils to ensure that developments and activities demonstrate a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality. Since its inception, the authority has delivered, under the guidance of its board, high-quality raw water to its principal customers: Sydney Water, Wingecarribee Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council. Sydney Water takes very seriously its responsibility of ensuring optimal drinking water and undertakes stringent environmental investigations when initiating projects. During its time the board has guided the authority's policies and long-term strategic plans, and worked to ensure that the authority meets its public health and environmental requirements. The board also has overseen the effective, efficient and economical management of the authority.

The authority regularly works in partnership with local councils and landowners in order to achieve its objectives. For example, the authority has worked with local councils to develop systems that would assist councils to assess the water quality impacts of developments in order to determine whether the developments meet the neutral or beneficial effects test. Most importantly, the authority has met its water quality and quantity objectives while at the same time maintaining an enviable occupational health and safety record. In addition, the authority has maintained highly effective incident response and emergency systems that are used in the event of bushfires, floods, algal bloom outbreaks and other incidents. As well, the authority has expanded its knowledge about catchment management and the risks posed by pollutants through science, modelling, mapping and other tools.

The authority has undertaken organisational realignments to ensure efficient delivery of its core responsibilities now and into the future. The changes proposed in this bill will further improve the authority's governance and, therefore, assist it to continue to achieve its statutory objectives and allow it to further improve the management of the catchment. The bill will allow for merit selection of board members to ensure that eligible members of the community will have equal opportunity for selection. It is only fair and reasonable that the best people with the best skills are appointed to afford the best possible stewardship of the Sydney Catchment Authority. That is why I am amazed that the Opposition would not even think that merit selection has some positive effect on the board. However, "merit" was not in the dictionary of the previous, Labor Government, with its many across-the-board appointments.

A broader selection process will provide the Minister with a wider choice from which to select the best possible candidate for the job. I am further amazed that merit selection for such an important board is not part of current procedure for appointments of members. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill provides for a sensible, commonsense approach to appointing board members. It allows for merit selection to a board that oversees one of New South Wales's most valuable assets—its water supply. The bill allows for representation across the full spectrum of stakeholders. This will ensure that the authority has a quality board with a skill set encompassing all requirement areas, and that can only be good for the people of Sydney and its surrounds. This procedure is long overdue. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [10.17 a.m.]: The Opposition opposes the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The member for Marrickville and the member for Keira already have outlined some reasons for that opposition. Members of the Opposition are consistent in their approach to this bill. Simply stated, the bill's objective is to amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 to change the constitution of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. Everything the member for Blue Mountains said about merit selection and appointing the best people to the board may happen, but the bill contains no provisions to ensure that that will happen. Although the bill comprises but a few pages, like so many of these types of bills introduced by the Government it will have a major impact on the community for which the Sydney Catchment Authority was established to serve.

The bill will establish a Sydney Catchment Authority Board comprising a chief executive officer and not fewer than four and not more than eight board members. Consequently, at any one time the Sydney Catchment Authority Board could meet with as few as five board members in attendance, they being the chief executive officer and four representatives appointed by the Minister, or as many as nine board members in attendance—a more substantial representation. The member for Blue Mountains and other Government members talked about merit selection. The bill refers to qualifications, but members should be aware of the one consistent component of appointment to the board—members appointed by the Minister must be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, each or together possess those qualifications.

It should not be suggested that this is anything different from what has been in place previously in various forms. The Minister has the final say, and I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. Any suggestion that this legislation puts in place an independent merit structure result is confined to the speech notes given to Government members. Although the bill contains only a few lines, I have some questions about them that I hope the Minister will answer in her reply to the debate. Paragraph (a) to (g) of proposed section 7 (3) as set out in item [1] of schedule 1 provide a number of qualifications and criteria that the Minister must take into account before a person is appointed to the board. For example, paragraph (a) provides for "qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection".

My question is: What does the Government mean by "qualifications"? For example, does a person need to have a university degree and expertise in a particular field before they qualify for appointment? Can a person who has worked in a government agency or private industry for decades and has experience not be appointed? What does the Government mean by the word "qualifications"? Paragraph (b) provides for "qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health". Qualifications relevant to water quality and public health are important, and I have no objection to that provision. That sort of technical and scientific expertise is necessary, and someone with that expertise would be welcome on the board. Paragraph (c) provides for "qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity".

Does that mean that only business people in the Sydney catchment with a university degree or other education qualification can be appointed to the board? Does the provision exclude from appointment a person who may have been running a successful business in the catchment for decades? Does the clause prevent a business person who does not have a university qualification from being appointed to the board? That seems to be the suggestion. Perhaps the bill should provide for "qualifications and/or experience in the running of a commercial entity". That would be a much more appropriate way to deal with the situation.

Paragraph (d) provides for "qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management". That provision does not cause any major problems. However, I have a problem with paragraph (e), which provides for "practical knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture and industry in the catchment area". I note that the word "qualifications" is not included in that paragraph. So a business person must have a degree or qualification. We will look at the definitions before we work out what that means. In terms of farming issues, a person with industry or farming experience, but no qualifications in that field, can be appointed to the board.

I would like the Minister to answer my questions or at least flag that, when the regulations are drafted, the terms "qualifications" and "experience" will be more clearly defined. I know that some aspects of the bill lend themselves to explaining that. Previous speakers have mentioned what is excluded from the bill. This bill provides for the replacement of the current Sydney Catchment Authority Board. The member for Blue Mountains said the selection of board members was not based on merit because of many negative aspects presided over by the former Government. However, she also referred to the positive relationship she had with the current board. There seems to be an inconsistency between her experiences and the speech notes that have been provided to her.

The Opposition has a couple of issues with the process for selection of board members. Currently, the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority includes a nominee of the Nature Conservation Council, the Farmers Association and a councillor from a local government area. Those persons or organisations are excluded from this bill. Why is that the case? The Opposition believes that a sinister motive is involved. If there is no sinister motive, the Government could have included them as nominees and still meet the other qualifications. What does it matter that the board has 8, 10 or 11 members? [Extension of time agreed to.]

The issue relating to the New South Wales Farmers Association warrants some scrutiny. The association does not have a long history of supporting the Labor Party. Its members are spread throughout New South Wales and cover every facet of farming and primary production, including environmental management, water management and so on. The association is a peak body when it comes to dealing with governments, industry and farmer organisations. What is wrong with the Farmers Association nominating a representative who may fit the criteria in the bill?

Ms Melanie Gibbons: That can still happen.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: The member for Menai said that that can happen. Of course it can happen but it will not necessarily happen. Is there a provision in the bill that stops the Minister from appointing a primary producer in the catchment who may be sympathetic to the Government line on environmental and catchment management issues but who does not necessarily represent all the farming and primary production interests within the catchment? Farmers and primary producers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean district will be interested to know who is representing them. As I said, the Farmers Association is not affiliated to the Labor Party and it will nominate a person who it considers represents all the farming and primary production industries in the catchment.

Why should farmers have a representative on the board? I point out that the Sydney catchment is still a large farming and primary production area of New South Wales. Indeed, in years gone by estimates of annual primary production in the Sydney catchment have totalled up to $1 billion, depending on seasonal issues and various industries. In recent times dairy farmers have moved out of the catchment but the Hawkesbury-Nepean area—members representing the Hawkesbury would be aware of this—has been protected. Primary production in the area is protected by large tracts of flood prone lands in that part of the State, as well as in south-western Sydney. As a result we will always have primary production in the catchment.

There is nothing wrong with allowing the Farmers Association, the peak body representing primary producers, to nominate its representative on the catchment board. The Farmers Association has had difficulties with governments in the past. Certainly, when I was the Minister for Agriculture the association was strident in putting its views, some of which may have been inconsistent with those of the Government. However, I respected the association's views and the fact that it be represented on various catchment boards throughout New South Wales. The association's record of contribution on various authorities, committees and boards in the State makes it worthy of inclusion in this bill as the peak body representing primary producers on the board.

Another organisation excluded from membership is the Nature Conservation Council. Stating the obvious, the Nature Conservation Council is a peak environmental group. It nominates people to various catchment management and native vegetation boards throughout the State. It is recognised by all sides of politics as an organisation that represents the environmental movement. In the past the council has had difficulties with both sides of politics. It has made ambit claims on issues such as environmental flows and farming management, and its representatives have come into conflict with Farmers Association representatives on many boards. Disputes and disagreements between board members is healthy and promotes appropriate outcomes from bodies such as the Sydney Catchment Authority.

To exclude them comes down to what we believe is the motive of this Government. It is easy for the Minister to appoint to this board a person who professes to have some history in the environmental movement and a view consistent with the Government on issues such as environmental flows, development of farming communities, development of residential areas adjacent to various farming activities and so on. The Government would appoint such a person with no merit involved in the selection. I believe it is in the community's interests—and it is critical to the balance required on the board—to appoint somebody who forcefully advocates the environmental argument. However, I do not agree with some of those views. Yesterday the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW referred in this House to striking a balance, which for this Government is either doing nothing or doing very little as is the case on this occasion. There will be no cross-interest outcomes from this organisation.

The catchment management board, which is not exclusively a commercial entity, must make some commercial decisions. Yesterday the member for Parramatta referred in his speech to the commercial aspects of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board and said that basically it was a commercial entity. He was proud of the fact—I made a note of his comment—that the Sydney Catchment Authority Board had reduced staff by 17 per cent. Sometimes a reduction in staff is necessary but I never thought a member in this place would brag about such a reduction as being a worthwhile achievement. That is another area about which members should express concern.

My final concern relates to the exclusion of local government members. I have never worked in local government but it represents across-the-board planning and environmental and water management issues. I cannot understand why members of the Local Government Association or members of local government will not be appointed to this board. If the Government were honest about what it was trying to do it would include all the provisions in this bill and ensure that some representative appointments were not excluded. We all know that this bill is about getting rid of dissent. As the member for Keira pointed out yesterday, this bill should be rejected. The Opposition opposes the bill.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [10.32 a.m.]: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. I listened with interest to the contribution of the member for Mount Druitt which was mired in the usual conspiracy theory that the Government does not have the best interests of the community at heart. I think the member is mixing up this Government with the former Labor Government, of which he was a part.

Mr Richard Amery: We flushed you out.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Time and again the former Labor Government failed to consider what was in the best interests of the community and more often than not it considered what was in the interests of the Labor Party. Nothing is more important than the provision of safe and clean water. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 was established to negate some of the problems that occurred under previous management structures. Most members would recollect that from time to time there have been problems in Sydney. For example, I recollect the concern expressed by the community when there were issues relating to giardia and cryptosporidium in the Sydney water supply. This legislation highlights the legislative structure that is in place and it reflects the need to have people on the Sydney Catchment Authority Board who have appropriate expertise to deal with any issues that emerge when managing a water supply for a population of approximately four million.

The member for Mount Druitt said that the Government was excluding certain groups. The Government is not excluding certain groups; it is simply stating that the people on this board must have expertise in a number of areas in order to ensure that our water supply is safe. It may well be that people who are working for the Nature Conservation Council, a local government authority, or the NSW Farmers Association have the expertise to make a substantive contribution to the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. Various advocacy groups, which generally do a good job on behalf of their members and the broader community, are simply categorising representative groups from various boards and authorities, which often is not appropriate. I applaud the proposal by the New South Wales Government to focus on the expertise of those who are appointed to such boards rather than on the organisations to which they have been elected or by which they have been employed. That would generate a much more sensible outcome for the community. This Government is not embarking on a conspiracy theory as suggested by the member for Mount Druitt. That is not part of this Government's agenda.

Mr Richard Amery: I have reasonable cause to suspect.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Taking into account the background of the member for Mount Druitt, I can understand his cynicism.

Mr Tim Owen: Once a copper always a copper.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Exactly. The member for Mount Druitt has a propensity for assuming that everyone in this place is guilty.

Mr Richard Amery: Only the Liberal members.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: That is an unbiased point of view.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: That is an unbiased point of view.

Mr Richard Amery: Thank God for The Nationals.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Members will come to order and the member for Mount Druitt will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It may be a light-hearted observation from my colleagues but I think the member for Mount Druitt, decent human being that he is, has formulated views from past experiences when he was a member of a Labor government for 16 years. This legislation aims to afford the Minister an opportunity to do what Ministers should do—that is, put people with the greatest level of expertise on a board that will advise us on how to achieve a safe and healthy water supply for four million Sydneysiders. Contrary to what the member for Mount Druitt said, this legislation does not exclude various parties.

Mr Richard Amery: They are just not there.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: By the sound of it, the member is not there. As I was saying before I was interrupted, this legislation will give the Minister an opportunity to put people with expertise on the board. The fact that somebody comes from the NSW Farmers Association does not mean that he or she would necessarily have the necessary expertise to deal with the sorts of issues that one would have to deal with in the provision of safe and clean water. Such a person might have expertise in general agricultural issues but not necessarily the expertise required for water—a highly technical science. The same issue obviously applies to the other two groups to which we have referred. I say to them and more broadly to the community that the Government's intention is not to exclude anybody. In fact those bodies may still find themselves with representatives on the board if they have people with the expertise and a scientific background in the issues surrounding water. I recall another cynical outburst from the member for Mount Druitt.

Dr Geoff Lee: Shameful.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It was a shameful outburst. The member for Mount Druitt referred to striking a balance and said that this Government was doing nothing or doing very little. I think he was confused as that is what occurred under the former Labor Government. The former Labor Government did very little or nothing unless it was in its interests. It was a pleasure for me to speak in this second reading debate—something that I have been unable to do for the past six years. I thank the House for enabling members once again to speak in second reading debates rather than the horrendous agreement in principle debates to which we have been subjected.

Mr Richard Amery: I agree with that bit.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The member for Mount Druitt agrees with me for which I thank him.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [10.41 a.m.]: I join my colleagues the members representing the electorates of Marrickville, Mount Druitt, Keira and Cabramatta in opposing the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012.

Mr Tony Issa: An overrated bill.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: It is pretty easy to read. The bill is quite short and easy to read, even for the member for Granville. This bill is the latest evidence of the O'Farrell Government's complete disregard for the environment and proper governance. The Government has set itself the task of dismantling piece by piece the environmental protections established by the previous Government. The bill aims to remove community representatives from the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority. Presently, the board must include a nominee of the Nature Conservation Council, the NSW Farmers Association and a councillor from a local government area within the catchment. The Government believes that these specifications are too restrictive and it would prefer to have more say in the appointment of board members. In her second reading speech the Minister said that the present specification "does not allow for representation across the full spectrum of stakeholders". I refer the Minister to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998, the principal Act, which her bill aims to amend. Part 2, section 7 states that the board is to consist of:

If the Minister reads the Act it will become abundantly clear to her that she has complete discretion to appoint up to five out of eight board members in addition to the chief executive. The only further requirement placed upon the Minister is:

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! There is too much audible conversation from Government members.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: They do not like hearing the truth. The existing Act provides considerable discretion to the Minister. The only logical explanation for this bill is that the Minister intends to remove the representatives of the Conservation Council, the NSW Farmers Association or the local government area. I refer members of this House to the current board of the Sydney Water Catchment Authority as it appears on its website. The board comprises Mr Robert Rollinson, a businessman with over 40 years of experience.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Oatley has interrupted twice. I do not want there to be a third time.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Mr Rollinson has held chief and senior executive positions in companies throughout Australia and overseas, including the Macquarie Group, Chase Manhattan Bank and Pacific Power. He holds an honours degree in engineering, a Master of Engineering Science and is a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers Australia. Mr John Asquith is the Nature Conservation Council nominee. He has a Bachelor of Engineering and Master of Arts degree. He is also Chairman of the Community Environment Network and a member of the Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority Board and the Hunter National Parks and Wildlife Service Advisory Committee. He was previously a trustee of the New South Wales Environmental Trust and a member of the New South Wales Bushfire Coordinating Committee. He is another individual with tremendous experience.

Dr Stephen Corbett is the Director of the Centre of Population Health, Sydney West Area Health Service. He has worked for the Sydney West Area Health Service since 2003 and was previously the Director of the Environment Branch of NSW Health. Mr Larry Whipper is the Deputy Mayor of Wingecarribee Shire Council, where he is serving his third term as a councillor. As such he is the local government representative on the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. Mr Whipper has a long history of advocating for environmental causes. Kenneth Wheelwright is the NSW Farmers Association nominee. He has a Bachelor of Rural Science degree from the University of New England, a Bachelor of Business degree from Charles Sturt University and has received training in holistic management. He is a farmer and manages a grazing property on the Wollondilly River.

Those five members make up the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, appear to have tremendous experience and would make a great contribution to the authority. In layman's terms, the board includes a businessman, a farmer, an activist, a medical doctor and a local politician. Between them these board members have a variety of qualifications as is to be expected for such an important body. Members of this place can see that these board members have experience in conservation and environment issues. Furthermore, the Government fails to mention that under the existing Act the Minister has the discretion to appoint another three to four members to add to the existing board. If the Minister truly felt that the board required additional representation or had to accommodate some Liberal mates, she has the opportunity to do so. This bill embodies the kind of dirty politics that the O'Farrell Government does best.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members will remain silent.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: The only explanation for this bill is that the Government feels that there are too many pro-conservation and pro-environment members on the board and it aims to remove them. I condemn the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and I oppose the bill.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [10.47 a.m.]: I support this reform, the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012, because this Government is about reform and providing people with opportunities. I take on board what the member for Bankstown said earlier. On behalf of the Government I thank the people who have been on the board and who over many years have contributed to the catchment. As the Leader of the House stated, nothing will stop these people from applying to be on the board if they are qualified—and I believe they do have some qualifications—but this bill leaves the door open for other people to bring new ideas and expertise to the new board. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. My only concern is that Opposition members do not seem to understand the consequences of the bill.

Mr Guy Zangari: Do you?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Opposition members will remain silent.

Mr TONY ISSA: We do because we drafted the bill; Opposition members do not. We should help Opposition members to understand the consequences of this bill. The bill does not exclude anybody; everyone is entitled to reapply to be a member of the board but there is an opportunity for people to bring in new ideas. The opportunity to supply fresh and clean water at a reasonable price is vital to the residents of Sydney, including the residents of my electorate of Granville.

Dr Geoff Lee: A good electorate too.

Mr TONY ISSA: It is. Today we are talking about water quality and also about price. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 strengthens the governance and management arrangements of the Sydney Catchment Authority. In order to maintain such a high-quality water supply, and help keep water prices down for customers in Sydney, the board must have the right skills, experience and expertise. This bill introduces the requirement that the board include qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity. This will help to ensure that the Sydney Catchment Authority is run efficiently, manages its risks properly, and provides the best possible service to its customers. This will help the board plan for the future and make sure it is well placed to adapt to changes in the future.

Another requirement is that the board include qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management, as well as qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health, and with knowledge and experience in local government planning in the catchment area. The bill does not seek to exclude anyone from local government, or farmers or industry. It does not say that. The Sydney Catchment Authority manages assets worth around $1.3 billion. It is extremely important that those assets are managed effectively, and therefore the board should have the necessary qualifications and experience to enable it to do so. Managing a water supply network for more than four million people requires significant forward planning and capital works. Qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning will ensure that this is undertaken responsibly: if works are needed, they will be done; if they are not needed, they will not be undertaken unnecessarily.

This mix of skills will help to ensure that Sydney maintains a high-quality, secure and clean water supply. It will ensure also that water is delivered cost effectively, and will help to keep down household bills. Yesterday the member for Cabramatta spoke about a celebration that took place at Warragamba Dam; a thousand people went to the dam to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of that facility. He did not speak about the content of the bill and the benefits that this bill will bring to the board of the Sydney Water Catchment Authority. I think the member does not understand the bill and has lost contact with the community in his area. A member spoke about the lack of representation of local government on the board. Because I have been in local government for 25 years, it does not mean that I am qualified to do a heart transplant at the Westmead Hospital because that is within my electorate and my local government area. Not every person working in local government has the qualifications required to be on the Sydney Water Catchment Authority.

This bill will give people with varying qualifications and experience an opportunity to serve on the board which will bring the new blood and fresh ideas that are necessary to move this State forward. That is what this bill is about. We do not want to live in the shadows of the past; we must move out of the dark, come back to the light, and provide something good for the community. For those reasons, I have great pleasure in supporting the bill. I am pleased to be recorded in Hansard as supporting the bill, because the people of New South Wales will be able to look back in years to come at what the Government delivered for the people of this State. They will see that the Coalition Government did the right thing by the people of New South Wales, while the Opposition continues to be negative and condemns all the good work that this Government is doing. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [10.54 a.m.]: Let us return to normality in this debate, following the verbiage from the member for Granville. This morning I speak in debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. I note that the bill seeks to alter the process by which the members of the board of the Sydney Water Catchment Authority are selected, and provides for the cumulative material background and experiences that should be represented on the board. I have grave concerns about the direction and the new make-up of the board of the Sydney Water Catchment Authority. This amendment, on paper, is deceptively simple. The crux of the instrument is found in item [1] of the schedule to the bill which seeks to replace section 7 of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1991.

Subsection (3) of new section 7 introduces a series of professional backgrounds and skills that are to govern the selection process when determining the make-up of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. Subsection (3) (a) calls for appointees with qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection; subsection (3) (b) calls for appointees with qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health; subsection (3) (c) calls for appointees with qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity; subsection (3) (d) calls for appointees with qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management; subsection (3) (e) calls for appointees with practical knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture and industry in the catchment area; and subsection (3) (f) calls for appointees with practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government and planning in the catchment area. As currently stipulated, the amendments seek to create a board which cumulatively embodies that professional experience and those skill sets.

This amendment provides the Minister with more flexibility in selecting the members of the board, however that is at the expense of a series of important safeguards that are reflected in the current provisions that this bill seeks to amend. Firstly, the current provisions have greater safeguards in place to ensure that environmental concerns are given due consideration. The current provisions reserve a seat on the board for a nominee from the Nature Conservation Council. This is an important consideration as the local environment in and around the catchment authority will have a direct effect on the quality of our drinking water. Almost all living organisms need water to survive. Our society, even at its most basic level, cannot function without water. We need water to feed our plants and animals; it provides the elementary building blocks of our food chain. As such the quality of our water is paramount for the day-to-day survival of individuals and our community. Playing down the significance of environmental considerations, as this instrument does, not only removes the intended safeguards that the original provisions create, but more importantly will put at risk the quality of our drinking water.

What is evident is the importance of commercial imperatives that this amendment seeks to place in the board of the water catchment authority. Whilst I recognise the need for the Government to ensure that the board continues to provide sustainable services to the community, treating Sydney's water supply as just another commercial utility will only pave the way for the degradation of the quality of our drinking water. Further, the removal of guaranteed representations from important stakeholder groups such as the NSW Farmers Association and a local council from within the catchment area I fear would politicise the catchment authority. These groups have a vested interest in the way the catchment authority is managed. Removing their input to the important planning stages and implementation of procedures and policies that govern how Sydney's water supply is collected, stored and distributed could have an adverse affect on farmers and local residents. The amendments proposed in this legislation place at risk the quality of our drinking water. I urge the Minister to reconsider removing safeguards that were put in place to ensure important considerations such as environmental concerns are not removed. I oppose the bill.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [10.59 a.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. Water is our most precious resource. The long-term viability of catchment areas and the efficient and informed governing of the Sydney Catchment Authority are vital for residents of our largest metropolitan centre so that we have access to clean water, sourced in the most cost-efficient and environmentally friendly way. In any successful business or enterprise those appointed to run it must have the relevant expertise and experience for it to be successful and financially responsible and to deliver the expectations of the community. Under the current legislation, those appointed to the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority must be nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and a local council. Those serving on the Sydney Catchment Authority require a comprehensive skills set and an appropriate level of experience in order for the authority to fulfil its obligations to the residents of metropolitan Sydney and ensure the quality and density of the water supply into the future.

The bill will change the current legislation to allow eligible members of the community equal opportunity to apply for placement on the Sydney Water Catchment Authority board. This great nation is known for its ever-changing environmental conditions—"droughts and flooding rains" as Dorothea Mackellar would have it. The long-term management of the water catchment in Sydney throughout these varying conditions is vital for the continuation of agriculture and industry, particularly in times of long-term drought. An ever-changing climate and a rapidly growing population are also important considerations of the water catchment authority, and these considerations must be met with a board selected on the basis of its combined expertise, relevant qualifications and specialised skills set.

The current legislation may not allow for the appointment of the best possible recruits, whose expertise would help the Sydney Catchment Authority to reach its major objectives and address these important considerations in a timely and cost-effective manner. This occurs simply because the pool from which the Government can select them is rigidly defined and particularly limited. The authority manages five primary catchment areas with a current capacity of 2.5 million megalitres of water. Within these catchment areas are 21 storage dams, including Warragamba, which is the main source of drinking water supply for metropolitan Sydney and one of the largest domestic dams in the world. Why should not those managing the containment of so much of this precious resource be the most qualified for the position on the basis of their skills set and expertise?

Under the new legislation, the principal objectives of the Sydney Catchment Authority remain the same: to ensure water quality for public health and safety; to promote sustainable development and protect the environment; and to manage the catchment infrastructure with economic and efficient commercial principals. The board is responsible for the implementation of policies to ensure that these principal objectives are met. The positions will be advertised publicly and applications made available to all who seek to submit. What better way to ensure the long-term viability of our most precious resource than to recruit members of the community who have experience and qualifications in the appropriate fields?

The board will consist of a chief executive officer and between four and eight members appointed by the Minister based on merit. While an individual member of the board may not demonstrate all of the selection criteria, the sum of all members will represent a well-rounded and diverse range of experience and expertise. The board will represent those who individually or collectively share qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection, water quality and public health, water supply planning, running a commercial entity, asset management, agriculture and industry, particularly relating to the catchment area, local government and planning and other expertise the Minister considers necessary in the implementation of the objectives of the authority.

The bill does not preclude members from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council or a local councillor from applying for membership of the board. That suggestion has been raised but the bill does not preclude those people from applying. On the contrary, this bill simply puts in place the principles of merit-based selection and equal opportunity. Should a member of one of the previously mentioned associations be the best person for the job according to their skill set, expertise and experience, they will be appointed accordingly. This legislation will bring the Sydney Catchment Authority into line with other State- and Federal-owned corporations, such as Sydney Water, which already selects its board on the basis of members' skills sets and expertise and not on the notion of association or council membership.

In order for the catchment authority to fulfil its short- and long-term objectives, the selection criteria for board members must be broadened to give the best possible outcome for the future of water catchment and management in New South Wales. The amendment to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act aims to do just that. It is important that we do not forget the reasons for the existence of the Sydney Catchment Authority. In 1998 the vast majority of residents in the Sydney catchment area were affected when dangerous pathogens were discovered in the water supply. Giardia and cryptosporidium were discovered in routine testing of the supply and it was assumed that these pathogens originated from Warragamba Dam. This discovery led to the issuing of several health warnings and to media reports in which residents were warned to avoid consuming water directly from the tap and instead boil their water before consumption.

Widespread public confusion severely affected the faith of the community in the quality of the drinking water being provided to them. This lack of confidence in a major State Government service provider was to be overcome with the implementation of the Sydney Catchment Authority and new regulations to ensure the safety and long-term management of the supply. This experience has taught us to address the water management cycle in a holistic manner. We now appreciate and consider the impact of development on water quality, the planning of catchment placements to ensure the protection and security of our water supply, and the human impacts on the catchments. The catchment authority has been and will continue to be the authority on which we rely to ensure this holistic approach remains.

In the changing environment in which we live the authority must focus on the competing demands on the catchment, including urban development, water quality and even coal seam gas and mining exploration. The skills required to address these demands and lead this organisation have evolved considerably from when the authority was established in the late 1990s as a response to the contamination. While the original philosophy behind the authority's creation remains the same today, the demands on its resources are continually evolving. It therefore follows that the skills sets of those who form the culture and lead the organisation also must be flexible, resourced and well experienced in all facets of the water cycle. Water is a priceless resource. Our community demands that we maintain our focus on this resource. This legislation is an important piece of reform for the future of this priceless resource in New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister and commend the bill to the House.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [11.07 a.m.]: I oppose the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 but I welcome its appearance in the House because it reveals something about the nature of this Coalition Government that currently reigns over New South Wales and the deliberately deceitful way in which it goes about its business. The NSW Plan 2021, which is designed to underpin the decision-making and legislation brought into this House by the Government, speaks frequently about transparency, openness, community consultation, access to the public and other similar objectives. That is great; they are terrific concepts and phrases and ones we should all aspire to regardless of which side of politics we represent. Unfortunately, the Government trots out those words in public but comes in here and in the quiet of this Chamber and away from the public gaze does something completely opposite: it introduces legislation to make sure it removes transparency and public access from the process.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998, which is currently in force, prescribes who can or cannot be on the board of the authority. However, it also provides that certain persons are to be appointed to the board—people with backgrounds of particular expertise and holding community positions. People who were engaged in what was happening in their communities were to be on the board. Today we are debating a bill that prescribes who is to be on the board. In essence, we are debating the same issue, except that two or three positions prescribed by the Act to be on this board of up to eight members are being removed under this bill. This bill is not about giving the Minister opportunity and scope because the Act already provides for that. This bill is not about making sure members of the board have the necessary expertise because the Act already provides for that. This bill is only about removing those bodies from the management board. That is all it is about.

I refer to the commitment of transparency and openness in the NSW Plan 2021 and put to the House that this bill is anything but transparent and open. This bill is all about deceit and removing people from this management group who should be a part of it. It is important to have board members with on-the-ground experience and genuine common sense in amongst members with expertise. Let us face it, sometimes experts do not have a great grasp on community needs. Experts know a lot more than I do about a whole range of matters but what I am really good at, as are all members of this House, is dealing with people. We specialise and are experts in dealing with people.

I will give an example. In the recently released Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Plan the experts, the people with expertise, included Putty. I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing and member for Upper Hunter because he can testify that the water around Putty does not go into the Hunter catchment; it goes into the Sydney catchment. Putty is the only community included in the Upper Hunter Strategic Regional Land Use Plan whose water flows to Sydney, not to the Hunter. The experts deemed to include Putty as part of that strategy. If a community representative with on-the-ground common sense and real life experiences in relation to Putty were on the board that matter would have been discovered earlier. A community meeting was held in the Upper Hunter, attended by the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing and other Ministers and the people of Putty explained to the meeting the failings of the strategic land use plan.

The aim of this bill is to remove and exclude certain persons, in particular, farmers. I believe that many farmers meet the requirements set out in new section 7 (3) (a) to (g), and those opposite have said that they can apply to be members of the board. However, new section 9 (4) states that the Minister "may" advertise publicly for appointments—but also she may not. By default new section 9 (4), which uses the word "may", highlights that people who are not asked, invited or selected to participate may not have an opportunity to apply. Members opposite spoke about a range of different committees, groups and boards that have brought together certain persons for the purpose of decision-making and they talked in glowing terms about the selection and appointment of such persons. They said that this legislation provides greater opportunity for people to be selected and appointed, even though the Minister "may" publicly advertise, if she deems fit.

This legislation specifically relates to who will or will not be a member of the board. It is not about acquiring greater expertise because that is already available in the legislation. The legislation as it stands gives the Minister full scope to appoint members with expertise to the board. Currently, the board comprises four to eight members, three of whom are prescribed, leaving five positions. I am not an expert in a lot of things but I can do maths up to the number eight, maybe not beyond. According to the legislation as it stands, three of the positions are prescribed and five positions are available for people with expertise to be appointed by the Minister.

Mr Stuart Ayres: Hand signals are not recorded in Hansard.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: I can think of one. The bill before the House is all about removing people from the board, despite what members opposite say.

Mr George Souris: He should not have said that, his words get recorded.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: As do mine—I thought about it before I said it. This bill removes people from the board. The people of New South Wales should be alarmed and aware when this type of legislation comes before the House. It is in direct contradiction to public statements made by the Government about openness, transparency and access and all those wonderful objectives that both sides of Parliament should aspire to. Those words are spoken in public but they are not transferred into legislation in this House. I oppose the bill.

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [11.15 a.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. It is timely that we are debating this bill in the wake of flooding across large areas of the State, including large sections of my electorate which take in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment. Ostensibly, the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill contains provisions that will allow the Minister to appoint members to the Sydney Catchment Authority Board from a wider pool than the current Act allows.

The present Act requires the board to include nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council and a councillor from local government. The bill will remove this restriction and enable the appointment from a broader range of suitably qualified people with the required skill sets, qualifications and experiences who can contribute to good corporate governance, long-term strategic planning and management of the Sydney Catchment Authority. It is important that the board of the catchment management authority, which has responsibility under the Act for the catchment, storage and quality control of 2.5 million megalitres of potable water that is stored in 21 dams, comprises the best available talent.

Water security is one of the most important issues facing society in the twenty-first century. That statement may sound a bit paradoxical considering that we recently have seen flooding across large parts of the State, but that came after a long and protracted drought. I represent an electorate that has large parts of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment areas that fall below Warragamba Dam. Therefore, I am passionate about ensuring that we have a reliable supply of potable water for our population during times of drought but also, at the other end of climatic extremes, proper mitigation measures to reduce the risk of flooding and the terrible damage it brings to our community through personal suffering, loss of life damage to property and infrastructure. The need to address this issue is not only one of moral responsibility to protect people but also an economic one, as billions of dollars are lost through loss of property, businesses, agriculture, utilities and infrastructure.

While this bill deals specifically with the selection criteria for the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, I will diverge slightly and make some broader comments on the direction we should be taking in relation to our strategic framework for the management of two key and fundamental issues: water storage and flood mitigation. We must learn from recent experiences where the extremes of drought and flooding caused social, personal and economic hardship. As members would be aware, during the recent floods Sydney's main storage dam, Warragamba, reached 100 per cent capacity for the first time this century. Downstream the Hawkesbury-Nepean River burst its banks and forced the closure of two main bridges at North Richmond and Windsor and several smaller bridges.

There has been a great deal of commentary and discussion in the community centring on the decision of the catchment management authority to wait until the dam reached full capacity before releasing water. While I welcome the discussion and debate and will come back to address this issue, it is important to defend the actions of the catchment management authority and the Government, as they were following the correct operational procedures currently in place. Warragamba Dam was built more than half a century ago as a storage dam to supply Sydney's increasing population. While it is easy to forget now that we are saturated with rain, there was a time not so long ago when we experienced one of the worst droughts on record, with storage levels falling to as low as 24 per cent in Sydney's dams and in some country areas, such as Goulbourn, the supply almost ran dry.

It is important that we have the storage capacity to supply Sydney's water needs well into the future. The actions of the Sydney Catchment Authority concerning the release were all done in accordance with the mandate to manage Warragamba as a water storage dam. The Wivenhoe Dam in Queensland was purpose built following the 1974 Brisbane floods as a flood mitigation dam. As a member whose electorate covers large parts of the flood plain, I believe we need to review the legislative, regulatory and governance arrangements concerning the management of our catchment.

The Sydney Metropolitan Water Plan, which aims to secure Sydney's water supply, contains some good ideas. However, on reflection it was nothing more than an expensive exercise that achieved very little. With Sydney's population expected to reach 5.3 million by 2031, which will result in an obvious increase in demand for water for residential and commercial uses, we must have a plan that is backed by strong leadership from the Government, not one put together to get through the next electoral cycle. There is no silver bullet that will solve the problems of water shortages and any long-term plan requires a multifaceted approach. The strategic objectives of the metropolitan water plan were to provide a secure supply of water to meet the medium-term needs of a growing city while keeping long-term goals in mind, to help protect the health of our precious rivers, to ensure that our water supplies are adequate during drought and to minimise costs to the community.

According to the latest figures available from the 2010 review of the plan, Sydney consumes about 600 million litres of water annually. By 2015 about a quarter of Sydney's water requirements will be sourced from alternatives to the dams. The former Government did not do enough to address the problems and ignored one key area that could address the issues and help secure our water supply—that is, recycling. Given the billions of dollars spent to build the desalination plant, we should make it work better. I recently wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries, who has legislative responsibility for the catchment management authority, about the potential to use Warragamba Dam for flood mitigation. That would enable the early and timed release of water. In my correspondence to the Minister for Primary Industries I said in part:

While I have covered a range of subjects in my contribution to the bill, the amendments are a small but necessary step in the right direction and they will open up the membership of the authority's board to a wider range of men and women who can make a positive contribution to protect the pristine ecological quality within the catchment area, which covers 16,000 square kilometres, and manage the authority's statutory objectives. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [11.24 a.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill. The bill states:

The object of this Bill is to amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 to change the constitution of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board (the Board) so as to provide that the members who are appointed by the Minister must each or together have a specific range of relevant qualifications, experience, knowledge and expertise.

The bill also states:

Schedule 1 [1]

Section 14 of the Act states:

This bill does not change those objectives. Section 7 of the Act provides that the board will consist of the executive, the chief executive and not fewer than four and not more than eight members appointed by the Minister. It also defines each of the matters the Minister must take into consideration and the expertise that the board should contain. It was interesting to listen to the contributions made by members opposite. They indulged in scaremongering and spoke of sinister motives and dissent. The Labor Party is projecting. Sigmund Freud did extensive research on this phenomenon. It involves a person projecting his or her motives or modus operandi on to another. After 16 years in government members opposite look at everything that this Government does through their own jaundiced eyes. This Government is introducing important measures that will protect Sydney's water supply. After 16 years in government we know that the Labor Party has no credibility. To be able to attack someone legitimately, one must have credibility. We experienced 16 years of mismanagement—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I ask the member to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: Members opposite must have credibility to mount a legitimate argument. Given that they have no credibility, they should not be attacking the Government. The former Government spent $500 million on the Rozelle metro without turning a sod. It wasted $500 million.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I ask the member to return to the leave of the bill. I understand that we have some visitors from the Armidale School, who are guests of the member for Northern Tablelands. I also understand that the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing attended that school.

Mr George Souris: I did.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): The Armidale School has a wonderful heritage. We welcome the students and hope that they learn a great deal about Sydney water and catchment management. We are dealing with the second reading stage of the very exciting Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill. I am sure the member will return to the leave of the bill and speak specifically to it.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: My stepson attended that fine school. During debate members can address the points raised by opposing members, and that is what I intend to do. To be able to attack the Government, members opposite must have credibility—and they should not simply take my word for that. Rodney Cavalier, a Labor Party heavy, said that the worst government New South Wales has ever seen—

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Point of order: I fail to see Rodney Cavalier's name mentioned anywhere in the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012, which we are currently debating. I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! We are dealing with the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The member will refer to the bill. This is the fourth time that I have asked the member to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: In debate on the bill, those on the other side attacked the Government on its management, and said that it is all about dissent and ulterior motives. I note that the member for Marrickville was not in the Chamber throughout the debate.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: I spoke on it yesterday.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: Therefore she would not have heard what her colleagues were saying. Those on the other side of the Chamber have a jaundiced view. The heavies of the Labor Party have said that the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party is in a diabolical state. Those opposite are trying to attack our credibility on management. They have none of their own, yet they are trying to tell the Government what to do. This legislation is about managing water in New South Wales but the basic principles of governance have broken down in the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. Those opposite have a history of 16 years of mismanagement and incompetence but they want to tell this Government how to provide good governance.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: This is about the catchment management authority.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The member for Marrickville will come to order. The member for Myall Lakes will be heard in silence.

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Marrickville to order.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: Item [1] of schedule 1 to the bill outlines who can be appointed to the board. It does not say that members of local government, an environmental lobby or the National Farmers' Federation cannot be appointed to the board. The legislation provides that if a person has the expertise, that person can apply to be a board member, regardless of whether that person is a member of a local council, the National Farmers' Federation or an environmental lobby group. Nothing could be fairer; nothing could be more transparent; nothing could be better than that. The last thing anyone would want is for someone from local government, the National Farmers' Federation, the NSW Farmers Association or an environmental lobby group who has no idea about water catchment and the management of water, to be placed on the board.

This is good legislation. People should understand that Labor is attacking this legislation as a result of its jaundiced view formed during 16 years of the worst government in New South Wales history. They are not my words; they are the words of Senator Steve Hutchins, the former Australian Labor Party President, who said, "New South Wales Labor is in Opposition after four of the most shameful years in history." There they sit, on the other side of the House, trying to tell the Government what to do. I commend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 to the House.

Mr TIM OWEN (Newcastle) [11.34 a.m.]: I do not know why we are debating this bill because what we are talking about makes absolute sense. Nevertheless, I will put my views forward. The objects of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 are to amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 and to change the constitution of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board to provide that members who are appointed by the Minister must each, or together, have a specific range of relevant qualifications, experience, knowledge and expertise—a logical step. Currently the Minister must appoint members to the board who each, or together, have expertise in protection of the environment and public health, and such other expertise as the Minister considers necessary for the authority to realise its objectives. Two of the appointed board members must be nominees of specific stakeholder groups and one other must be elected as a councillor of a local government area within the catchment area.

The authority manages a total of 21 storage dams that, together, can hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. The area for which the authority is responsible occupies 16,000 square metres and consists of five primary catchment areas. The authority's vision is to ensure healthy catchments and quality water for the Sydney region. There are a number of objectives: first, to ensure that the catchment areas and the catchment infrastructure works are managed and protected so as to promote water quality; secondly, to ensure that water supplied by it complies with appropriate standards and quality; thirdly, where its activities affect the environment, to conduct its operations in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and fourthly, to manage the Sydney Catchment Authority's catchment infrastructure and the works efficiently and effectively. I do not know what the argument is about because the bill does not change any of those objectives.

The board will consist of a chief executive of the authority and between four and eight members. Those members must include one nominee each from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and an elected councillor from a council within the catchment area. As the Minister has stated, whilst selection based on defined stakeholder groups can sometimes be effective, it does not allow for representation across the full spectrum of stakeholders. It can also inhibit the Minister from selecting the best person for the job at any given time. That is the right and prerogative of the Minister. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 specifies the required skills and expertise for the board to operate effectively. It does not preclude members of the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council or a representative from the local council from seeking appointment to the board—provided that they have the necessary skills and expertise.

The bill will ensure full merit-based selection, as is required for selection for members of any board in any business across this country. This will ensure that eligible members of the community have an equal opportunity to be selected for the board. This approach is in line with government policy at both the State and Federal levels. Currently the board requires people, individually or collectively, to have expertise in only the protection of the environment and in public health, and other expertise that the Minister considers necessary to fill the authority's objectives. This bill also will bring governance arrangements for the Sydney Catchment Authority into line with those for other statutory authorities, such as catchment management authorities and State-owned corporations, such as Sydney Water.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 also provides for the selection criteria to be expanded in recognition of the board's important strategic role and the authority's statutory objectives. Board members will be required to possess qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection, water quality, public health, running a commercial entity, water supply planning and asset management. Those are the qualifications that one would expect members of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Board to have, as opposed to those who have to be selected from the NSW Farmers Association or from an environmental council. Board members should also have experience in agriculture, industry, local government and planning in the catchment area.

None of those areas of expertise is precluded in this amendment. Broadening the criteria for board membership in this way will result in board members having a comprehensive set of skills that will suit their important role. This bill proposes sensible amendments to introduce merit-based selection for board membership. It will provide the Sydney Water Catchment Management Board with appropriate skills and expertise, and provide for the broadest stakeholder representation. That is a smart approach to the way such boards should be set up. I commend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [11.40 a.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The bill removes the requirement for the Sydney Catchment Authority to include nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and a local councillor, and expands the expertise and experience required of board members. I am concerned that this bill could remove the representation of the Nature Conservation Council, possibly even before the current nominee's term has expired. The Minister has said that the bill is about giving her the discretion to nominate the best person for the board. In the past the Nature Conservation Council has offered the Minister a choice of three nominees, and the Minister has wide discretion to appoint an additional five members. The current legislation provides for a broad range of expertise and experience, and gives the Minister ample discretion to establish a board that can ensure the best outcome for Sydney's catchment.

The Sydney Catchment Authority supplies water to more than 4.5 million people—almost 60 per cent of the State's population. It is essential that, first and foremost, the board works to protect the integrity of Sydney's drinking water through the environmental sustainability of the local ecosystem. I share the concern of the environment community that this bill is the result of lobbying from the mining industry. The Sydney Catchment Authority has been concerned with the impacts of longwall mining and potential pollution from coal seam gas exploration within and adjacent to Sydney Catchment Authority land. It has appointed two in-house scientists to assess mining impacts so as not to rely solely on biased proponents' environmental reports. The authority has made submissions on longwall mining proposals and it has opposed coal seam gas exploration on its land.

Mining activity can have devastating effects on water supplies. Clearing land and pollution from dust, chemicals, waste water and subsidence can contaminate water, rendering it unsafe to drink and harming the ecosystems that support it. Riverbeds can crack, leading to loss of water, and rehabilitation of waterways after mining operations have occurred has had little success. I share community concern that the board should not include anyone with a pecuniary interest in the mining and gas industries, including employees, consultants and contractors, and associated lobbying companies. The aim of the board must be to continue to protect Sydney's drinking water. A clean, healthy and sustainable water supply is essential to Sydney's wellbeing. I share widespread community concern that the potential to remove the Nature Conservation Council of NSW from the Sydney Catchment Authority Board is not in our best interest.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.42 a.m.]: I had not intended to make a contribution to debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012, but having listened intently to the debate it is important that I have my say. Some members opposite have expressed concern that the bill amounts to a conspiracy theory. The intent of the bill is to allow the Minister to appoint people to the board on merit. I fail to understand how, after nearly four months in opposition, previous Labor Government members and others newly elected to this place cannot understand that we live in a world that should be transparent and one that seeks to have the very best people appointed to organisations managing public assets. The bill provides that the very best qualified people in specific areas be appointed by the Minister. There is no conspiracy theory. The bill is all about transparency. It is about ensuring that the Sydney Catchment Management Authority continues to deliver for the people in Sydney's catchment.

The member for Sydney, for example, wants to exclude certain groups or organisations from the board's membership. The former Labor Government, along with The Greens and others, was able to exclude various organisations or people from holding positions in different areas, and it was able to exclude developers from having a say, attending a function or giving a donation. The O'Farrell Government is not about exclusion; it is about inclusion. People have different skill sets to offer to the hundreds of organisations relied on by government to develop policies and to introduce legislation to this Parliament—that is the way the system works. The O'Farrell Government does not exclude people because of their background, et cetera.

The Sydney Catchment Authority is responsible for managing Sydney's drinking water catchment; the management of infrastructure and assets, including a large number of dams—the largest of which is Warragamba Dam; ensuring that the quality of Sydney's raw water supply is maintained; managing these works in an efficient and economic manner; and protecting human health and the environment of the catchment. I have read the bill and its accompanying notes. For all the conspiracy theories spoken about in this debate, no-one is precluded from applying to be a board member. Current members can in fact apply to be part of the new organisation. It is wrong to suggest that people such as farmers and others would be excluded.

The bill will allow the Minister to ensure that the board reflects the broader New South Wales community. That may mean the current skill set of the board membership remains the same, or it may mean that in some areas extra skills are needed to give the board the academic qualifications required to enable it to operate at a higher level. For example, think about the expectations of parliamentarians and councillors; everyone expects better—rightly so. From time to time debate is had about the job we do and community expectation. This bill will ensure that the Government lives up to those expectations and the Minister will be able to appoint those who can provide the very best for the management of the Sydney catchment.

The current issues surrounding the Murray-Darling Basin make water topical—I appreciate that the catchment does not contribute to the Murray-Darling Basin. Water is the foundation of life; it is a most important resource. Presently throughout the Riverina, western New South Wales and the Murray-Darling Basin debate is taking place about the Federal Government's plan to reduce water entitlements. Expertise is needed there as well, and part of the debate concerns the use of scientific data in making decisions. Indeed, in Wagga Wagga irrigators I met with last week are disputing the scientific information being used to reduce their entitlements in the valley in which they are housed. Those irrigators should be able to use the very best scientific expertise to guide them when putting their case as to why their water entitlements should not be reduced or what other measures should be implemented.

If a bill such as this were being implemented in the Riverina those irrigators would want the best representatives on their boards who would offer the best expertise to help make the right decisions. I thank members for allowing me to make this brief contribution. The management of water will not be depleted in any way. Indeed, as time goes on and the debate continues we will rely more and more on the expertise and scientific information provided by those who are qualified. It will be debated; it will not always be agreed on but in the end we will rely on it. That is why it is important for the Government to be able to appoint on merit rather than on particular views or because someone belongs to an organisation that is—

Mr John Williams: Aligned—

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Yes, or perhaps even politically sponsored. The days of clandestine organisations operating under the guise of some community-based group, being sponsored by a union, the Labor Party or whatever, are gone. The Government wants the very best merit-based selection. The bill will deliver that and I commend it to the House.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [11.51 a.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 constitutes the Sydney Catchment Authority and establishes the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. The authority manages a total of 21 storage dams that together can hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. The dams include Warragamba Dam, which is one of the largest domestic water supply dams in the world and the main source of the drinking water supply for Sydney.

Mr Jai Rowell: It's a good dam.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: I acknowledge the interjection of the member for Wollondilly. Warragamba Dam, which is a fantastic dam, impacts on my electorate of Mulgoa. The management of Warragamba Dam impacts on my electorate, particularly during periods of heavy rain as we had recently. Also, the release of additional water from Warragamba Dam has at times caused some minor flooding in my electorate. The skills and expertise of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board are essential to ensure that we have the best board members because their decisions impact on my constituents. The area for which the authority is responsible occupies 16,000 square kilometres and consists of five primary catchment areas. The authority's vision is to ensure healthy catchments and quality water for the Sydney region. The principal statutory objectives of the authority, as specified in section 14 of the Act, are:

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

It is important that we put on record that this bill does not change any of those objectives. The Sydney Catchment Authority Board currently consists of a chief executive and between four and eight members appointed by the Minister. The members must include one nominee each from the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council NSW, and an elected councillor from a council within the catchment area. The Sydney Catchment Authority Board is responsible for the policies and long-term strategic plans of the authority, endeavouring to ensure that the board meets its public health and environmental requirements and overseeing the effective and economical management of the authority.

While selection based on defined stakeholder groups can sometimes be effective, it does not allow for representation across the full spectrum of stakeholders. This is where the bill makes some slight changes. The bill amends the board appointment process from one based on defined stakeholder representation to one based on merit. This will ensure that the board has the appropriate skills and experience for the job and that eligible members of the community have an equal opportunity to be selected for the board. Interestingly, some members in this House oppose the bill. Effectively, they are seeking to limit certain persons with skills and expertise from taking a wonderful opportunity to participate in the management of Sydney's water supply. In opposing the bill they are seeking to limit the broad spectrum of skills, knowledge and experience that is necessary on boards such as the Sydney Catchment Authority Board.

The bill is endeavouring to specify what skills and expertise are necessary for the board to operate effectively. We are not saying that current board members nominated by the New South Wales Farmers Association or the Nature Conservation Council, or the local councillor, do not have the expertise, skills or experience to be re-appointed to the board. We are simply saying that they most certainly can participate in the appointment process, but we are opening the gates to ensure that other individuals from across the community with knowledge, experience and skills in these areas have the opportunity to participate in a fair and merit-based selection process so that the best board can be formed. I encourage suitably qualified individuals from any organisation to participate in the selection process.

The amendments require full merit-based selection. This will ensure that eligible members of the community have an equal opportunity to be selected for the board. The approach taken in this bill is in line with government policy at both the State and Federal levels. It will also bring governance arrangements for the Sydney Catchment Authority into line with those for other statutory authorities, such as the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, and for State-owned corporations such as Sydney Water. Once again this bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to open and transparent government process. Members of the board, individually or collectively, will be required to have qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection, water quality and public health, running a commercial entity, and water supply planning and asset management.

As well, members of the board, whether individually or collectively, must have practical knowledge of and experience in agriculture and industry, and local government and planning in the catchment area. In addition, the Minister will have the flexibility to specify additional expertise necessary to fulfil the authority's objectives. Extending the selection criteria for board membership in this way will result in the board having the comprehensive skill set needed to fulfil its obligations. The amendments do not mean that every board member will have to meet all the selection criteria, but that the board as a whole, in line with other organisations, must satisfy those requirements. Knowledge of local issues relating to agriculture, industry, local government and planning is particularly important.

I commend the bill to the House because the Government is endeavouring to ensure that the best people with the best skills and knowledge are in decision-making positions, leadership positions, positions where a decision that will impact a strategic direction is made with all the right knowledge and expertise possible. Members opposite have mentioned sinister motives. I ask these questions: How is ensuring that the best people are appointed to the board sinister? How is having people with the most grassroots knowledge of the areas covered by the Sydney Catchment Authority in decision-making positions on the board sinister, destructive or negative to the city of Sydney? The bill will ensure that the governance arrangements for the authority will be brought into line with the requirements for other statutory authorities.

The specific amendments in this bill will remove the requirement for the board to include nominees from the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council, and a local councillor. It will expand the scope of qualifications, experience, practical knowledge and other expertise required for the board, and it will allow the Minister to advertise publicly for all appointments to the board. The bill proposes positive and future thinking changes to the board of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Authority. It is a good, positive bill that leads Sydney in the right direction. The bill will ensure that the right people with the right expertise, knowledge and skills are in a position to make the right decisions and forward plans for this wonderful city of Sydney in which we live. It will ensure that the future quality and health of our water is protected for future generations. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [12.01 p.m.]: I am delighted to be back in Parliament after a short recess and I am pleased to make a contribution to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The Greens are not in favour of the bill because we believe that the Nature Conservation Council and NSW Farmers Association have an important role to play. It is interesting that yesterday the Nature Conservation Council, NSW Farmers Association and The Greens were together outside Parliament House campaigning on coal seam gas issues when today we are in this Chamber—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Balmain will be heard in silence. I will not allow that sort of outburst to continue.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I am proud to support the NSW Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council, as The Greens did yesterday, to ensure that those organisations have a legitimate part to play in the Sydney Catchment Authority Board.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Wollondilly to order.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill will exclude from the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority the nominees of the Nature Conservation Council, the NSW Farmers Association and an elected councillor from a council in the catchment area—in our view, important stakeholders who have a right to be represented. I strongly agree with the Government if no other appointees are able to be appointed to the board, but we know that between four and eight members can be appointed, so the Minister has the power to appoint five other members. There are three members—one from local government, one from the NSW Farmers Association and one from the Nature Conservation Council.

We all know that any appointees of the Minister will be in the majority and the five members will be selected on so-called merit, which is subjective, because merit can be viewed differently by different people. We need to ensure that farmers, the Nature Conservation Council and local government are represented. These important stakeholders should be included to prevent any Minister from being overenthusiastic or cavalier. We are yet to see the basis of this so-called merit assessment or who will be undertaking it. If the merit assessment is determined, will the Minister be required to comply with the merit assessment? The Minister should be asked those questions and I ask her to answer them. Is the Minister required to adhere to the determinations of the merit-based process?

As I stated, people will not necessarily agree on a person's merit. One of the board members whose position will be abolished will be Mr John Asquith from the Nature Conservation Council. He is the Chairman of the Community Environment Network and a member of the Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority Board. Mr Asquith is a member of the Hunter National Parks and Wildlife Service Advisory Committee. He has been a trustee of the NSW Environmental Trust and a member of the NSW Bushfire Coordinating Committee. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree and a Master of Arts degree. He is a member of the board's audit and risk committee and the asset management committee. I would say that Mr Asquith is an excellent member.

The member representing the NSW Farmers Association is Mr Kenneth Wheelwright. He manages a grazing property on the upper reaches of the Wollondilly River. He has an active interest in developing sustainable, regenerative and profitable farm management practices. He is also a director of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority Board. He holds a Bachelor of Rural Science degree from the University of New England, a Bachelor of Business degree from Charles Sturt University and has trained in management. He is also the chair of the board's catchment and water quality committee.

Larry Whipper is Deputy Mayor of Wingecarribee Shire Council and is currently in his third term as a councillor. He is a strong environmental advocate and has served as a member of the Robertson Environment Protection Society since 1992. He is a councillor representative on the Hawkesbury-Nepean Local Government Advisory Group. He has served as a member of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Board from 2002-03 and as chair of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority Establishment Team until May 2004. Between July 2006 and November 2007 he was a councillor representative on the Upper Nepean Groundwater Community Reference Group. These are all very solid, upstanding members of the community.

Ms Pru Goward: So he can apply.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: He can apply.

Mr John Williams: He can reapply.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: But as I have mentioned it is important to ensure that these key stakeholders are represented and have a place; under one Minister they might be seen as legitimate but under another they might not. This is an important measure to ensure that stakeholders are included. The Minister still has a majority of appointees; the Minister can still have five appointees with only three from stakeholder groups. In our view it is legitimate, good practice and important to include stakeholders.

Ms Pru Goward: This is transparent.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: The Minister says that it is transparent. Well, this is transparent. What is the selection process and who decides the merit-based process? Does that Minister have to accept the determination of that merit-based process and is the Minister required to comply with it?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! The House will come to order. The member for Balmain will be heard in silence.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: It is not in the legislation. Therefore, we can assume that the Minister can look at the list of merit-based appointments and decide on a different list if he or she chooses. The legislation does not require the Minister to take the advice of this merit-based process, which has not as yet been confirmed. I would have thought that the member for Murray-Darling, who is interested in a range of issues, would have been keen to support NSW Farmers to have a stakeholder on the board, not as a majority.

Mr John Barilaro: They are still entitled to.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: They are entitled to—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I welcome the interaction of members opposite because it is striking a nerve. The Nationals members were in this Chamber while the members of the NSW Farmers Association were outside with the majority of the community. We are again supporting New South Wales farmers and it is important to support them in this debate.

Mr Paul Toole: Point of order: The member for Balmain should be asked to return to the leave of the bill. His comments are irrelevant.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! As much as I appreciate the creative licence of the member for Balmain, he should return to the leave of the bill.

Mr Richard Amery: To the point of order: The member for Balmain is speaking to the second reading debate, which is a broad-ranging debate, and not the Committee stage, which deals with individual clauses of the bill. The member is talking about the NSW Farmers Association and its role, which has been dropped from the original legislation. The member is well within the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Whilst I am happy for members to talk about the membership and composition of the board, the member for Balmain is straying a little too far.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I appreciate the feedback from members in this place because it is clear from debate that these three stakeholders, who are not the majority on the board—the Minister can appoint five—have an important role to play. I acknowledge the Minister's interjection that it was not transparent; I do not defend the former Government's record. I am the first to say that the former Government was not transparent. As a member of the local community I saw firsthand where people were appointed to boards and the process was not transparent. I believe it is important to keep existing stakeholders on the board. It means that Ministers, regardless of their political persuasion, will be required to keep them on the board even though they will be a minority. It will ensure that stakeholders continue to be represented. The case for appointing board members on the basis of their skills and expertise has some merit if the majority of the board is to be appointed to represent stakeholders by some other method. We believe it is important to include stakeholders. The skills these members have are obvious. To make the assumption that environmentalists, farmers or local government representatives do not have the expertise is unrealistic and removing them is not the way to go. The existing arrangements should not be changed.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [12.10 p.m.]: Mr Acting-Speaker—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I remind members that they must seek the call before approaching the table. Government members are denying one of their members the call. I call the member for Camden.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I apologise, Mr Acting-Speaker. I speak today on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. I am glad the member for Balmain jumped to his feet and got the call ahead of me, but I have to say how disappointed I am that he followed the Labor conspiracy line. All the groups he mentioned can apply to be appointed to the board and can be appointed on merit if they meet the selection criteria. The member for Balmain thinks that marching in the streets in solidarity with him is by itself a criterion for selection. It is not; the selection criteria are aimed at the appointment of people who will contribute their expertise to the board. I encourage any farmers, councillors or members of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW who have the appropriate skills to apply.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 constituted the Sydney Catchment Authority and established the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. As it stands now, the board consists of between four and eight members appointed by the Minister. One nominee must come from the NSW Farmers Association, one from the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and one must be an elected councillor from within the catchment area. With these appointed members the board also has a chief executive officer. The Sydney Catchment Authority Board has a number of principal objectives. The board ensures that the catchment areas and catchment infrastructure works are managed and to promote water quality, to safeguard public health and safety and to protect the environment. These are extremely serious issues.

Another objective of the board is to ensure that water supplied by it complies with the appropriate standards of quality. The board also must ensure where its activities affect the environment that it conducts its operations in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. It is also entrusted to manage its catchment management infrastructure works efficiently and economically and in accordance with sound commercial principles. For any member on the other side to suggest that the amendments being proposed today will put in doubt the quality of our drinking water or in any way adversely affect our water supply is scaremongering of the worst degree. Such suggestions are unfounded—

Mr Mark Coure: Shame.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: —and shameful. The bill amends the board appointment process from the current situation, which is based on defined stakeholder representation, to a much more responsible and sensible approach of representation based on merit. We are going from stakeholder representation for its own sake to representation based on merit. The member for Balmain singled out the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and members of New South Wales councils. I encourage anybody from those organisations with the skills set required to make a positive contribution to the board to apply for a position. They should not be fearful of the application process. If they have the skills and can contribute I am sure they will be looked at favourably.

It is critical that board members have appropriate skills and experience for the job that they need to do and the bill also will ensure that eligible members of the community have equal opportunity to be selected. Statutory authorities and State-owned corporations must be accountable and transparent. That is what this Government stands for—accountability and transparency. Statutory authorities must have the most stringent governance arrangements available to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our community. This bill will bring those governance arrangements for this authority into line with requirements for other State authorities. It is unconscionable to suggest that something as significant as the water supply of not only Sydney but also New South Wales should not be managed to the highest standards that we expect from other government authorities. The member for Cessnock stated that, "This bill is only about removing certain bodies from management." This could not be further from the truth and is an example of the scaremongering that I have just mentioned.

The main amendments in the bill will remove the requirement for the board to include nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council, and a local councillor. It will expand the scope of the qualifications, experience, practical knowledge and other expertise required for the board and also allow the Minister to advertise publicly for all appointments to the board. The member for Cessnock again went back to the conspiracy theory of who is being removed from the board of the authority by this bill. It is a conspiracy theory that, no pun intended, just does not hold water. He stated that we are excluding farmers but then said that under the provisions of the bill they may apply. Clearly we are not excluding any one individual or group from this board; we are aiming to ensure everyone on this board is an expert and contributes to the board and by so doing to the safety and security of our ongoing water supply. Surely the serious matter that we are discussing today—securing Sydney's water supply for present and future generations—must be above conspiracy theories.

It is proposed to commence the amendments on proclamation at which time existing board membership will cease. We are cognisant of providing continuity and for that reason existing board members who meet the selection criteria will be eligible for reappointment on application to the Minister. Let us not forget that the authority manages a total of 21 storage dams that can hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. One of those 21 storage dams is Warragamba Dam, which is not only one of the largest domestic water supply dams in the world but also the main source of drinking water for Sydney. The authority is charged with ensuring healthy catchments and quality water supply for the whole Sydney area. Those on the other side have argued that only specific stakeholder groups can offer experience and expertise to this board. With the current make-up of the board, which we are amending today, it is not possible to get representation from all potential stakeholders who may wish to be on the board and represent their own organisations.

The current make-up will not guarantee that the best person for the job is necessarily given the job and the whole idea of this amendment is to ensure that the expertise and skills that are needed for this board to operate as effectively as possible are obtained. I believe that anybody from any association that has the expertise that this board requires should be able to apply. Under the current provisions they may be excluded. Not every board member will have to meet all the selection criteria as set out in this bill, but the board as a whole must satisfy those criteria. The intention of this bill is to have a fair, merit-based selection process for membership of the board. It allows for a broad range of stakeholder representation that has the relevant qualifications, expertise and experience to govern this important authority. This Government is setting the bar for qualified professionals to sit on the authority's board. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN BARILARO (Monaro) [12.20 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012—a bill that is underpinned by commonsense. Unfortunately, that is what was lacking for 16 years from the former Government and that is probably why Opposition members oppose this bill.

Mr Andrew Gee: What is it about?

Mr JOHN BARILARO: I thank the member for Orange for asking what this bill is about. The object of the bill is to amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 to change the constitution of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board to provide that members who are appointed by the Minister must each or together have a specific range of relevant qualifications, experience, knowledge and expertise. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 constitutes the Sydney Catchment Authority and establishes its board. The authority manages a total of 21 storage dams that together can hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. The area for which the authority is responsible occupies 16,000 square kilometres and consists of five primary catchment areas. The principal statutory objectives of the authority, as specified in section 14 to the Act, are as follows:

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

There is nothing wrong with applying sound commercial principles to agencies, boards and government, just as we do in business, because it delivers better value for money for those who receive the service, the infrastructure or the product delivered either by businesses or by government. This bill does not change those objectives. In relation to expertise it is important to be able to cast a wide net across a larger area. The Act provides for the selection of members by the Minister from a number of categories. This bill frees up the Minister so that he or she can now select on merit and obtain expertise from a wider spectrum of stakeholders. In an earlier life I ran a specialised double glazing business which was energy efficient and which manufactured an Australian rather than an imported product. Over a period of 20 years I designed, developed and put together that business. As it was an ongoing process I was surrounded by people with expertise.

It might surprise many members in this House to know that I have some failings and that I do not know everything. I know that it might come as a shock to many members but I do not have an answer for everything. I brought in experts who could help me develop my business and production line. Those experts had human resources experience, occupational health and safety experience, or they could develop the engineering technical detail required to put together the manufactured product. I continue to call on those experts to this day. It could be something as simple as calling on an accountant or those who know how to work with the government of the day to obtain grants for research and development.

As I did not have the relevant knowledge I surrounded myself with talented and skilled people from whom I learned a lot, which enabled my business to grow and prosper. That business still employs many people in the Canberra region, offers apprenticeships and traineeships, and competes with imported products on a platform of quality and service. Those products are not necessarily offered at the cheapest price but at a price that is competitive for what is delivered. One of the slogans we used to use was that no-one regretted buying quality, which is what my business is all about.

Mr Andrew Gee: Barilaro quality.

Mr JOHN BARILARO: I now refer to the bill. It is important to appoint to the board experts from a wide area who are able to contribute to maintaining our water supply—an important commodity in our nation and in our State and, in particular, on farmland in the Monaro. We must continue to put in place mechanisms and safeguards to protect this precious commodity and, more importantly, bring in experts to manage our water supply for future generations. Opposition members did not put forward a legitimate argument as to why this bill fails and they questioned the integrity of the bill, the Government and the Minister in making appointments to the board. Earlier the member for Myall Lakes said that Opposition members were projecting, and with a jaundiced eye.

For more than 16 years the former Government, which lacked foresight and integrity, made appointments to boards and decisions based on political convenience rather than on best policy and good governance. Opposition members criticised this bill based on their experiences over 16 years and on the environment they created. On 26 March 2011 the campaign run by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was based on transparency, accountability, honesty and good government. This Government will not apply the rules applied by the former Government to the way in which it governs this State. The policies of the Liberal-Nationals Government, which are open and transparent, are based on good governance. In its first 12 months in office the policies implemented by this Government have been based on the right information after consultation with the people of this State.

Mr Andrew Gee: What about Steve?

Mr JOHN BARILARO: What about Steve? Earlier the member for Cessnock questioned the Minister's integrity as he believes this bill was developed to get rid of some board members and stakeholders. This bill does not take away the right of current stakeholders to be members of the new board. Proposed section 7 (3) states:

(3) The members of the Board appointed by the Minister are to be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, each or together have the following:

That is a good point because there is nothing better than having experts from one's community who have local knowledge and who are involved in the community playing a role in a statewide approach. It is good for the types of decisions that are being made in delivering good government. The bill goes on to mention a number of other qualifications. I emphasise that it does not exclude the stakeholders now on the board. In fact, most of them will be able to tick those boxes, make an application and go through the process to be reappointed. There is nothing wrong with that because they should be appointed on the basis of merit and expertise.

The Monaro region has a large water catchment area that is managed by Snowy Hydro. It is important for the economy and the environment and, of course, for the future of the local community. Knowledge of local issues is particularly important for agriculture, industry, local government and planning, and that is reflected in the revised criteria. The requirement to have experience relevant to the running of a commercial entity and to water supply and asset management reflects the level of governance responsibilities that apply to boards of statutory authorities. I could speak about this at length but it is sufficient to say that this bill simply changes the make-up of the board to ensure that we cast a wider net across the State to attract experts who can contribute to better decision-making and better governance. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) [12.30 p.m.]: The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1988 constitutes the Sydney Catchment Authority and establishes the authority board. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 does not change the statutory objectives of the Act as detailed in section 14. It simply changes the board appointment process from one based on defined stakeholder representation to one based on merit. These amendments will ensure that board members have appropriate skills and experience and that members of the community with the appropriate skills have equal opportunity to be selected to serve on the board. They also will bring the authority's governance arrangements into line with those that apply to other statutory authorities and other State-owned corporations.

As has been highlighted by a number of Government speakers, the main amendments will remove the requirement for the board to include nominees from the NSW Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council and a local councillor. The bill also expands the scope of the qualifications, experience, practical knowledge and other expertise required for board membership. To make it simple for members opposite, the Government is trying to beef up the board's skills. The bill also allows the Minister to advertise publicly for all appointments to the board. Members opposite should note that unlike the Labor Government this Government will not appoint any hacks.

As we all know, members of the former Government appointed their friends from Sussex Street. Unlike the former Government, this Government will appoint people with the appropriate expertise, skills and knowledge. We are getting rid of the rot and ensuring that the boards of our State-owned corporations and authorities have the skills and knowledge they need. Section 14 of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act deals with the authority's principal statutory objectives. Previous speakers in this debate, including the member for Balmain, have said that this bill changes those objectives. It does not. Section 14 states:

(1) The principal objectives of the SCA are as follows:

This bill does not change any of those objectives and it is important that members opposite realise that. The bill makes important amendments to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act and it will further professionalise the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, which was established by the Sydney Catchment Authority. To date the board has comprised a chief executive officer and between four and eight members, including a nominee from the NSW Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and an elected councillor from the catchment area. The amendments in this bill will remove those requirements and in so doing allow the Minister to appoint the best possible person for the job rather than having to emphasise stakeholder representation. That will allow a range of skills sets and talents to be considered and it will ultimately enrich the board and improve its function.

Members must bear in mind the importance of the board and the vital role that it plays in the Sydney Catchment Authority. The authority manages 21 storage dams that hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. Of course, as members know, that includes the Warragamba Dam, which is the main source of drinking water for the people of Sydney. Recent rain events have demonstrated how critical the dam is to Sydney's water supply and also to surrounding communities. The spectacular opening of the floodgates after 14 years of drought in December and March demonstrated the capacity of this great dam. The Sydney Catchment Authority is responsible for an area of about 16,000 square kilometres comprising five catchment areas.

It is an enormous responsibility and therefore the authority must have the best possible skills on hand to manage Sydney's water supply. That will be achieved as a result of these amendments, which will ensure that the focus is on merit-based selection. The Minister now will be allowed to advertise all board positions, which is appropriate. As members know, the former Government did not do that but simply appointed its mates from Sussex Street to this and other boards. The people of Sydney appreciate the importance of having a secure, safe and clean water supply. In recent years we have had to deal with the severe impact of the El Nino weather pattern. That has caused a long and stressful drought and more recently intense rainfall. We became accustomed to water restrictions and nightly news updates about dam levels, which reached their lowest point in early February 2007 at 33.8 per cent.

Such extreme circumstances led to major policy decisions being made, such as the building of the Kurnell desalination plant. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the best candidates nominate for board appointment and, more importantly, that they can be appointed. That is not to suggest that stakeholder representation is necessarily a negative thing or that those individuals will choose not to nominate should a position become available. The amendments in this bill will bring the board into line with other statutory authorities and State-owned corporations that have merit-based selection of board members. I support the sensible reforms introduced by the Minister to improve the efficiency and transparency of the board and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [12.39 p.m.]: I oppose the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 on policy grounds. I have listened to contributions to the debate this morning. As a former Minister for Water, I point out that there are legitimate policy reasons for having representatives from the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, the relevant local government areas and farmers on that board. I listened with interest when the member for Monaro said that the bill is about getting the right expertise on the board. Nothing precludes the Minister of the day from adding expertise to the board, even if those three representative positions are retained. Management of the catchment requires the balancing of a number of competing and conflicting imperatives. There is the engineering part, the commercial part, the environmental protection part and the community relations part of the equation. They are all legitimate stakeholders.

There is no single agreed view amongst so-called experts on how to best manage the catchment. They have competing views as to the emphasis that should be placed on, for example, the protection of the environment on the one hand and the commercial and revenue-raising opportunities of the catchment on the other. A balanced approach is required. The catchment area is part of the world heritage listed area of the Blue Mountains National Park. Indeed, when Lake Burragorang is full, if one stands at the Three Sisters one can see the upper reaches of the lake, such is its proximity to the national park. It is entirely legitimate that nature conservation principles and considerations should be brought to bear on deliberations of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board.

As the member for Oatley pointed out, in February 2007 the level of Warragamba Dam was at 33 per cent. If we had not had water restrictions in the previous couple of years and had not been transferring water up from the Shoalhaven River, Warragamba Dam would have been at 8 per cent. That figure of 8 per cent is alarming on its own, but when one considers that it would have meant Australia's major city running out of water and its citizens drinking mud, that would have brought the national economy to a standstill and had enormous implications for Australia's recovery post the global financial crisis.

The provision of potable water to Australia's largest city, together with the provision of electricity, is the biggest utility challenge government has and one it has to get right. But because of the sensitivity of the catchment area, it requires a balance between environmental imperatives and the legitimate commercial interests of the Sydney Catchment Authority and its stakeholders, the taxpayers of New South Wales. The inclusion of local council representatives on this board is legitimate. Katoomba, Penrith, Wollondilly and Wingecarribee—probably the four key councils—are legitimate stakeholders in the management of the catchment area. Their constituents use the area for passive recreation and many of their constituents are employed by the Sydney Catchment Authority and/or the water board.

Because of those community relations, that stakeholder engagement is a legitimate part of the management of the catchment. There exists small rural landholdings that operate in a symbiotic manner with the Sydney Catchment Authority and a representative of the farmers or the agricultural interests on the board is also legitimate. The conservation principles that are brought to bear by the representatives of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW on the board are legitimate. A large part of the catchment area is in a world heritage and national heritage listed area. If the Minister of the day wants additional expertise on the board, there is no impediment to the Minister importing such expertise.

As the member for Bankstown mentioned, when I was Minister I appointed Bob Rollinson to the board. Bob Rollinson has had an extraordinary private sector career. There was a blue-green algae outbreak in the upper reaches of the dam that dozens of so-called experts had told me could not be fixed. I appointed Bob Rollinson who, together with Michael Bullen, Chief Executive of the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, fixed the problem. They removed a serious threat to the safety of the drinking water supply. The presence of these nominees on the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority is entirely legitimate. Together with the provision of electricity, there is no more important provision of any utility anywhere in Australia than the provision of a potable water supply to Sydney.

Those opposite have inherited a plan from us that guarantees the water supply in Sydney for the next 50 years. The desalination plant guarantees to augment the supply by an extra 14 per cent, with a further 14 per cent available if required. Notwithstanding significant population growth, the massive water recycling schemes and water restrictions that were implemented under the Labor Government have guaranteed the water supply in Sydney for another 50 years. The plan for water delivery in Sydney is a good one, but in order for it to remain so and in order to balance the differing and competing considerations it is legitimate that the board comprise people with expertise that is not strictly engineering or commercial.

That is the purpose of having those nominees on the board; it is in recognition of the fact that this is a sensitive area to manage and that there are competing views on the best way to manage. The current board is well run. I take the opportunity to note that, despite this being the driest continent in the world and despite the statistics outlined by the member for Oatley in a well-informed contribution to this debate, this Government does not have a Minister for Water. This is the driest continent in the world and we have been through the worst drought in the century but we do not have a Minister for Water.

Mr Stuart Ayres: Point of order: Clearly, the member for Burrinjuck has responsibility for water in this Government.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr NATHAN REES: To the point of order: In relation to the Acts for water as they relate to New South Wales, the member for Burrinjuck has responsibility for irrigation water, groundwater and water other than in the Sydney catchment area. As I understand it, the Hon. Greg Pearce is the portfolio and shareholding Minister for the Sydney Catchment Authority and Sydney Water.

Mr Andrew Constance: So we do have a Minister.

Mr NATHAN REES: He is not the Minister for Water; he is the Minister for Finance. That supports my point about a conflict between the financial imperatives of running the catchment and the conservation side. There are sound policy reasons for the presence of these representatives on the board. Earlier Minister Hazzard spoke about the giardia and cryptosporidium outbreak in September 1998. Reference was made to the McClelland report, which was the most comprehensive examination of the water supply network ever undertaken in Sydney. A number of recommendations came out of the McClelland report to guarantee and safeguard the supply of Sydney's water. One of the recommendations was the presence of these people on the Sydney Catchment Authority Board, for sound policy reasons. It is a retrograde step to remove this requirement. The options are there for the Minister to import expertise into the board if the Minister believes there is a necessity for it, but it is critical that those other legitimate stakeholders also have a seat at the table. We oppose the Sydney Water Catchment Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.47 p.m.]: The debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 has encouraged me to speak on an issue outside my electorate because I cannot believe what I am hearing from members opposite. I cannot believe that members opposite will oppose this change, which is about good management. I have not had a look at the make-up of the current board, but I am immediately cynical. Maybe Joe Scimone sits on the board and has made a phone call. I do not know who from the previous Government was promised an appointment for favours given, but there is a whale in the bay. I have not heard so much garbage delivered in this place about a change towards good management.

The Greens—amazingly, the new friends of New South Wales farmers—also have spoken in this debate. When a point of order was taken during his speech, the member for Balmain received the support of the member for Mount Druitt. But the member for Balmain demonstrated how The Greens work because he immediately turned on the member for Mount Druitt and tore him up in the process. We have seen some amazing things in this debate. The fact is that The Greens have never been friends of the farmers. The changes in this amendment bill are simply about good business management—and this is a business.

As the previous speaker, the member for Toongabbie, alluded to, it also involves the engineering aspect of the catchment area. It is generally only run-off that is being collected in these storage dams. There is no science involved or anything to interfere with current natural resources. Interestingly, the member for Balmain commented that the representative from the Nature Conservation Council should be there to "block". That is an interesting scenario. They do block: they block progress. This bill is about the business of providing Sydney's water supply. The member for Balmain also suggested there was something clandestine about the bill. He questioned how these people were to be appointed. Yes, the Minister will make a decision behind closed doors, but new section 7 (3) of item [1] states:

(c) qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity,

(d) qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management,

(e) practical knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture and industry in the catchment area,

(f) practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government and planning in the catchment area, and

(g) such other expertise as the Minister considers necessary to realise the objectives of the SCA.

Obviously, the member for Balmain has realised that the current environmental representatives on the board do not meet those qualifications and that they will be excluded if they reapply. That is the only threat to them. In future those who apply for positions on the board will have to meet that criteria. It is not about the Minister acting in secrecy; it is about the management of a very large business charged with Sydney's water supply. It is not natural resource management; it is the collection of the catchment area run-off and the recognition of any threats to public health that might result from adverse farming activities and so on. As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes the current board representation could remain as it is. However, for some reason the Opposition has decided this is a bad management decision.

We have seen how the former Government managed the organisations it was charged to appoint people to. Those who were owed favours by the former Government were appointed as board members as payback. Their appointment had nothing to do with qualifications. They only had to take a position on a board and put their hand out. What a nice payback! But things have changed. The bill is all about getting the best people for the job. In saying that, I make no criticism of the current board members. The Government has a duty to manage the assets that fall under its umbrella of management in the best possible way. Therefore, the people charged with the job of managing those assets must be appointed on merit and they must be the most qualified to do the job. I am amazed that the Opposition opposes this good management practice.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kevin Anderson and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Acting-Speaker (Mr Lee Evans) left the chair at 12.55 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NSW WORKERS COMPENSATION SCHEME

Establishment

The SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Speaker

(a) five members of the Legislative Council, comprising:

Don Harwin

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

PHOTOGRAPHS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The SPEAKER: I inform the House that permission has been granted for a photographer to take photographs of the House in session between 1.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 3 May 2012 in order to build up a library of images for use by the Parliament in various publications. As photos will be taken primarily during question time, I request all members to be in the House at 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I advise the House that the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Minister for Western New South Wales today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

QUESTION TIME

__________

[Question time commenced at 2.21 p.m.]

FATHER FINIAN EGAN POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Attorney General. In light of Father Chris Riley's statements reported in today's Daily Telegraph confirming that the Attorney General made derogatory remarks to him about a victim of alleged child sexual abuse, will the Attorney now apologise to the alleged victim?

Mr GREG SMITH: I addressed this question yesterday. I have nothing more to add other than to repeat what I have said elsewhere: I would never be disparaging of alleged victims of sexual assault.

OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS

Mr GLENN BROOKES: My question is directed to the Premier. What has been the latest impact of police operations on outlaw bikie gangs?

[Interruption]

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Did the member for Canterbury say "Nil"?

Ms Linda Burney: No, I did not say that.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Government's determination to crack down on bikie crimes is paying dividends. How do we know this? Is it because New South Wales police know that if they need more resources or more powers this Government is determined to back them? It is not just because of the tireless support the Minister for Police has given to police in their efforts to use intelligent, strategic targeting of suspects. It is not just because the Commissioner of Police has vowed to leave no stone unturned in tackling these crimes with actions that have seen hundreds of raids, arrests and charges laid. No. We now have the ultimate verdict on whether all this determination and activity by police has hit the bikie gangs where it hurts—because the bikies have told us so.

Last night we heard it directly from the horse's mouth. Bikies themselves are now on the public record confirming that they are hurting as a result of all the efforts of police in recent weeks. That confirmation was stated on last night's ABC television program 7.30. The program filmed a meeting of minds—and I use that term loosely—involving members of the Hells Angels, Rebels, Lone Wolves, Comancheros, Nomads and Black Uhlans at a western Sydney clubhouse on Monday night. One has never seen such a bunch of uninteresting, down at the mouth, disgruntled people—that is, outside members of a Labor caucus meeting. There they were on television last night, resplendent in their colours, looking tough, with their cans of Coke sitting in front of them, talking about how the targeted shootings were distressing and damaging them and their activities. One bikie said:

…we're going to get bent over left, right and centre. We ain't going to have a lifestyle and there's people that are fighting over turf—there ain't going to be a turf to fight over, it's finished.

Another despaired that things had changed. He said:

I tell you why these shootings happen—they don't abide by the rules any more. There used to be bikies, no shooting houses, no shooting families in front of family members, no attacking businesses.

He went on to lament the lack of respect—can you believe this—to complain that what he called a bikie culture would end once and for all if "someone's wife, or someone's kids" were killed. They grumbled about the weekend's Operation Spartan, which saw 555 arrests made and almost 1,000 charges laid. So we now have confirmation because we have heard it directly from bikies themselves that the police activity, fully backed and supported by this Government, is hurting bikie gangs. That reality is very different from what has been coming from those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly sought to undermine the efforts police are taking against targeted shootings. He was at it again yesterday, falsely claiming that police were not using legislation to declare a bikie gang an outlaw organisation.

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: If the Premier wants to quote me he should do so accurately. I was saying you, not the police—the Government.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: He was out there again yesterday saying that legislation was not being used to declare a bikie gang a criminal organisation, yet in fact, as the police commissioner said initially two weeks ago publicly—and as he confirmed yesterday—action is underway by police to do precisely that. Those opposite have never missed an opportunity to run down the efforts of police on these issues. Last weekend Labor's Police spokesman described as window-dressing the very operation that bikies on Monday night were whingeing about.

Mr Nathan Rees: Point of order: My point of order is relevance under Standing Order 129. In speaking to the point of order I will use one word—Ibrahim.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: And I am absolutely delighted that Sam Ibrahim is back behind bars—thanks to Operation Spartan. As further evidence that it is not the window-dressing, the former Leader of the Labor Party, the member for Toongabbie, talks about but serious police efforts— [Extension of time granted.]

On the weekend we saw two things happen. First, the member for Toongabbie described as "window-dressing" an operation that saw 555 people arrested and 1,000 people charged. The second extraordinary thing about the weekend was the statement from the person in charge of that operation, Assistant Commissioner Frank Mennilli. We know that police do not normally get provoked into responding to politics but what did Mr Mennilli say on Sunday in response to those comments? He said:

… if they want to play political games go right ahead.

I actually heard the comment made that Mr Rees thought that this was a charade.

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

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Members opposite continually undermine the efforts of police and do not give police due credit for the progress they are making. They do not even recognise what outlaw motorcycle gang members recognise—that the police effort is having an impact.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The bleating of the Leader of the Opposition is simply amazing. How many questions has the Leader of the Opposition asked about targeted shootings in Sydney since he has been Leader of the Opposition? None. Not a single question has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition despite his constant bleating on television and radio running down the police effort. This side of politics will continue to support the police. This side of politics wants to clean up the Sydney shootings and do so using effective policing. This side of politics will continue to give police the resources and powers they need to do their job.

FATHER FINIAN EGAN POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr PAUL LYNCH: My question is directed to the Attorney General. In light of the Attorney General's last answer is he now suggesting that Father Chris Riley is lying?

Mr GREG SMITH: I do not think the member heard my last answer.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has had his opportunity to make a contribution.

Mr GREG SMITH: Wait for it. I said I had nothing to add to what I said yesterday other than that I would never be disparaging of alleged victims of sexual assault. I remind the member for Liverpool that a court process has been commenced and it is not appropriate for this House to be debating that court process.

CARBON TAX

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What is the Government's response to the member for Heffron's call for Federal Labor to revoke the carbon tax?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Let us have a clear understanding of what the carbon tax is going to do to what was once called Labor heartland—western Sydney. For the average household in western Sydney it will mean that more than 90 per cent of the increased price of electricity in that area will be due to the carbon tax—that is, in an area that Labor once claimed was its heartland. When one sees in this Chamber the member for Granville, the member for Parramatta, the member for Smithfield and many other Coalition members representing electorates in western Sydney, one knows that Labor's heartland has gone forever.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I am having difficulty hearing the Minister.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I will answer the member's question in direct terms. On 26 February 2011—oh, what a difference a year makes—the then New South Wales Premier, Kristina Keneally, said, "I congratulate Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her leadership in proposing a carbon tax." Isn't that great? But it gets better. She said further, "Climate change is a real problem and we as a nation need real leadership to deal with it. Real leadership is facing squarely the challenges we face as a nation and looking for solutions." Yesterday, looking for relevance, as the Sydney Morning Herald has so eloquently put it today—the member is desperate in her search for relevance—the member for Heffron took a very different approach. She said, "I think she [the Prime Minister] needs to think seriously about whether she can revoke [the carbon tax] or in fact whether she can lessen the impact, dial it back somehow." Not content with her stellar performance on Sky Television, the member for Heffron then wrote an article in today's edition of The Drum. Her article in The Drum is not only a great story about carbon tax; it is also a great story about football. We had no idea that the member for Heffron was so learned about football and also about religion. She said:

Reducing, lessening the impact, or possibly, revoking, the carbon tax: if she stays, it is the one Act of Contrition she needs to make.

It then got better—as the Premier says, very Catholic—because she went on to say:

Resigning would be a significant Hail Mary pass. To continue the Catholic prayer metaphors, it would be an ultimate Act of Contrition.

Mr Richard Amery: Who wrote this?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Kristina wrote it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister has only one minute left and I am sure we all would love to hear what he has to say.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge the interjection. I do not think that could ever escape Hansard. The words of the member for Heffron got even better. She wrote:

It would absolve the Government of ... its sins.

So, absolution is achieved by resignation. And who is advocating that for our great Prime Minister, Julia Gillard? It is none other than the wonderful member for Heffron, who served us so nobly on 26 March 2011. What she gave the people of New South Wales on 26 March 2011 the Prime Minister will give to the people of the nation in October 2013. [Extension of time granted.]

The member for Heffron then went on to explain what the Prime Minister's resigning would do. She said that not only would resigning achieve absolution, but in the political context "resigning would clear the playing field and open up new opportunities". For whom, I wonder? She went on to say that "it might mean achieving a New South Wales result". That is, if the Prime Minister resigns, it might mean achieving a New South Wales result. What a great achievement by the member for Heffron, who as a Labor leader lost 32 seats in one night. Even better, the member said that the Prime Minister might achieve a New South Wales result "rather than a Queensland result". There is the choice for the Prime Minister. She either goes the way of New South Wales and achieves a reduction from 52 to 20 or she goes the way of Queensland and achieves a reduction from 52 to 6. What good options they are.

Who can disparage the choice that the member for Heffron is offering her Prime Minister? What loyalty to the party and, above all, what loyalty to John Robertson, the Leader of the Opposition, who is advocating the carbon tax. John wants the carbon tax, he supports it and he likes it. But John wants not a New South Wales result, but a Queensland result in October 2013. We on the other hand have made it clear. We back the people of western Sydney; we back the people of New South Wales. We will fight the carbon tax not just on the beaches but on the electricity bills that will go out after 1 July. Those bills will make it clear who is responsible for the electricity prices. Only one party is responsible—Labor.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order.

FATHER FINIAN EGAN POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr PAUL LYNCH: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is Father Finian Egan being legally represented by the brother of the Attorney General's chief of staff, Anthony Tudehope, and, if so, when was the Attorney made aware of that?

Mr GREG SMITH: It is nice to hear a former parishioner of St Gerard's Carlingford asking questions from the other side seeking to deal with a case that I have said is sub judice. I have nothing further to add.

POLICE TRANSPORT COMMAND

Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister advise what measures the Government has taken to improve safety and security on the public transport network?

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I acknowledge the interest of the member for Gosford in very important matters regarding safety on the public transport network. This morning the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and I travelled to Central Station to officially launch the new Police Transport Command. Last February we said we would have the command up and running by early May and we have delivered on that commitment. We were joined at Central railway station by Commissioner of Police Andrew Scipione, Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas, and Acting Police Transport Commander Max Mitchell. The presence of such senior members of the Police Force demonstrates just how significant a milestone we have reached today.

From today police will take over security for the public transport network, which will mean greater safety for all of the travelling public whether travelling to or from work, after a night out or for any other purpose. It also means safer public transport for all those who use our trains, buses or ferries. That is why the Police Transport Command will patrol all of those modes of transport. The Police Transport Command is now staffed by more than 300 officers from local commuter crime units, with the command strength to double to 610 police officers by the end of 2014—a very substantial increase. The chain of command has now been formally transferred from the various local area commands directly to the Police Transport Command.

Transit officers will continue with their important work to target fare evasion and minor infringements on trains as they have always done. Transit officers will then expand their beat to patrol buses and key ferry locations as well. Transport police will be based in three primary metropolitan hubs—central, south-west and north-west Sydney—and several satellite hubs, as the police call them, including the Hunter, the Central Coast and the Illawarra regions. That is a very important development for commuters who rely on the network in those parts of New South Wales. Acting Police Transport Commander Max Mitchell said today in a press conference that the location of command offices addressed emerging crime trends and changing demographics, information that police have at their fingertips. Police will also be relying on both overt and covert operations to clamp down on any crime and antisocial behaviour. This initiative has received widespread support from the travelling public and should be supported by all members of this place.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he supports the idea of putting more police on the beat because it acts as a deterrent, but it is disappointing that his view is not shared by all members of his team. I acknowledge and welcome his support on this occasion. Labor's Opposition spokeswoman, typically, has been reluctant to come on board and support this initiative. Responding to speculation about this initiative last year she argued, and I quote, that more police "does not equal a better outcome". But it gets better. Regrettably, the member for Fairfield told the Fairfield City Champion that police patrolling public transport would mean "passengers' safety would be at risk". He had a placard and a photo opportunity to try to politicise this decision. One would think that after being a member of this House for so many years the member for Wollongong, commenting about safety on trains in her electorate, would not have the hide to say that this initiative "undervalues the role of the police".

Ms Noreen Hay: That's right, it does.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: And members thought I was exaggerating. Those inappropriate comments aside, now that the Police Transport Command is up and running I call on all members of this place— [Extension of time granted.]

I call on all members of this place to give the Police Transport Command their unreserved support. They need to put politics aside and focus on putting the community first. The Government has been unwavering in its support for the NSW Police Force and today is a concrete example of its belief that our police men and women are best placed to combat crime and antisocial behaviour on our transport network. Nothing can replace a police presence. Decisions regarding safety on the network should not be made by politicians or bureaucrats but by experts, that is, the police.

Mr Michael Daley: I thought you were the expert.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I will ignore that comment. I am very pleased that from today through the leadership of the NSW Police Force we can enhance further the community's confidence in our public transport network. I take this opportunity to thank my colleague in the Legislative Council, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the Commissioner of Police and his leadership team for making this vital initiative possible.

FATHER FINIAN EGAN POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question is directed to the Attorney General. In light of the connection the Attorney's chief of staff has with Father Finian Egan through his brother, what steps has the Attorney General taken to ensure that his chief of staff has no access to confidential information regarding this case?

Mr GREG SMITH: As I have said before, I have had nothing to do, nor has my staff had anything to do, with the Director of Public Prosecutions' consideration or the police investigation of this matter.

HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH: My question is directed to the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research. What is the Government doing to build on our result in the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report into hospital performance?

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I thank the member for Coogee for his interest in health particularly in his area. I will mention the fantastic results that have been achieved at Prince of Wales Hospital that are so important to his constituents. For the last quarter of last year for category 3 emergency department patients that is usually used to determine the success of an emergency department, patients were seen within 28 minutes compared with the last quarter of the year before when they were seen within 45 minutes. That information is contained in the latest Bureau of Health Information report, a report through which we are providing independent information that is far more detailed than was ever provided by the former Labor Government.

I refer to the recently released Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report. I am pleased to report that again the O'Farrell Government is delivering on its promise to make New South Wales number one again, as demonstrated in this report. The latest performance data on the number of patients attending public hospital emergency departments and being treated within recommended time frames reveals the following: the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory are treating 58 per cent within recommended time frames; in Tasmania it is 62 per cent; Western Australia 63 per cent; Queensland 67 per cent; South Australia and Victoria 71 per cent; and where is New South Wales? It is at the top of the list with 76 per cent within recommended time frames, making New South Wales number one again. That fantastic result has been sustained because of the hardworking—

Dr Andrew McDonald: They are waiting longer, Jillian.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: The shadow Minister is running down the hardworking doctors and nurses in our hospitals, who have done a wonderful job in sustaining these great achievements. The Bureau of Health Information report for the last quarter of last year also details the times that have been achieved. I will provide the House with figures for a smattering of hospitals across the State that I know are of interest to my colleagues. Inverell is in the electorate of the member for Northern Tablelands—and I see that I now have his attention. The waiting time at the local hospital declined from 26 minutes in the last quarter of 2010 to 16 minutes in the last quarter of 2011. Well done to those doctors and nurses.

The member for Coffs Harbour will be interested to know that the waiting time at his local hospital has declined from 32 minutes to 25 minutes, at Port Macquarie it has declined from 33 minutes to 30 minutes, at Penrith it has declined from 33 minutes to 26 minutes, at Clarence it has declined from 33 minutes to 21 minutes, at Bathurst it has declined from 29 minutes to 22 minutes and at Westmead it has declined from 35 minutes to 27 minutes. I will tell the House one of the reasons that has happened. I am particularly glad to do that today because the Chairman of the Board of the Western Sydney Local Health District, Professor Stephen Leeder, is in the gallery.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: The Minister needs to clarify—

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member's point of order?

Dr Andrew McDonald: It is relevance under Standing Order 129. The Minister is misleading the House based on poor decision—

The SPEAKER: Order! That is unrelated to Standing Order 129. As the member knows, there is no point of order relating to misleading the House.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I am pleased that Professor Stephen Leeder is in the gallery because it gives me the opportunity to thank and congratulate him, the board and all the people who have worked so hard to improve the situation at Westmead Hospital. I acknowledge particularly the work done by the director of the emergency department, Dr Matthew Vukasovic. The member for Parramatta and I were recently at the hospital to announce a $5-million upgrade of the emergency department. Dr Vukasovic told me four years ago that he knew how to improve the situation at Westmead Hospital with the introduction of new care models.

Dr Andrew McDonald: He told me six years ago.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I am not surprised. Did the shadow Minister do anything? No, he did not. In the past four months the emergency department has experienced dramatic improvements. This Government has provided a much better, fully equipped unit. [Extension of time granted.]

When I made that announcement Dr Vukasovic pointed out that he now has the opportunity to put his ideas into practice because of the devolved model, and clinicians are now fearless in offering ideas to improve services. He said that patients presenting to the emergency department are now seen in the safety zone by a senior doctor who is able to start investigations such as blood tests and x-rays, or to commence treatment.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order for the second time.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: Dr Vukasovic said it is the first time that the entire hospital has been involved. I will also tell members about the changes that have occurred in elective surgery and the results reported in the Bureau of Health Information report. I will cite a few different hospitals this time. In the last quarter of 2010, 92 per cent of patients at Belmont Hospital were seen in time. That is a fantastic result thanks to the doctors and nurses. In the electorate of Cessnock—an Opposition electorate—

The SPEAKER: Order! Members should not incite the member for Cessnock.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: I would like the local member to thank the doctors and nurses on my behalf. The on-time percentage at Cessnock has increased from 76 per cent to 91 per cent, in Wagga Wagga it has increased from 75 per cent to 91 per cent, in Young it has increased from 88 per cent to 100 per cent, in Nepean it has increased from 72 per cent to 89 per cent and in Sutherland it has increased from 83 per cent to 94 per cent.

Dr Andrew McDonald: We built that hospital.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: The former Government built almost nothing and it did not allow clinicians to do anything. Unlike this Government, members opposite did not make New South Wales number one again.

The SPEAKER: Order! When the House comes to order I will call the member for Balmain.

Mr John Williams: The white leftie.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray-Darling to order for the second time.

JOBSEEKER TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Given that Centrelink jobseekers cannot access transport concessions for MyMulti and weekly tickets from Transport for NSW, will the Government consider extending concessions to support Centrelink jobseekers in their search for employment?

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I thank the member for his question and I have taken on board the issue he has raised. This Government is committed to the establishment of a fair and efficient ticketing system in New South Wales and I am pleased that we are getting on with the job of delivering it. I assure the member that the Government is working hard to deliver the best and fairest ticketing system it can. As members are aware, we are committed to delivering the Opal card, which is the new electronic smartcard integrated system that will be rolled out over the next few years across the entire public transport network. It will become the ticket to ride for more than 1.5 million commuters and tourists, and it will make their journeys easy and seamless. This new system is a far cry from the former Government's Tcard. Do members remember that? That ticketing system was supposed to be in place for the Olympic Games in 2000. The Labor Government wasted $100 million and left this Government to deal with the resulting court action. It was another project that the former Minister for Transport left in his bottom drawer for me to sort out. The member's question—

Mr John Robertson: Hardly.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: We know it is a touchy subject for him. I would keep quiet if I were him.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order and cease interjecting across the table.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: If he were to ask me a question about it I would tell him everything I know.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: He does not want to hear it. I have it all in my little folder.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting and the Minister will return to the leave of the question.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I will. I apologise, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. If he continues to interject he will find himself out of the Chamber.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I apologise to the member for Balmain for digressing. However, this question gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the O'Farrell Government's strong record in improving public transport ticketing and extending concessions. I am pleased to advise the House that with the integration of light rail into MyZone the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals Government achieved in less than 100 days what members opposite said could not be done. They said it was not possible to integrate light rail, and that pensioners and others should not be able to use that network. This Government ensured that that happened. Since June last year MyMulti pensioner excursion tickets and Family Funday Sunday tickets have included travel on the light rail network. I know that the member for Balmain cares about that issue because the network extends from Central to Lilyfield and will be extended to the inner west.

I emphasise that this Government understands and appreciates that expanding access to public transport is important in improving the quality of life of many commuters and the travelling public. Including light rail in MyZone means a more integrated ticketing system and less hassle for commuters who want to access all modes of public transport. That is but one example of the issues the Government is examining to make our system fairer and more efficient and also more inclusive. People who already use light rail are moving to MyMulti tickets and taking advantage of other modes of transport. We are seeing the widespread benefits of that initiative. We are experiencing what we knew all along: if you make public transport a more attractive option, customers will leave their cars at home and people who were excluded previously from the network will use the network and become more reliant on public transport.

Members will also be aware that the New South Wales Government reduced the cost of periodical rail tickets, which are cheaper today than they were when those opposite left office. Monthly, quarterly and yearly tickets for all rail travel are now cheaper than they were under Labor. That is something of which the Government is proud. The Government is improving accessibility and encouraging people to rely on public transport more than they have in the past. Members will recall that from 1 July last year, regular rail commuters were able to take advantage of reductions in ticket prices. Those reductions can save commuters up to $240 a year. That is a considerable amount of money for commuters facing increased cost of living pressure. I will have more to say on this matter on a future occasion.

SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr MARK COURE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. How is the Government improving school facilities across New South Wales?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I appreciate the question from the member for Oatley, whose electorate I had the pleasure of visiting on Monday when we announced a great capital works project at one of the schools in his electorate. That was a big tick for the New South Wales Government in delivering on public school infrastructure. The most important thing about this question is that it gives me the opportunity to announce the next stage of reforms in the way that we manage public education in New South Wales; that is, in relation to the procurement of capital works and maintenance in this State. We have all seen media reports and seen in our own electorates those Building the Education Revolution projects that cost two, three, four or five times as much as they should have cost.

If the Building the Education Revolution program showed us anything, it was Labor's inability to spend capital works funds—taxpayers' money—effectively and efficiently. I am proud to say that, as part of the reforms instituted in New South Wales, the Government is driving those fees down as far as we can to make sure that every possible dollar goes into bricks and mortar in our public schools. I am proud to say that since the election we have begun trialling an industry standard form of delivering major capital works. This will bring the Department of Education into the twenty-first century—not where the previous Government left it, somewhere in the eighteenth or seventeenth century.

The industry standard form of delivering major capital works will result in a significant reduction in the fees we pay on construction. Positive results from trials at Hurstville Public School and a new school at Oran Park suggest that once the industry standard is rolled out to all education projects, the Department of Education expects to save the equivalent of a new primary school every year. If those opposite had done that, we would have 16 new primary schools in this State. But no, it took a Liberal-Nationals Government to institute these kinds of changes. If those opposite had applied the industry best practice—

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. How can you build schools when you cannot even get kids to school?

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member will resume her seat.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Those opposite are desperate. The other day I found myself defending the member for Canterbury and now she attacks me. It is true. Somebody called her a boring fool and I said, "That isn't true; she's not boring." If those opposite had applied industry best practice to the Building the Education Revolution, New South Wales would have saved $228 million in fees—$228 million that I am sure even Labor members would have known what to do with for the benefit of their electorates. The Government is also moving to a standard industry form of asset management such as life cycle management. That is the sort of thing that large organisations with multiple sites across the State do, such as McDonalds and Woolworths.

Education is the same. That approach meets Treasury guidelines. What those opposite were doing previously did not meet Treasury guidelines. We are determined that every possible cent goes to schools. We are not going to sit on our hands and do nothing. That is what those opposite did, which saw $228 million in Building the Education Revolution money go to excess fees for construction projects. I am proud of these reforms. I know every member of the Liberal-Nationals is proud of these reforms as well. The other thing we are doing as part of the Local Schools, Local Decisions reforms— [Extension of time granted.]

As part of the Local Schools, Local Decisions reforms the Government announced a couple of months ago—the biggest reforms in a hundred years—we will give principals the ability to self-manage their planned maintenance works. That will save the average high school as much as $5,000 a year. They are the kinds of changes that principals want and that taxpayers expect. Taxpayers expect governments to spend money as effectively and as efficiently as possible and that is what the Government is doing. Those changes will commence at the beginning of term three this year. It was a pleasure to be at George's River College at the Peakhurst campus in the electorate of the member for Oatley. I will return in a few weeks to speak to teachers about the Local Schools, Local Decisions reforms.

I was in Dapto the other day and I spoke to the Dapto learning community consisting of five schools on their professional development day. I took every question from teachers and listened to every concern they had about the Local Schools, Local Decisions reforms. I was happy to answer those questions because I am proud of the education reforms that this Government has introduced. The Local Schools, Local Decisions reforms have changed the way in which we support students with disabilities. The reforms have been widely welcomed by school communities and by disability advocacy groups. The Government has listened in particular to what school principals are saying to us and it is listening to what the experts in the building industry say to us about how to get the best value for money. Those opposite were not listening and the election result on 26 March last year reflects that.

Question time concluded at 3.07 p.m.

PETITIONS

The Speaker announced that the following petition signed by more than 10,000 persons was lodged for presentation:

Redfern Railway Station Lift Access

Petition requesting the immediate installation of lifts at Redfern Railway Station, received from Ms Kristina Keneally.

Discussion on petition set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Armidale Rural Referral Hospital Upgrade

Petition requesting support for funding for the major upgrade of Armidale Rural Referral Hospital, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

Coalpac Consolidation Project

Petition opposing the Coalpac Consolidation Project proposal and requesting the protection of the village of Cullen Bullen and Ben Bullen State Forest from future open-cut mining proposals, received from Mr Paul Toole.

Pets on Public Transport

Petition requesting that pets be allowed on public transport, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Walsh Bay Precinct Public Transport

Petition requesting improved bus services for the Walsh Bay precinct, and ferry services for the new wharf at pier 2/3, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Container Deposit Levy

Petition requesting the Government introduce a container deposit levy to reduce litter and increase recycling rates of drink containers, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Animals Performing in Circuses

Petition requesting a ban on exotic animals performing in circuses, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Pet Bans in Accommodation By-laws and Tenancy Agreements

Petition requesting the prohibition of blanket pet bans in accommodation by-laws and rules and tenancy agreements, received from Ms Clover Moore.

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by more than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Pittwater Fishing

Petition requesting the Government buy out commercial fishing operators within the Pittwater to help to ensure a sustainable future for this invaluable natural asset, received from Mr Rob Stokes.

Garigal National Park

Petition opposing the New South Wales Government proposal to create bike trails in Garigal National Park, received from Mr Brad Hazzard.

The Clerk announced that the following Minister had lodged a response to a petition signed by more than 500 persons:

The Hon. Robyn Parker—Hunters Hill Radioactive Waste—lodged 27 March 2012 (Mrs Barbara Perry)

COMMUNITY RECOGNITION NOTICES

The SPEAKER: I inform the House that in accordance with the resolution of 21 February 2012, all General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) that could be dealt with as General Business (Community Recognition Notices) have been identified. With the leave of the House, to avoid logistical problems, as there are in excess of 600 notices I propose that those identified notices be dealt with incrementally, with up to 150 notices being dealt with forthwith and a similar number each subsequent sitting Tuesday and Wednesday until all the reclassified notices have been dealt with.

By leave and pursuant to resolution the Speaker identified that General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) Nos 81, 88, 90, 94, 96, 98 to 102, 104 to 108, 110 to 116, 118 to 121, 123, 125 to 129, 131, 133, 134, 136 to 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, 160 to 166, 168 to 172, 174 to 184, 186 to 190, and 192 to 220 had been reclassified as General Business (Community Recognition Notices.)

Question—That the following motions given by the members as indicated pursuant to notice be formally agreed to—proposed.

WARATAH WEST PUBLIC SCHOOL

Ms SONIA HORNERY

WARATAH PARK

Mr ROB STOKES

VOLUNTEER KELLY MCGOWAN

Ms SONIA HORNERY

OLD BAR CLAMS RUGBY UNION CLUB THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD

INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY

Mr NICK LALICH

ITALIAN UNIFICATION 150TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr GUY ZANGARI

REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND COMMUNITY AWARDS

Ms SONIA HORNERY

ST PATRICK'S CHURCH, WALLSEND

Ms SONIA HORNERY

ST MARYS RSL SUB-BRANCH BOER WAR COMMEMORATION

Mrs TANYA DAVIES

ADA STAADER COMMUNITY SERVICE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

HUNTER CHILDREN'S RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Ms SONIA HORNERY

GO RED FOR WOMEN HEALTHY HEART CHALLENGE

Mrs TANYA DAVIES

NORTHERN BEACHES LOCAL AREA COMMAND

Mr ROB STOKES

PARA-CYCLING WORLD CUP COMPETITOR JAYME PARIS

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON

RURAL FIRE SERVICE ILLAWARRA ZONE

Ms NOREEN HAY

WOLLONGONG LOCAL AREA COMMAND STREET STALL IN THE MALL INITIATIVE

Ms NOREEN HAY

BLACKTOWN SALVATION ARMY RED SHIELD APPEAL

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON

AFFINITY INTERCULTURAL FOUNDATION WOMEN OF CULTURE DINNER

Ms NOREEN HAY

PENRITH HOMELESSNESS

Mr STUART AYRES

TRIBUTE TO MR ALF STONE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

WOLLONGONG HAWKS BASKETBALL TEAM

Ms NOREEN HAY

TOM FARRELL INSTITUTE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

MYALL CREEK ANNUAL SERVICE OF COMMEMORATION

Mr PAUL LYNCH

HUNTER CLUBS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT EXPENDITURE GRANTS

Ms SONIA HORNERY

ILLAWARRA SPORTS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CAITLIN FOORD

Ms NOREEN HAY

NATIONAL BMX CHAMPIONSHIPS COMPETITOR REECE ROWBOTTOM

Ms SONIA HORNERY

MEDICAL RESEARCH WEEK

Ms SONIA HORNERY

SHORTLAND WATERS GOLF CLUB SUPERINTENDENT CRAIG MOLLOY

Ms SONIA HORNERY

WEST WALLSEND INDOOR SWIMMING CENTRE COMMITTEE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY

Mr GARETH WARD

DAFFODIL DAY

Dr ANDREW McDONALD

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr ROB STOKES

PARRAMATTA LOCAL AREA COMMAND

Dr GEOFF LEE

LAMBTON-NEW LAMBTON RSL CLUB BOER WAR COMMEMORATION

Ms SONIA HORNERY

MACQUARIE SHORES VILLAGE AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST MORNING TEA

Mr GARRY EDWARDS

STAR STRUCK 2011

Mr GARRY EDWARDS

ORDER OF AUSTRALIA MEDAL RECIPIENT PROFESSOR MAREE GLEESON

Ms SONIA HORNERY

OLYROOS SOCCER TEAM

Ms SONIA HORNERY

ST GEORGE REGION LIONS CLUBS

Mr MARK COURE

CHEERLEADER ROSE DAVIDSON

Ms SONIA HORNERY

CANCER COUNCIL NSW

Mr MARK COURE

CAMBEWARRA RURAL FIRE SERVICE

Mr GARETH WARD

HUNTER RIDE OF SILENCE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

MAKE A WISH FOUNDATION

Mr MARK COURE

SHOALHAVEN FAMILY, LOCAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY FAIR

Mr GARETH WARD

OATLEY CHINESE COMMUNITY

Mr MARK COURE

NOWRA ANGLICAN COLLEGE

Mr GARETH WARD

ST GEORGE COMMUNITY TRANSPORT PROJECT INC.

Mr MARK COURE

SHIRES ASSOCIATION OF NSW

Mr GARETH WARD

MORTDALE COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr MARK COURE

NOWRA ANGLICAN COLLEGE MOCK TRIAL TEAM

Mr GARETH WARD

ST GEORGE MEN'S SHED

Mr MARK COURE

MORTDALE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr MARK COURE

HURSTVILLE EXCELLENCE IN BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr MARK COURE

VISION CHINA TIMES FOURTH ANNIVERSARY

Mr MARK COURE

Vision China Times

MAKE A WISH FOUNDATION

Mr RYAN PARK

RIGHT START FOUNDATION

Mr JAI ROWELL

EDUCATION WEEK

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT

PEAKHURST AMATEUR SWIMMING CLUB

Mr MARK COURE

JESMOND LIONS CYCLEWAY CLEANUP PROJECT

Ms SONIA HORNERY

CAWDOR PUBLIC SCHOOL BILLYCART DERBY FUNDRAISING EVENT

Mr JAI ROWELL

NATIONAL TREE DAY AND SCHOOLS TREE DAY

Mr MARK COURE

BELLAMBI NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE

Mr RYAN PARK

PAINT THE TOWN READ CAMPAIGN

Mr STUART AYRES

RESERVE FORCES DAY

Ms SONIA HORNERY

AUSTRALIAN CHINESE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MEDICINE SAFETY PROMOTION

Mr MARK COURE

THIRLMERE TRAIN WORKS MUSEUM

Mr JAI ROWELL

HUNTER FESTIVAL OF SPORT

Ms SONIA HORNERY

RADIO STATION 2AC SIXTEENTH ANNIVERSARY

Mr MARK COURE

BANKSTOWN BITES FESTIVAL

Ms TANYA MIHAILUK

CASS HUA-KANG SENIORS GROUP FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY

Mr MARK COURE

BLACKBUTT NATURE RESERVE

Ms SONIA HORNERY

KOGARAH COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr MARK COURE

HUNTER WETLANDS CENTRE BUSH TUCKER GARDEN

Ms SONIA HORNERY

SWIMMER SARAH HILT

Mr JAI ROWELL

ILLAWARRA AND SOUTH COAST LOCAL BUSINESS AWARDS

Ms ANNA WATSON

RAMADAN

Mr MARK COURE

MY MACARTHUR SCHOOLS CHALLENGE

Mr JAI ROWELL

Macarthur Advertiser

MAX MARIANI BOOKS EN ROUTE SERVICE

Ms ANNA WATSON

BEVERLY HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL

Mr MARK COURE

HUNTER REGION SPORTS ADMINISTRATOR AWARD RECIPIENT WARREN EVANS

Ms SONIA HORNERY

OUR LADY HELP OF CHRISTIANS PARISH PRIMARY SCHOOL

Mr JAI ROWELL

ST GEORGE LOCAL BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr MARK COURE

JESMOND LIONS CLUB

Ms SONIA HORNERY

SECOND CHANCE TOYS

Mr MARK COURE

TRIBUTE TO CADEL EVANS

Ms SONIA HORNERY

HASTINGS PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS

KIDZWISH FOUNDATION

Ms ANNA WATSON

SWIMMING CHAMPION JAMES MAGNUSSEN

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS

MACARTHUR CYCLING CLUB

Mr JAI ROWELL

NEPEAN AREA DISABILITIES ORGANISATION

Mr STUART AYRES

JOHN THERRY HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH FORUM

Mr JAI ROWELL

MID NORTH COAST REGIONAL TOURISM ORGANISATION CHAIRMAN KATHY BALODIS

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS

BARGO SPORTS HALL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Mr JAI ROWELL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL NAIDOC AWARDS

Mr GARETH WARD

WOLLONDILLY CANCER SUPPORT GROUP

Mr JAI ROWELL

HOMELESSNESS

Dr GEOFF LEE

WOLLONDILLY ARTS GROUP

Mr JAI ROWELL

UNITED INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS INC.

Dr GEOFF LEE

BONDI LIONS CLUB

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON

FESTIVAL OF FISHER'S GHOST

Mr JAI ROWELL

AUSTRALIAN DIABETES COUNCIL

Mr MARK COURE

"FROM CANTON WITH COURAGE" EXHIBITION

Dr GEOFF LEE

SOLOMON ISLANDS INDEPENDENCE DAY FUNCTION

Mr MARK COURE

NEPEAN DISTRICT NETBALL ASSOCIATION

Mr STUART AYRES

MAYFIELD/WARATAH BLIND AND VISION IMPAIRED INC.

Ms SONIA HORNERY

WOLLONDILLY HERITAGE CENTRE

Mr JAI ROWELL

COUNCIL OF INDIAN AUSTRALIANS

Dr GEOFF LEE

SALVATION ARMY KOKODA TRAIL CHARITY WALK

Ms SONIA HORNERY

EL MINIEH LEBANESE ASSOCIATION

Mr MARK COURE

SNAKEBITE RESEARCH

Ms SONIA HORNERY

Question put and resolved in the affirmative.

Community recognition notices agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Carbon Tax

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.12 p.m.]: My motion should be accorded priority because the people of New South Wales need to know that the member for Heffron, the former Premier of New South Wales, has made a U-turn on the road to Damascus and is now supporting the O'Farrell Government in opposing the carbon tax. My motion states:

The member for Heffron, who is not in the Chamber, has obviously seen the light. I do not know whether she has seen the holy light, as suggested by the Minister for Resources and Energy, or the sunlight. I feel it may have been the light over the top of her makeup cabinet, which comes from coal-powered electricity, as she was applying her lippy and blush before her appearance on Sky television last night. The member for Heffron has done a bit of a backflip. When she appeared a year ago on Channel 10 with Barry O'Farrell she supported the carbon tax. She has now indicated her support for the people of this great country and she will oppose the carbon tax about to be imposed by the Gillard Government. This motion should be accorded priority because the people of New South Wales need to know that the member for Heffron has now seen the light. She is now on the side of the O'Farrell Government in opposing the most regressive tax ever to have been implemented in this country, and a tax that will impose much hardship. I ask members to lend me their support this afternoon because the people of New South Wales need to know that the member for Heffron is on our side.

Housing Affordability

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [3.15 p.m.]: My motion states:

Unlike the flippant motion of the member for Hawkesbury, this motion deserves priority because yesterday the Reserve Bank gave New South Wales households some much-needed relief. The cut in official interest rates by 50 basis points to 3.75 per cent should be welcomed by every member in this Chamber and by every struggling household and business in New South Wales. It is much-needed relief for those whose budgets are being hit by an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices. That was given to them by Premier Barry O'Farrell in July last year, with more to come this year. Courtesy of the O'Farrell Government, the people of New South Wales have also had a 5.4 per cent increase in public transport fares.

Yesterday's decision will put a little extra money into people's pockets which is good news for consumers, retailers and the economy. Today we should be saying to the banks in no uncertain terms that this is their moment of truth. The Reserve Bank has cut rates to help home owners and the other banks should do the same. We are facing a housing affordability crisis in this State. My motion deserves to be accorded priority because since the O'Farrell Government has been in office housing construction starts have dropped by 13 per cent. The planning process is also in a holding pattern because we have to wait 18 months for the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to get his act together and resolve this problem. In the meantime we are seeing Brad "Haphazard" in the dealer room—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Hazzard.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: That is not what the developers are saying—they are calling him "Haphazard". He is having secret meetings with developers about releasing land they would like to see released.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This is a serious matter. Importantly, interest rate cuts should be passed on in full. The housing affordability crisis in this State must be addressed but nothing is being done to counter the impact it is having particularly on those living in certain areas of Sydney and in regional New South Wales. This motion should be accorded priority because the O'Farrell Government should be explaining how it intends to deal with the housing affordability crisis in this State.

Question—That the motion of the member for Hawkesbury be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Mr Anderson
Mr Annesley
Mr Aplin
Mr Ayres
Mr Baird
Mr Barilaro
Mr Bassett
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Bromhead
Mr Brookes
Mr Conolly
Mr Constance
Mr Cornwell
Mr Coure
Mrs Davies
Mr Dominello
Mr Doyle
Mr Edwards
Mr Elliott
Mr Evans
Mr Flowers

Mr Fraser
Mr Gee
Ms Gibbons
Ms Goward
Mr Grant
Mr Gulaptis
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Holstein
Mr Issa
Mr Kean
Dr Lee
Mr Notley-Smith
Mr O'Dea
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Owen
Mr Page
Ms Parker
Mr Patterson
Mr Perrottet
Mr Piccoli

Mr Provest
Mr Roberts
Mr Rohan
Mr Rowell
Mrs Sage
Mr Sidoti
Mrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Speakman
Mr Spence
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr Toole
Mr Torbay
Ms Upton
Mr Ward
Mr Webber
Mr R. C. Williams
Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 22

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally

Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mrs Perry
Mr Piper
Mr Rees

Mr Robertson
Ms Tebbutt
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari

Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Pair

Mr Humphries

Mr Park

Question resolved in the affirmative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Routine of Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.26 p.m.]: I move:

I understand that some members of the House have certain commitments at Government House this evening.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Routine of Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.27 p.m.]: I move:

As I indicated earlier today, a memorial service for Jimmy Little is being held at the Opera House tomorrow. This motion will enable members of Parliament to attend that important occasion to reflect on one of Australia's icons.

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

Motion agreed to.

CARBON TAX

Motion Accorded Priority

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.29 p.m.]: I move:

I thank all members for supporting this priority motion. Although we support the comments of the member for Heffron in now opposing the carbon tax, nevertheless my motion involves a slightly deeper issue. Any leaders who are members of the Labor Party, whether it is at the local, State or Federal level, cannot be trusted in what they say because they tell us one thing and they do and say something else whenever it suits them. After 12 months of Labor being in opposition it has learned little; it has not been honest and earned the trust of the community. Twelve months ago former Premier Kristina Keneally, the member for Heffron, stated:

By that comment she demonstrated her full support for a carbon tax. She went on to state:

There could be no doubt in anyone's mind that the member for Heffron, the former Premier of New South Wales, as stated during the "Fate of Our State" leaders debate on Channel 10, was in full support of a carbon tax. She wanted everyone in New South Wales to know that she supported a carbon tax. Twelve months later she is starting to realise, as do all Labor members, that all Australians are opposed to a carbon tax, with the exception of some people from the Socialist Alliance, The Greens and one other person—the Leader of the Opposition—who still supports a carbon tax. He has opposed a carbon tax in caucus but has supported it publicly.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. John Robertson, should debate this matter in the Chamber and state publicly and in Hansard whether he supports or opposes a carbon tax because clearly his members are breaking rank. The member for Heffron has broken rank and has now stated that she opposes a carbon tax. She is encouraging a rethink from Julia Gillard, another person who said, "There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead." This is why I said at the outset that Labor leaders say one thing and do another. I refer to a comment that the member for Heffron tweeted only a few short hours ago. She said:

This shows that the member for Heffron is still playing politics. She wants her party to be able to sell the carbon tax better so that they can stay in office. That would be disgraceful. We know the pain that Australians will feel under a carbon tax. Everyone in this country uses electricity. Children, pensioners, disabled people or those on welfare use electricity for every consumable. The price of electricity will increase because of the carbon tax that will be imposed on 1 July 2012. However, I state for the record that we are proud of the support of the member for Heffron in opposing the carbon tax.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

"I accept Climate Change, I accept the impact of man on Climate Change and if we're elected to Government I'm committed to using the energies of Government to limit the impact and reduce those emissions.";

What an extraordinary performance by the member for Hawkesbury. Indeed, we have witnessed many of his performances. I think "hubris" was the word used by former Prime Minister John Howard. It shows how quickly high office goes to some people's heads. The truth of the matter is that the O'Farrell Government has done the biggest U-turn on climate change. Housing affordability is one of the critical issues confronting the people of New South Wales, yet the Coalition Government considers this debate and the comments of the member for Heffron as more important than any other issue before the House. It shows how this Government has lost its way in 12 short months in office. Yesterday Nationals colleagues expressed different views—

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: I ask that you draw the member back to the leave of the motion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Marrickville has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Coalition is quick to jump on the comments of the member for Heffron when she expresses a view that is at odds with the rest of her parliamentary Labor colleagues, yet when Nationals members express views that are at odds with members of the Coalition Government, it is all about robust debate and it is welcomed by the Deputy Premier. The same leniency is not extended by the Coalition to the member for Heffron. It is, however, a side issue. Barry O'Farrell is the Premier of this State. Throughout the election campaign in 2011 he was at great lengths to demonstrate to the people of New South Wales his green credentials; he believed in that climate change, he supported action to address climate change and he said he would take action if elected to government. Of course, he was not alone in those comments. Who can forget the comments on 12 March 2007 of the member for Oxley, the Leader of The Nationals? He stated:

In June 2007 the member for Manly, the current Treasurer, stated:

This was not the view of only the member for Manly, the member for Oxley and the Premier. On 22 June 2007 the member for Bega stated:

We have the comments of the members for the electorates of Oxley, Manly, Bega and Pittwater, joined by the member for Goulburn, who said in this Chamber—

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: The member for Marrickville should be brought back to the leave of the motion, which is not about climate change.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Marrickville has the call.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: This is an important issue. Everyone should be made aware of the views that have been expressed by all members over many years on climate change. [Time expired.]

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [3.39 p.m.]: Yes, there is climate change, as the Premier has acknowledged, and of course we need to address fossil fuel emissions. However, the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the House should listen to the member for Heffron's urging on revoking the carbon tax. But what could be the member for Heffron's motivation in speaking out? Is it relevance deprivation in someone floundering on that very small Labor backbench? Does she want to create a platform to transfer to Federal politics after all? Is it a realisation that the public just will not stomach the lack of integrity in introducing a big fat new tax that Gillard clearly promised would not be introduced? Could Keneally want to protect her own Government's record of achieving that historically low Labor primary vote of 25.5 per cent? Those on this side certainly would not mind a carbon copy of that election result.

In fact, the member for Heffron's reported comments suggest a pragmatic motivation in the Graham Richardson mould so that a desperate Federal Labor Government can try to cling to power—that is, whatever it takes. The motivation that should drive revocation of the currently proposed carbon tax is that it is a poorly constructed and unprincipled decision. It will impact heavily on New South Wales families, compromise our public services and undermine the competitiveness of New South Wales businesses. It will threaten jobs and increase power prices. Indeed, one of this morning's newspapers quoted a single mother of two children who already works two jobs and is unsure how her family will budget another few hundred dollars into their annual spending.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Marrickville has had an opportunity to make a contribution.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Last month the Salvation Army said it was bracing for an avalanche of useless household goods dumped by people unwilling to pay higher rubbish tip fees resulting from the carbon tax. Today I say the Labor Party should brace itself for an avalanche of useless Federal members of Parliament who will be dumped as rubbish by people unwilling to accept the heavy impact of the carbon tax. Today is the day for New South Wales Labor to be counted on this issue. Where is the member for Heffron in this debate? Where is the member for Blacktown and Leader of the Opposition, who demonstrates a lack of conviction and courage by avoiding this debate? He can be likened to carbonated vinegar—a bit of fizz but leaving a bad taste in one's mouth.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind the member for Murray-Darling that he is on two calls to order. I call the member for Murray-Darling to order for the third time.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [3.42 p.m.]: This Government has made this motion take priority over all other business before the House. There are seven million people in this State and there is not one person listening to this debate. The gallery is empty. I hear the interjection from the member for Hawkesbury. I ask him to say in reply whether he believes in climate change, because much of the opposition to carbon pricing derives from the opposition of many conservatives to the concept of whether climate change is occurring. The member for Davidson admitted that climate change is occurring. If climate change is occurring, there are only three options: the polluters can be made to pay, as per the carbon pricing plan; the taxpayers can be made to pay, as per the Abbott plan; or we can do nothing. There is no other option; climate change is occurring.

As the shadow Minister for Health I say that climate change is the greatest challenge to the health of our people. The Premier has said he believes in climate change. I want to hear what the Minister for Health has to say about her belief in climate change. We know that modelling by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has found that the tax cuts and the higher government pensions and family payments will leave households on average $2.40 a week ahead after the carbon tax comes in. We know that with the rebates the overwhelming majority of people will be better off after carbon pricing. We also know, as all economists have argued, that the effect of carbon pricing on the economy in the longer term is nowhere near the scenario outlined in the scare tactics used by those opposite, yet they continue to push opposition to carbon pricing because they feel it will be electorally successful.

We know that doing nothing locks in emissions-intensive industries and infrastructure and delays any new investment in low emission technology industries and jobs. The best way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon. This is not new. I refer to an article in the Lancet, the world's leading medical journal, in May 2009, which indicated that climate change is the biggest global health threat of the twenty-first century. The health consequences for our children and grandchildren need to be a catalyst for early action. It calls on all members of Parliament to develop priorities for the management, implementation and monitoring of the health effects of climate change. [Time expired.]

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I will pick up on some comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Macquarie Fields, in relation to the seven million people, the population of New South Wales, who he believes are not listening to this debate. The seven million people of New South Wales are certainly listening to the debate on carbon tax because they know full well, and it has been clearly represented in the polls we have seen in the past week, that they and their families, their children, elderly citizens, the people on welfare, the underprivileged and the poor—everybody—will be affected by a price rise to be imposed on us by the Gillard Labor Government on 1 July this year.

I turn to the one person who has come out and clearly said he supports a carbon tax, although not in the beginning. The Leader of the Opposition and member for Blacktown, John Robertson, stated to his caucus, "You will never hear me say I support a carbon tax", but went out the next day and, as recorded in the Daily Telegraph, stated quite unequivocally, "I support a Prime Minister who is doing something about reducing carbon emissions and is putting a price on carbon." Let it be noted for the record that the Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson, although he has flip-flopped backwards and forwards, firmly supports a price being placed on carbon.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: There are two points of order. First, the member is introducing new information into the debate and, secondly, he still has not said whether he believes in climate change.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is no point of order.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: The first one is.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I uphold the first point of order.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Do you believe in climate change, Ray?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind the member for Macquarie Fields that he is on two calls to order.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: I would like to see here and now the Leader of the Opposition come to the Chamber and state unequivocally for the people of New South Wales that he supports a carbon tax, because quite clearly he does. Where is he? I will tell members where he is. He is slinking around, probably hiding under the sofa in his office, away from the cameras so that he does not have to put on the record that the Leader of the Australian Labor Party Opposition in New South Wales, John Robertson, supports a carbon tax, which we and the member for Heffron oppose.

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

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Noes, 21

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally

Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mr Piper
Mr Rees
Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari

Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Pair

Mrs Williams

Mr Park

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 65

Noes, 21

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally

Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mr Piper
Mr Rees
Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari

Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Pair

Mr Casuscelli

Mr Parker

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NSW WORKERS COMPENSATION SCHEME

Establishment

Consideration of the Legislative Council's message of 2 May 2012.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.06 p.m.]: The Legislative Council has passed a motion to establish a joint select committee to inquire into the New South Wales Workers Compensation Scheme. I understand there is some difference of opinion, so members might consider not leaving the Chamber. I move:

I invite the member for Maroubra to give the House his views.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [4.07 p.m.]: I move that the motion be amended as follows:

(9) that the committee be required to hold no fewer than five full days of public hearings in Sydney and regional New South Wales to enable those who rely on the scheme to give evidence."; and

Earlier today in the other place several members moved amendments to the motion to establish this joint select committee in an attempt to ensure that it is fair dinkum, but those amendments were defeated. I ask the Government to reconsider those amendments so that we can be sure this committee is not what it appears to be and is; that is, a stacked committee with only two Opposition members out of a membership of eight. The committee will potentially meet behind closed doors, it will have the power to call for submissions in writing only and it will be able to decide not to invite people to appear. It will have the power to turn the whole process into a sham. As the member for Toongabbie said, it is a stitch up. One is encouraged to believe it is a stitch up if one relies solely on the words of a senior Minister, the Hon. Greg Pearce, who said on 3 February 2012:

I have made it clear that the WorkCover scheme in its current form is untenable … the Government will now move to press ahead with reforms …

That is the speed we have come to expect from this Government after waiting eight months for legislation dealing with bikies. We have waited for weeks to debate a bill dealing with the supply of ammunition that the Premier said was vital for the interests of law and order in this State. Where is that bill? The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill disappeared into the upper House after a request for a joint conference of managers and it has never been seen again. That is the speed at which this Government moves. The Hon. Greg Pearce said on 3 February that the Government would press ahead but it has not. It is now establishing a stacked committee to inquire into a scheme that is designed to look after the working people of New South Wales, who rely on this Government to keep them safe and, more importantly, to provide for them and their families in the event that they are injured at work.

I see the Premier sitting over there with a huge smile on his face, laughing and cackling away. This is all a big joke to him and his cohorts. The Government must realise that it now presides over this large and vital scheme, a scheme that protects and underpins the lives and the quality of the lives of injured workers in New South Wales. We have heard plenty of scaremongering from the Premier and from the Minister, the Hon. Greg Pearce, about its potential effect on business. They are ignoring the fact that in the past two or three years the Labor Government instituted five or six cuts to premiums. Those cuts were welcomed by business and were all made. At the same time the Government maintained a triple-A-rated economy in New South Wales. Those opposite ignore their own advice that the low bond rate is contributing more than a billion dollars to the deficit.

The Government ignores its own advice that, if premiums are not raised and if the Government does nothing, the scheme will eventually return to surplus. But this do-nothing Government with this do-nothing Premier—this Government that excels in reviews—will foist upon the people of New South Wales yet another review. The Opposition will be forced to agree to participate in the review, but what we will not agree to and will never agree to, is cutting and slashing benefits to injured workers. What we will not agree to, and will never agree to, is the cutting off of benefits to people who are injured at work through no fault of their own. The Opposition will not countenance having those people, after two, three or four years, shunted off to some Commonwealth pension scheme. The Opposition will not agree to injured people being forced to sell their homes and hock themselves to the eyeballs, just to maintain their quality of life and the quality of the lives of their families.

This morning in the other place there was an attempt to repair this dodgy review. Despite what the Minister says, the terms of reference for this select committee are not particularly wide. A member of the other place moved the amendment that I have just moved: that the committee look into the extent to which the scheme provides just compensation to injured workers. Who could take any offence at the committee looking at whether the scheme does what it is supposed to do: compensate injured workers? Certainly no-one on this side of the House but, in a minute, 69 members on the other side of the House will take offence. This morning in the other place an amendment was moved that showed that the media release of the Hon. Greg Pearce on 3 February 2012 was a lie. The media release said that the reforms are urgent and that the scheme must be reformed without haste.

This morning the Minister provided justification for lengthening the inquiry from 28 days to six weeks. These reforms are now required urgently before 1 July. Did the Minister move, on 4 February, a day after his press release pronouncing these reforms as urgent? No, he did not. The Minister has waited until today, three months after the fact. Many members on the other side of the House pay lip-service only to regional and rural New South Wales. Plenty of people in regional and rural New South Wales might want to appear before this committee to give evidence in person. But under the current terms of reference they will be precluded from doing so. My amendment is that the committee be required to hold no fewer than five full days listening to real human beings talk to them and not simply consider reports behind closed doors.

We have proved in 16 years that one can have a strong triple-A-rated economy with a budget surplus and still preside over a fair and just regime to care for and look after people who are injured in New South Wales. Those opposite have quickly turned that surplus into a deficit and perhaps do not think they have the skill to live up to Labor's economic record. That is fine. All the Opposition wants is for the people of New South Wales to be able to turn up to the committee in person and put their views. Let us see if those opposite want to vote against that.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.17 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment to the motion forwarded from the Legislative Council. It was fascinating to listen to the member for Maroubra—it is always amusing to listen to the intensity, but also the paucity, of his argument. If we were to agree to a delay of 50 days, the deficit would increase by another $450 million. That is $9 million a day—the deficit is growing at $9 million a day. It is fascinating to hear the member for Maroubra say that he would like the committee to spend "five full days of listening to real human beings". He had 16 years and he did not listen to real human beings. His Government failed miserably. It is not just the Government that is saying that. I quote from that journalist of record, Heath Aston. Greg McCarthy, the Chairman of WorkCover, recently resigned and as he left he gave the Sun-Herald the following words:

The "neglect" of former Labor finance ministers Joe Tripodi and Michael Daley had left the scheme's finances in a parlous state.

He went on to say that he was not going to miss Michael Daley.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Maroubra has had his opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Greg McCarthy continued, "They just weren't interested and didn't listen to my warnings." But the real embarrassment is that Mr McCarthy highlighted who did listen to the warnings. Obviously, the current Government is listening, and John Della Bosca listened to the warnings, but not the member for Maroubra. It is important that the committee get underway with its important work. The Coalition Government wants a fair workers compensation system. We also want a workers compensation system that will not drive the State into bankruptcy, which is what Labor has left us. This committee, which will inquire into how we can best ensure that workers are protected, will now do its work intently and without any trite directions from the member for Maroubra. We oppose the amendment. We support the motion that will establish the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme, and enable it to get on with its work and report to the Parliament in due course.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 22

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally

Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mr Piper
Mr Rees
Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt
Mr Torbay
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari

Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Noes, 64

Mr Provest
Mr Roberts
Mr Rohan
Mr Rowell
Mrs Sage
Mr Sidoti
Mrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Speakman
Mr Spence
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr Toole
Ms Upton
Mr Ward
Mr Webber
Mr R. C. Williams

Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr J. D. Williams

Pair

Mr Park

Mrs Williams

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 64

Noes, 22

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally

Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mr Piper
Mr Rees
Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt
Mr Torbay
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari

Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Pairs

Mr Casuscelli	Mr Park
Mr Humphries	Mrs Perry

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (BOARD MEMBERS) BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [4.32 p.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. Earlier I listened to the debate on this bill with great interest. There were differing views about boards, the make-up of them, the skill sets of board members, what boards do, how board members equip themselves for their role, and the openness and transparency of the selection process in particular. For the life of me I cannot understand why members opposite have a problem with the Government opening the door, looking inside and saying, "How do we make this better? How do we make the selection process more open and transparent?" The Sydney Catchment Authority Board consists of the chief executive of the authority and between four and eight other members. Currently, those other members must include one nominee each from the NSW Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council, as well as an elected councillor from a council within the catchment area. Under this bill those organisations can still nominate people to be board members.

It is important that representatives of the Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council and a duly elected councillor have a say in the management of catchments, dams and water supply to our areas. The member for Toongabbie spoke about the importance to Sydney of a potable water supply. In the Tamworth electorate Chaffey Dam, Lake Keepit and Split Rock Dam play an important role in water security not only for our cities and smaller centres but also for landholders and farmers. We must ensure that those who make decisions about infrastructure upgrades to our dams to make them safe and better for the future are highly skilled and qualified to do so. Recently, with the chief executive officer of the NSW Office of Water, Brett Tucker, we completed a safety upgrade of Split Rock Dam, which was welcomed. The partnership between the Department of Primary Industries and the private contractor was wonderful. Some excellent decisions were made, and the upgrade was delivered on time and on budget.

All decisions on the dam upgrade were made by people with the necessary skill sets to arrive at that decision. The qualifications and experience of board members must be relevant to the issues on which they will be making important decisions. Members of the board, individually or collectively, will be required to have qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection, water quality and public health, running a commercial entity, and water supply planning and asset management. That is common sense. It makes sense to set out the criteria for board members who will make decisions about the delivery of potable water to Sydney in terms of the catchment, and the collection and harvesting of water in dams that supply water to Sydney.

I know I want the members of boards in the Tamworth electorate who make such decisions to have the highest skill sets in their field to make appropriate decisions that affect our communities. The member for Toongabbie said that some years ago Sydney was in danger of running out of water. The same thing happened in regional New South Wales. In 2006 the level of water in Chaffey Dam, which is the main water supply for the city of Tamworth, with a population of about 50,000 as well as landholders in and around the city, dropped to below 14 per cent, and there was a discussion about whether we should truck water into the city of Tamworth. We must ensure that the board members sitting around a table and discussing the future water security for our cities, towns, villages and communities are of the highest calibre.

We are seeing that now in regional New South Wales with the safety upgrades to Chaffey Dam, Lake Keepit, Split Rock Dam and Copeton Dam. Good decisions are being made based on evidence-based research, science and knowledge, and the experience of those who understand catchment management and protection of our environment. I want people of that calibre to be sitting on boards and making important decisions. I encourage organisations to nominate suitably qualified individuals for board selection. The bill proposes sensible amendments to introduce merit-based selection for membership of the board. That leaves it open for suitably qualified individuals to apply for selection to the board. Once the legislation is proclaimed the board positions will be spilled and others will be able to apply for selection.

The NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council and local government definitely have a role to play in nominating board members. No-one knows a region better than those who sit on committees and council, and they have a role to play in terms of catchment management authorities. I encourage them to apply for selection to ensure that there is experience at the table. The member for Balmain took aim at The Nationals. He said that we did not care about regional New South Wales and that The Greens were now the best friends of farmers in New South Wales. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are strange bedfellows, and I say that as a proud member of the NSW Farmers Association. I support New South Wales farmers, conservation groups and Aboriginal land councils, which do a sensational job in looking after the environment.

Environmental groups have a role to play in making important decisions in the provision of water security for our cities, towns, regions and villages. Knowledge of local issues is particularly important with respect to agriculture, industry, local government and planning and this is reflected in the revised criteria. I do not understand why the Opposition would challenge the reasons for making the process open and transparent. In days gone by people would appear on boards just before an election and suddenly those people would be sitting with their feet up, drinking coffee, raking in fees, doing very little work and making no contribution towards the decision-making process. If the measures in this bill open up the process and allow community people with a skill set and experience to have a meaningful input into the decision-making process of catchment management and protection, I support them.

My area has similar conditions and issues to those involving Sydney water catchment management because, at the end of the day, everyone wants to be able to turn on a tap and have clean, fresh, running water. We want our agricultural sector to prosper. Who would have thought years ago that water would be more important and valuable than gold? We are seeing debate about water at every level, including the Federal Government's Murray-Darling Basin draft plan, which should be flushed down the toilet as we oppose it at every level. The Federal Government has no idea of agricultural importance; it is taking more water away from farmers, who are now superefficient in their agricultural practices. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 is a commonsense bill. We said in 2011 that we would introduce commonsense to the discussion table and into legislation and that we would break down the barriers and enable our communities to have a say in what affects them. This is an excellent practical example of that commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW ROHAN (Smithfield) [4.42 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. This bill deals with one of our State's most important and valuable assets—water. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 formulates the Sydney Catchment Authority and establishes the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. The current structure of the board consists of the chief executive and between four and eight board members appointed by the Minister and must include one nominee each from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and an elected councillor from a council within the catchment area.

The principal objectives of the authority include: to ensure that the catchment areas and catchment infrastructure works are managed and protected to ensure water quality, public safety and the environment; to ensure that water quality supplied complies with appropriate standards; to comply with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and to manage its catchment management infrastructure in an efficient and economically viable way. This bill will ensure that the board meets its public health and environmental requirements in an effective, efficient and economically viable way in accordance with its long-term plans.

The board manages an extremely strategic asset, which includes 21 storage dams that hold at least 2.5 million megalitres of water, including Warragamba Dam, which is the largest dam in Australia; is the main supplier of drinking water for Sydney; and comprises more than 16,000 square kilometres of catchment area. To put it in perspective, the volume of water in those dams is equivalent to five times the volume of water in Sydney Harbour. This bill will introduce amendments for board members to be appointed based on merit, thus ensuring that the board has the appropriate skills and experience to carry on its duties and to ensure at the same time that eligible members of the community have equal opportunity to be represented on the board.

The main purpose of this legislation includes: the removal of the requirement for the board to include nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conversation Council, and a local councillor; to expand the scope of the qualifications, experience and practical knowledge; and to allow the Minister to advertise publicly for all appointments to the board. This does not mean that nominees from the NSW Farmers Association, the Nature Conservation Council and a local councillor cannot apply for positions on the board. On the contrary; they can nominate but the difference is that they will have the same rights as any other citizen and the selection criteria will be based on merit. This bill will strengthen the board as a whole and make it professionally run, similar to other government establishments. This will bring the authority into line with government requirements at both State and Federal levels, similar to other statutory authorities and State-owned corporations.

The bill is designed to expand the selection criteria of the board members in recognition of the importance of the strategic role of the board in meeting the objectives of the authority. Thus, the legislation requires members to have the relevant expertise in the field of catchment management and protection, water quality and public health, and asset management skills in a commercially viable environment. This requires members of the board to have, individually or collectively, the relevant skills and knowledge of agriculture, industry, local government requirements and planning issues in the catchment area to be able to manage the board appropriately and in a professional way. The bill proposes sensible and logical amendments to the current board that will ensure flexibility and include merit-based selection criteria for membership of the board. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARREN WEBBER (Wyong) [4.47 p.m.]: The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 constitutes the Sydney Catchment Authority. The Sydney Catchment Authority is responsible, among other things, for the management of Sydney's drinking water catchment; the management of infrastructure and assets including a number of large dams, the largest being Warragamba Dam; ensuring that the quality of Sydney's raw water supply is maintained; managing these works in an efficient and economic manner; and protecting human health and the environment of the catchment. The changes proposed in the bill will require that the board include the following: qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection; water quality and public health; running a commercial entity; water supply planning and asset management; practical knowledge of and experience in agriculture and industry in the catchment area; local government and planning in the catchment area; and any other expertise the Minister considers necessary to realise the objectives of the Sydney Catchment Authority.

The Sydney Catchment Authority is a statutory authority. Its board plays a crucial role in the strategic planning of Sydney's drinking water catchments and requires members with appropriate skills and experience to ensure that the Sydney Catchment Authority can meet its statutory objectives on water quality, public health, economic and environmental management. The change from stakeholder nominations to merit-based selection will ensure that the Minister can consider a broad range of applicants and select the most experienced and best qualified candidates. It will also assist the Minister to ensure that the board better reflects the broader New South Wales community, not excluding certain people from different stakeholder groups, as members opposite have suggested today.

This demonstrates the Government's commitment to open and transparent government processes right across the State. The bill will not exclude anyone from the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority but will broaden the skills and expertise that the board is required to include. It is all about ensuring that board members have expertise and the skill set in the management of water. This Government strives to ensure that the best possible candidates are employed to manage public assets that are funded by taxpayers' dollars. The amendments require full merit-based selection. This will ensure that eligible members of the community have an equal opportunity to be selected for the board. This approach is in line with government policy at both State and Federal levels. It will also bring governance arrangements for the Sydney Catchment Authority into line with those for other statutory authorities such as the catchment management authorities, and with State-owned corporations such as the Sydney Water Corporation.

The Act currently requires the board, individually or collectively, to have expertise only in protection of the environment and public health, and other expertise that the Minister considers necessary to fulfil the authority's objectives. The bill provides for the selection criteria to be expanded in recognition of the important strategic role of the board and the statutory objectives of the authority. I have made only a brief contribution to this debate. I commend the bill to the House and condemn the actions of those opposite. We have heard members opposite scaremongering time after time in debate on bills that are brought into this House. As the Sydney Morning Herald article said today about the former Premier of New South Wales, it is simply attention seeking disorder.

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [4.50 p.m.]: I support this important piece of legislation—the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012—and agree with the member for Wyong that there has been a deal of scaremongering with respect to it. We certainly heard a lot of scaremongering earlier from the member for Balmain. It was sad and very unfortunate that we had to witness it. The member for Balmain suggested that there was a new relationship between The Greens and the farmers of this State.

Mr Anthony Roberts: It's scandalous.

Mr ANDREW GEE: It is scandalous. I will illustrate what a fallacy that claim of a new friendship is. A couple of weeks ago the new Federal leader of The Greens and a few of her cohorts from New South Wales, including a member of the other place, packed up their crystals, packed up the incense, packed up the Kumbaya tapes and the Heal the World tapes and headed out west to Orange on a healing tour.

Mr Anthony Roberts: I take it they were driving?

Mr ANDREW GEE: They were driving. This was not any ordinary tour; this was a healing tour. They did a few press stops with some people they thought were friendly farmers and orchardists. Everything was going fine. A few soft ball questions were thrown up. It was all very easy until one of the orchardists piped up and mentioned Kristina's favourite term today—the carbon tax. It just so happened that the orchardists they were talking to were running coolrooms and the carbon tax was going to add thousands of dollars to their operating costs every year. The healing tour started to unravel after that. The member for Monaro has just joined us because he is interested in hearing about the duplicity of The Greens. The member for Heffron knows the truth. The carbon tax is fatally flawed and the farmers of New South Wales know it. My message to The Greens is not to worry about the healing tour. They should forget the incense, forget the Kumbaya tapes and stick to what they know best—

Mr Anthony Roberts: Dope.

Mr ANDREW GEE: No. I will not go there. I understand the Minister is trying to make a helpful contribution to the debate. My message to The Greens is that they should stick to what they know best—trying to get things banned. Stick to banning stuff. They want to ban rodeos, coalmines, the live cattle trade, new dams and the list goes on.

Mr John Williams: Electricity.

Mr ANDREW GEE: Electricity. Stick to that type of stuff. That is The Greens' bread and butter, banning stuff. The farmers of New South Wales see through it. I was out there yesterday walking amongst them and they had genuine concerns and we were certainly speaking to them about those concerns. They are also concerned about The Greens and they made it very clear to us that they wanted nothing to do with the Socialist Alliance people—

Mr John Williams: GetUp!

Mr ANDREW GEE: —the leftie organisation GetUp! and the rest of them from Newtown and Glebe who were milling around out there. The farmers wanted nothing to do with them. They were respectful and they put their points forward. There is certainly no new alliance between the farmers and The Greens. The Greens are the classic fly in, fly out operation. We never see them out there in Orange, even the ones from the other place who live there.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Have you checked under the rocks?

Mr ANDREW GEE: No, we have not checked under the rocks, but I will take the Minister's helpful comments on board. We never see them out there. During the Federal campaign I think Bob Brown came out briefly and now we have had another visit. They love doing the odd healing tour but they are the classic fly in, fly out operation—the ghosts who talk. That is The Greens for you.

Mr John Barilaro: They do a lot of scaremongering.

Mr ANDREW GEE: As the member for Monaro points out, they love scaremongering. They are the ones who support native vegetation laws that treat farmers like criminals. They are the ones who are trying to slash water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin. The member for Balmain should think about that when he stands in this place and talks about some new alliance with the farmers. I say to him, "They see through you; they see you for what you are."

Mr John Barilaro: A bandicoot.

Mr ANDREW GEE: Some more unkind members have referred to the member for Balmain as the "Balmain Bandicoot" but I am not so unkind as to do that. I would never do that. Let us look at some of the more salient aspects of this bill that make it such a stand-out piece of legislation. It is legislation that resonates not only in the Sydney water catchment area but right throughout New South Wales, including the Central West.

Mr Paul Toole: Hear! Hear!

Mr ANDREW GEE: The member for Bathurst takes catchment management very seriously and so do I. If members look at the qualifications that will be required of new board members I think they will see we will be enriched by the breadth of experience that will be available to the Minister. In particular, members of the board to be appointed by the Minister are to be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, each or together, have qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection; qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health; qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity; qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management; practical knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture and industry in the catchment area; practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government and planning in the catchment area; and such other expertise as the Minister considers necessary to realise the objectives of the Sydney Catchment Authority.

Forget the quotas. The member for Balmain was hung up on quotas and worried that members of the green organisation, the Nature Conservation Council, will not be represented. My message to the member for Balmain, besides forgetting the healing tours, is to embrace this process because it will bring great experience and benefit to the Sydney Catchment Authority. He needs to embrace it; not only that, he should be applauding this landmark piece of legislation. It is not just about managing the catchment but about keeping down prices for water. We need the skills on board at the Sydney Catchment Authority to keep down water prices—

Mr John Barilaro: It's casting the net wider.

Mr ANDREW GEE: —and to cast as wide a net as possible, as the member for Monaro correctly points out, to ensure we have a wide range of skills available. This bill certainly does that. The Sydney Catchment Authority manages assets worth around $1.3 billion. This makes it even more important that the authority is managed properly and that the authority gets the skills needed to undertake that task. It is a raw water supply network for over four million people and it will require significant forward planning and capital works. Earlier I heard some Opposition members attempting to interject. They had 16 years to do this but it took the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals to reform the management structure which was long overdue. This mix of skills will help to ensure that Sydney maintains a high-quality, secure and clean water supply and that it is delivered in a cost-effective way that will help to keep down household bills. As I said at the outset, the Central West takes catchment management very seriously. Farmers will still be able to have an input into this process. For example, Reg Kidd from Orange makes a vital contribution to catchment management in the Central West Catchment Management Authority.

Mr Anthony Roberts: A good bloke.

Mr ANDREW GEE: He is a good man. Those like Reg Kidd will still have an opportunity to have an input under this new piece of legislation. I support this important legislation. We can only shake our heads and marvel at the arrant hypocrisy of The Greens wreaking havoc on the farmers of New South Wales by slashing their water allocations and introducing a big new tax. I think the member for Heffron has got it right this time—the carbon tax has to go.

Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.]: I have great pleasure in speaking in debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. I am amazed that the Opposition opposes this commonsense bill. Why do they not want the best people with expertise on the board to manage water for this State? The authority covers more than 21 storage dams that hold more than 2.5 million megalitres of water. Those dams include the Warragamba Dam, which has one of the largest domestic water supplies in the world and is the main supplier of drinking water for the people of Sydney. The area for which the authority is responsible covers 16,000 square kilometres and consists of five primary catchment areas. I know that the member for Orange works hard in his electorate and that he stands up for the people of his community on issues concerning the environment, or for workers in his electorate.

The Central West has formed a strong alliance and The Nationals are listening to the needs of those living in rural and regional communities. We must ensure that our communities are at the forefront of all decision-making. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government will also ensure that regional and rural communities are factored into its proposed plans. In the 16 years that the former Labor Government was in office it did not know that people lived west of the Blue Mountains and it was not aware that there were regional or rural communities. It is about time that we had a government that listened to our concerns and ensured that people in our communities had a say in policies and decision-making in this State. The Cox's River, which runs through my electorate and feeds into the Sydney water catchment area, has its headwaters in that area. It is important to have a clean and pristine water environment that is looked after and protected for future generations. The objects of the Sydney Catchment Authority are specified in section 14 of the Act which are:

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

The bill does not change those objectives. The Sydney Catchment Authority Board is responsible for the policies and long-term strategic plans of the authority, endeavours to ensure that the authority meets its public health and environmental requirements, and oversees the effective, efficient and economical management of the authority. The board consists of the chief executive of the authority and between four and eight other members. Earlier the member for Balmain claimed that yesterday's rally outside Parliament House was a new alliance between farmers and conservation groups. I did not glean that yesterday. Members of The Nationals were present at that rally, including the member for Coffs Harbour, the member for Tweed, the member for Orange and the member for Monaro, and they spoke to those hardworking farmers.

Mr Geoff Provest: And the CWA.

Mr PAUL TOOLE: As was the Country Women's Association, which pointed out that it did not stand side by side with many of the green groups that were represented yesterday.

Mr Andrew Gee: They disowned them.

Mr PAUL TOOLE: The Country Women's Association disowned them and did not want to be associated with them. It stated clearly that its agenda had nothing to do with many of them. Some people present at that rally stated that they were members of The Greens. Today we heard the diatribe of the member for Balmain, who opposed this legislation. The Greens are now being recognised as the loopy party. In a recent interview the former leader of The Greens, Bob Brown, made a call to earthlings and asked why no intergalactic phones were ringing. He continued to talk about astronomy and about the trillions of other planets across the universe and asked why no-one from elsewhere in the cosmos had contacted us. That is what The Greens are putting forward. It is unbelievable that members of The Greens, who are so out of touch with reality, are making comments like that. The former Leader of The Greens also said:

Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn't life out there contacting us? Why aren't the intergalactic phones ringing?

The member for Balmain sang the praises of his Federal master and engaged in the same type of diatribe. The Greens claim that they will take over from the Australian Labor Party, so watch out Labor. They also claim that they will have a Federal Prime Minister at some later date. It is unbelievable that The Greens are so out of touch with reality. The Sydney Catchment Authority is to be run like a business. If a business is to be run effectively it must have people with expertise to contribute to that process. We want to ensure that people with expertise and with the requisite skill set are members of the board. The member for Balmain said that conservation groups could work together and, by working together, could block what this Government wanted to achieve, which does not sound very democratic. We must ensure that the right people are elected to the board to look after the water supply for the people of this State. Members of the Opposition are becoming very professional at putting forward conspiracy theories and at scaremongering. That is not washing in the community. People know that the Opposition has no credibility and they do not believe its spin.

The changes in this bill require board members to have experience relevant to catchment management and catchment protection, water quality and public health, running a commercial entity, water supply planning and asset management, and to have practical knowledge of and experience in agriculture and industry in the catchment area, local government and planning in the catchment area and any other expertise that the Minister considers necessary to realise the catchment authority's objectives. This bill is designed to ensure that the members of the board, individually or collectively, have the required qualifications and experience. Our catchment is an asset that must be well planned, protected and managed. The changes in this bill are sensible and the people of New South Wales are no doubt thankful for them after 16 years of mismanagement by the Labor Government.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH (Coogee) [5.10 p.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill. All Government members who have contributed to this debate have correctly pointed out that this bill is designed to deliver the most effective and responsible management of the Sydney's water catchment. Given that the catchment covers a vast area and includes a number of dams, we must have the best board members we can get rather than ex officio members who may or may not have the appropriate expertise. This bill opens up the eight board positions to the most qualified people we can find and the Minister has detailed the expertise she wants.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1988 was enacted in response to the Carr Government almost poisoning half of Sydney with cryptosporidium. The supply of potable water to Sydney residents has a long and chequered history. When Sydney Cove was first settled, the Tank Stream, which still runs below Pitt Street and Circular Quay, was the main source of water for Sydneysiders and it remained so until the 1820s. Following that, the water supply came from near Coogee in the Centennial Parklands, or the Lachlan Swamps, as they were then known. Water was carted from the swamps to supplement the Tank Stream, which by then was a polluted sewer. Sydney has always played catch-up with its water supply. It was decided that water would be piped from the Lachlan Swamps, or as we know the area today Centennial Park.

Busby's bore was commenced and it took 10 years to complete the 3.5 kilometre tunnel to Hyde Park. It took that long because the convicts hated John Busby, the chief engineer, and as a result he visited the work site only once. He was almost as unpopular as the Labor Party is today. Busby's bore served Sydney only until the 1850s, and inadequately at that. The authorities then looked further south to the Botany Swamps, which are the drainage point for Centennial Park. Water was pumped from the ponds that one can still see today adjacent to Southern Cross Drive and General Holmes Drive near the airport. Unfortunately the water ran out quite quickly, so the upper Nepean scheme was initiated. That scheme involved pumping water from the upper Nepean catchment, which includes the Cataract, Avon and Nepean rivers. Work started on that scheme but, unfortunately, Sydney was hit by a severe drought and an engineering company was brought in to provide makeshift aqueducts to get the water running more quickly.

Because of the drought experienced at the turn of the twentieth century the Sydney Water Board became known as the "No Water Board" and was one of the most unpopular government organisations in New South Wales. In 1940 Sydney ran out of water on several occasions and it became obvious that it needed a larger dam with greater capacity than ever previously conceived. That resulted in the Warragamba scheme. As has been noted, it is one of the largest urban water storage facilities in the world. It was designed to deal with Sydney's unique climate; that is, it fills very quickly—as we have seen in the past few years—and drains very slowly. The management of the Warragamba, Cordeaux, Avon, Woronora, Cataract and Nepean catchments is covered by the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act. Given that, we need the best expertise we can attract. Despite all the difficulties we have faced in supplying potable water to Sydney over the years, the one thing—apart from the aberration in 1988 with the spread of cryptosporidium and giardia—that the Sydney Water Board and its predecessors have done consistently has been to supply pristine water to the residents of Sydney.

The Sydney Water Board and its predecessors has been able to achieve that because of their effective management and protection of the catchment, and that was being done long before any environmental groups were involved and before the NSW Farmers Association was probably even conceived. These catchments have been managed and kept pristine for future years, and these new board appointments will provide no less an outcome. I encourage members to visit the areas around the catchment. Some of the dams, particularly in the upper catchment, are a beautiful sight. When the Water Board built them, it established picnic areas for recreation. The catchment areas were seen as places where one could take one's family for a barbecue and where the kids could run and play.

Mr Geoff Provest: And many of us did.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH: Yes, and I did as a kid. I still continue to go out there. Some of the areas are the best recreational facilities available in Sydney.

Mr Lee Evans: And in Woronora.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH: There are areas down near Heathcote and Woronora has a lovely area. We have been asked why we will not open up these three ex officio positions. A retired councillor or a retired general manager from local government might be suggested to serve on the board but they may not fit the criteria of the ex officio position. There is nothing prohibiting a person with environmental credentials, farming credentials or local government experience from applying for these positions. I will end on a description of the opening of Avon Dam, which is south of Sydney. The description was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 December 1929. The reporter, Nadine Allen, said of the dam:

We come on it suddenly around a curve, and stand and gaze, thrilled. It is beautiful, as are all things built simply for truth and strength, without thought of adornment ... Semi-circular, with Egyptian gateways at each end of the curve, it stands out dazzlingly white against the blue of the reservoir waters ... The warmth of the sun, and scents of the bush seem to blend in a sensuous smell of incense, and almost we hear the chants of priests and virgins of old Thebes in the still air.

Mr Geoff Provest: It brings a tear to one's eye.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH: It does indeed. I think members will feel the same if they visit Avon Dam or any of our much-cherished catchment areas in Sydney.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [5.20 p.m.]: I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. The bill will amend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998. That Act constitutes the Sydney Catchment Authority and establishes the Sydney Catchment Authority Board. The authority manages 21 storage dams with a capacity of over 2.5 million megalitres of water. That includes Warragamba Dam—one of the largest domestic water supply dams in the world and the main source of drinking water supply for Sydney. The area for which the authority is responsible occupies 16,000 square kilometres and consists of five primary catchment areas. Section 14 of the Act sets out the principal statutory objectives of the authority as follows:

The bill before the House changes none of those objectives. The Sydney Catchment Authority Board is responsible for the policies and the long-term strategic plans of the authority. It endeavours to ensure that the authority meets its public health and environmental requirements and oversees the efficient, effective and economical management of the authority. The board consists of the chief executive and between four and eight other members. These other members must include one nominee each from the NSW Farmers Association and the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, as well as an elected councillor from a council within the catchment area.

The amendments that this bill will introduce fall into two categories: first, to make sure that appointments to the board are completely merit-based, rather than preserving particular slots for particular stakeholders; and secondly, broadening the category of the relevant criteria to be taken into account in appointing board members. It is symptomatic of the failure of the Labor Opposition that they would oppose appointing people on merit. For 16 years we have seen public service in New South Wales ground down while crony after crony has been appointed to public positions. The Government wants none of that; it wants merit-based selection and the appointment of appropriate people. Section 7 of the Act, when amended, will set out the appropriate criteria that are relevant to an authority that will manage our catchment in the way that I have described.

The criteria will be qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management and protection, qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health, qualifications and experience relevant to running a commercial entity, qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management, practical knowledge of and experience in agriculture and industry in the catchment area, practical knowledge of and experience in local government and planning in the catchment area, and such other expertise as the Minister considers necessary. They are all sensible, merit-based criteria. If we are to make New South Wales number one again, if we are to have this State moving forward, we must appoint people to public office based on merit. We need the best people for the job so that we get the best bang for the taxpayer buck. For all those reasons, I commend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 to the House.

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills) [5.26 p.m.]: I commend the contribution of the member for Cronulla. His contributions are always articulate and well thought out. I make a modest contribution to the debate. The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012 is another bill that the Labor Party feels uncomfortable with because we are bringing transparency to government. We are bringing a request for excellence in government—particularly in public utilities—to the forefront of public policy.

The people of Sydney need to have faith and confidence in the Sydney Catchment Authority. We depend on the authority for the most vital of public utilities—our drinking water. To say that the Sydney Catchment Authority provides an essential service is an understatement. I recall some 13 or 14 years ago when I was a staffer in this place under former Opposition Leader Peter Collins and there was an outbreak of giardia and cryptosporidium. That outbreak created panic amongst the community of Sydney. It created panic amongst mothers, fathers and the community and it created panic-buying of bottled water. That experience highlighted the fact that we cannot take utilities in this State for granted. I have been heartened by the contribution made by country members during this debate—members of Parliament from regions that are only too familiar with the need for water purity and water resources. Those of us who live within the Sydney Catchment Authority welcome their contribution.

The authority's significance is further underlined by the breadth of its responsibilities. Beyond drinking water, the authority is responsible for all water infrastructure, the raw water supply and environmental outcomes related to water. As a result, we need to be certain that the people responsible for the authority are up to the job. We have to guarantee that the authority's board is composed of competent individuals who can draw upon a depth of experience relevant to the authority's activities. I draw on my previous experiences before entering this place and the dealings that I had with government and certainly the dealings I had with government authorities. It is clear that the culture of nepotism maintained by the Labor Party throughout its 16 years of failed government was so detrimental to the management of this State that confidence was no longer held in it.

There was no belief in the public sector management skills of the boards, nor was there surety in the management of our public assets, particularly our public utilities. The establishment of a merit-based appointment process will ensure that this crucial experience is represented on the board. Whenever merit-based appointments are included in a bill one can guarantee that Labor will object because merit-based appointments remove the right of government to fill boards with failed preselection candidates and failed members of Parliament. Under the bill a prospective board member will be required to have qualifications and experience relevant to catchment management, public health, water planning and commercial enterprise. Nowhere else in our workforce can one be appointed to a senior executive role without proving one's qualifications and experience; however, under successive New South Wales Labor governments people have attained positions in high office with absolutely no credentials in the field. It occurred in the Transport portfolio, in financial services and within the utilities. It has to stop.

[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Opposition members will have the opportunity to make a contribution to debate if they wish; in the meantime they should desist from continually interjecting.

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: Methinks they protest too much. Clearly, the O'Farrell Government is touching on issues that make them very uncomfortable. Those opposite still cannot understand why they were so appallingly rejected in March last year. The nightmare continues for Labor members who think the duties of government can be fulfilled by rats—as we saw in various Labor councils in New South Wales over many decades—and the nightmare of 26 March last year was repeated in the recent Queensland elections.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: I ask that the member for Baulkham Hills be directed to return to the leave of the bill. We have had to listen to this rubbish for too long.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! The debate on both sides of the House has been wideranging. I am sure the member for Baulkham Hills is only adding to comments already made in debate.

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I would not have to divert my comments from the bill if those opposite would stop interrupting. The introduction of this merit-based process will replace a system of stakeholder nominations. That will mean more candidates will be considered from a broad range of backgrounds and the position will be awarded to the best applicant. The bill is yet another example of this Government's commitment to open and accountable government in New South Wales. Interestingly, the Opposition opposes the introduction of merit-based appointments to the authority board. Given its appalling track record in accountability in government, perhaps that is not surprising. Nonetheless, I was disappointed at the suggestion by the member for Marrickville that this amendment was an attempt to silence dissent. That could not be further from the truth.

The O'Farrell Government believes that the best candidates should be appointed to important governance positions and that any other approach would not be in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. It is not good enough to embrace affirmative action in this regard. The previous policy was simply playing politics with the Sydney Catchment Authority. The best candidates should be appointed, regardless of their stakeholder affiliations. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the authority and guarantee that only the best candidates are appointed to the board so that the people of Sydney can maintain their confidence in the work of the authority. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr John Flowers and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

CO-OPERATIVES (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 April 2012.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [5.30 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012 and note at the outset that the Opposition will support the bill. The bill is the culmination of more than four years of work by consecutive State and Federal governments, and I commend all involved for reaching a positive outcome. I would also like to thank the Minister for providing the bill and briefing material to my office prior to the Easter break. Cooperatives are organisations run for the benefit of members and they make an important contribution to our State and national economies. They provide a variety of services, including employment and healthcare services, and exist in many industries, from entertainment—many clubs are registered cooperatives—to agriculture, thus allowing small-scale farms and family farms to compete with larger commercialised farms. The New South Wales Opposition is pleased to acknowledge the essential role of cooperatives within the private and not-for-profit sectors and is committed to supporting cooperatives in New South Wales.

As I have said, this bill is the result of more than four years of discussion and consultation, but the origins of reform for the cooperative sector stretch back to 1996. In 1996 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG] agreed to core consistent provisions for cooperatives to be introduced by each State and Territory. However, it was recognised that these proposals did not achieve true consistency for cooperative law throughout Australia. In 2007 the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs [MCCA] agreed to implement national uniform legislation for cooperatives aimed at addressing inconsistencies in State and Territory legislation. Further concerns were raised that existing legislation led to competitive disadvantages for the cooperatives sector, as it imposed restrictions and compliance costs on cooperatives to which competing entities may not be subject.

A draft Co-operatives National Law and a consultation regulatory impact statement were released in December 2009. The draft Co-operatives National Law was aimed at providing freedom to operate on a national basis, better access to external capital funding and an accessible, modern legislative environment. The Council of Australian Governments [COAG] consumer affairs forum has reported that all States and Territories have agreed to the bill through the out-of-session process. I take this opportunity to commend the staff members of the Legislation Review Committee for their work on the bill. The digest provides extensive background on the history of cooperative law and analysis of potential legislative implications. I encourage all members to review that analysis.

In addition to consistent laws across eight States and Territories, amendments to the existing laws are proposed, including automatic mutual recognition of cooperatives across all eight States and Territories. Presently, a cooperative has to register separately in each State and Territory and a fee and associated paperwork are required for each registration. Mutual recognition will mean that cooperatives are able to operate across State and Territory borders with far greater ease. The bill also aims to simplify the financial reporting and auditing requirements for small cooperatives. Importantly, the bill also amends the duties and responsibilities of directors and officers of cooperatives to make these consistent with the Corporations Act.

The bill amends the director liability provisions for cooperatives so that directors are liable when there is a clear link between their responsibility and actions, or inaction, and the contravention of the law. The bill increases flexibility for cooperatives to raise funds from members and the public through the introduction of cooperative capital units by cooperatives in all jurisdictions. This will increase access to capital funding for cooperatives. This reform was introduced initially in New South Wales and is now part of the Co-operatives National Law. Once again, the Opposition will support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [5.40 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012 and acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Fair Trading to cooperatives in New South Wales and to improving efficiencies in the system. These reforms are necessary to apply the uniform Co-operatives National Law and Co-operatives National Regulations in New South Wales. I will provide a brief background to cooperatives in New South Wales. At this point I note that 2012 has been declared by the United Nations General Assembly as the International Year of Co-operatives. This endeavours to encourage growth of cooperatives across the world. The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:

Three main objectives set by the United Nations for the International Year of Cooperatives were: first, increasing public awareness about cooperatives and their contributions to socio-economic development; secondly, promoting the formation and growth of cooperatives; and, thirdly, encouraging governments to establish policies, laws and regulations conducive to the formation, growth and stability of cooperatives. The main stakeholder groups were consulted during the preparation of the bill, including cooperatives, cooperatives' representative bodies, cooperatives' professional advisers, regulators and other interested bodies. New South Wales, as the host jurisdiction, set up a national web page on its Fair Trading website to assist with consultation on the Co-operatives National Law.

Across Australia there are 1,700 cooperatives; 680 cooperatives are registered in New South Wales. They are owned by 1.8 million members, generate approximately $2.9 billion in revenue per year, have total assets of about $2 billion and, importantly, employ approximately 10,000 people. The main purpose of a cooperative is to provide services to its members, who own, control and use the cooperative. A cooperative provides valuable services to its members. Examples include child care, housing, health care, grocery supply—and the list goes on. The International Co-operative Alliance, which is the international representative body for cooperatives, developed seven principles to guide the operation of cooperatives. These are voluntary and open membership; democratic member control; member economic participation; autonomy and independence; education, training and information; cooperation among cooperatives; and concern for the community. These principles have direct relevance to the Co-operatives National Law.

As we heard from the Minister, cooperatives are currently regulated by legislation in each State and Territory across Australia. However, the time has come for an update of the laws and for improved consistencies in the system. The States and Territories are working towards the commencement of the Co-operatives National Law in 2012. The main function of the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012 is to apply the Co-operatives National Law and national regulations in New South Wales, the host jurisdiction. By doing so, this will enable other participating jurisdictions to enact similar legislation or alternative laws within 12 months of the assent of the New South Wales legislation. Consistency is the key, and these reforms provide for it.

The bill addresses five key problems in the current New South Wales Co-operatives Act 1992 by introducing in the Co-operatives National Law mutual recognition to enable cooperatives to carry on business across jurisdictional borders. As it stands now, a cooperative must apply in each jurisdiction separately; this means across State and Territory borders. This is a cumbersome process and a burden on cooperatives. The Co-operatives National Law will ensure that costs are lowered and red tape is reduced. Secondly, the national law will reduce the costs of financial reporting and auditing requirements for small cooperatives. Once again, costs and red tape will be reduced, using a risk assessment based system.

Thirdly, it will align director and officer duties with the duties in the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 that apply to companies. Fourthly, it will reduce former members' rights to two years duration in line with comments made during public consultation. This is a reduction from five years to two years. Fifthly, it will introduce cost-effective compliance by way of enforceable undertakings. Other key points of difference between the proposed national law and the existing New South Wales legislation include revision of confusing or inconsistent provisions in the existing cooperatives legislation that use certain provisions from the Corporations Act 2001, with appropriate modification, for example, fundraising administration; streamlining the approval processes for rules of a cooperative; clarifying the disclosure requirements for new members of a cooperative; and permitting the appointment of an administrator, who is not a registered company liquidator, in order to avoid excessive costs.

Apart from these variations, the remainder of the national law is similar to the New South Wales legislation on cooperatives. The bill further designates the Registrar of Cooperatives as the designated authority. It also deals with savings and transitional matters following the commencement of the New South Wales Co-operatives National Law. The Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012, which is important legislation brought before the House by the Minister for Fair Trading, will ensure consistency in cooperatives law across the country. This will make it easier for cooperatives operating throughout New South Wales and in the States and Territories in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [5.47 p.m.]: I support the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012 and commend the Minister for Fair Trading for introducing the bill. As we have heard, the main purpose of the bill is to apply the uniform Co-operatives National Law in New South Wales, as the host jurisdiction, in line with arrangements in the Australian Uniform Co-operatives Law agreement. It is common sense. As members know, cooperatives are unique in developing a democratic style of work, pooling resources, being competitive and sharing skills. Australia-wide, about 1,700 cooperatives provide members, and in some cases the general public, with a diverse range of services in areas such as child care, housing, health care, groceries and petrol supply, education and training, sporting clubs, taxis, tourism, labour hire and agriculture. I am sure the member for Coffs Harbour knows that cooperatives in rural and regional areas are a significant structure that supports many important services.

New South Wales has the largest and most significant cooperatives sector in Australia, with about 680 cooperatives generating millions of dollars in revenue each year. Complying with the Co-operatives National Law provides potential cost reductions for small cooperatives by enabling them to introduce exemptions from financial reporting and auditing comparable to exemptions currently available to small proprietary companies. This will result in ongoing savings to the community through the reduction of costs of maintaining legislation in eight separate jurisdictions. I am aware that all stakeholders consulted are supportive of the legislation. This year, 2012, has been recognised as the International Year of Co-operatives by the United Nations. This is an acknowledgement by the international community that cooperatives drive the economy, respond to social change, are resilient to the global economic crisis and are serious, successful businesses, creating jobs in all sectors. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW ROHAN (Smithfield) [5.50 p.m.]: I support the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012. Before I speak on the importance of the bill and why the bill should be supported by both sides of the House I commend the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Anthony Roberts, for its introducing it. I have no hesitation in saying that he is the most hardworking, passionate and competent Minister in the Fair Trading portfolio in the history of this Parliament. I understand that is a big call but I still place that on the record. For the first time Australia has an agreement that enables national uniform template legislation or alternative legislation consistent with the national template to be applied in each State and Territory for the regulation of co-operatives.

The national uniform template legislation is the Co-operatives National Law, which forms part of the bill before the House. Six of the eight States and Territories will apply the uniform template law in their jurisdiction. South Australia and Western Australia are choosing to apply alternative consistent legislation in their jurisdictions, as that suits their circumstances. Western Australia has a policy of applying its own legislation in preference to adopting national template legislation within its borders. The agreement provides that the new legislation should be administered uniformly as this is in the interests of the public, the sector and the regulators.

Co-operatives are currently regulated by legislation administered by each State or Territory. The Commonwealth has never had a role in administering co-operatives legislation in Australia. The majority of stakeholders wanted to retain a States and Territories-administered legislative scheme and for this reason the Commonwealth is not a party to the agreement. A major milestone has been achieved, with all States and Territories having signed the agreement as at February 2012. New South Wales agreed to be the host jurisdiction for the cooperatives legislation provided for in the agreement. This was in part because New South Wales has a relatively large number of registered cooperatives. It was also because New South Wales is committed to improving cooperatives regulation through the introduction of this national uniform template legislation. Under the agreement the main responsibilities for the host jurisdiction are to arrange for the passage through its Parliament of the initial legislation and any subsequent amending legislation.

The initial legislation—the bill before this House—establishes the regulatory scheme under the agreement and must first be approved unanimously by the ministerial council. That approval was obtained from ministerial council members, now the Consumer Affairs Forum, in January 2012. Under the agreement the host jurisdiction is responsible for the making of national regulations to support the Co-operatives National Law. In this regard, New South Wales is working with the other jurisdictions, as the chair of the Co-operatives National Law Working Party, to develop the national regulations. Once the national regulations are agreed to by the Consumer Affairs Forum Ministers, they are to be made law in New South Wales as soon as practicable after the passage of the national law.

Any amendments to the initial enacted Co-operatives National Law and Co-operatives National Regulations must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Consumer Affairs Forum members present before it is considered for passage through the host Parliament. Any jurisdiction that introduces amending legislation that has not been approved by the forum ceases to be a party to the agreement. New South Wales can be proud of its role as host jurisdiction under the agreement to arrange the passage through Parliament of the initial adoption bill with its national template law schedule. This will enable the other States and Territories to apply the template law in their jurisdiction or alternative legislation consistent with the template law, as provided for in the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement. As 2012 is the United Nations International Year of Co-operatives, the States and Territories are working on commencing the Co-operatives National Law within 2012 to mark this special occasion. I commend this bill to the House.

By consent business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Assistant-Speaker (Mr Andrew Fraser) left the chair at 5.56 p.m. The House resumed at 7.00 p.m.]

NOXIOUS WEEDS AMENDMENT BILL 2012

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
__________

COUNTRY WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr GARRY EDWARDS (Swansea) [7.04 p.m.]: I am absolutely delighted to have resumed my seat in this place after a sudden and unexpected circumstance delayed my return towards the end of last year. It is wonderful to be back and I thank my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and members opposite for their support during my absence.

Mr Paul Toole: It's good to have you back.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr Toole. I speak today about the contributions of the Country Women's Association, more commonly known as the CWA, which this year celebrates its ninetieth birthday. The Country Women's Association has a proud history of volunteering, service and contribution to many noble causes and initiatives. What began as a small movement to provide support and friendship for women who felt isolated in regional areas is today one of Australia's and this State's most important community groups, with 408 branches and over 10,000 members across New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The impact these members have had on their local communities is truly remarkable. We will never know of all the sacrifices Country Women's Association ladies have made serving others. It is my belief that our communities and indeed our lives have been made richer because of the selfless service of countless Country Women's Association ladies throughout the history of the association.

In my position I am privileged to attend and support many local community events and I regularly come into contact with members of the association's branches in my electorate, at Belmont and Mannering Park. Country Women's Association volunteers can be found at most shows and fairs using their cooking skills and country hospitality to create a special experience for visitors. The CWA Tea Room is an institution at the Sydney Royal Easter Show, with ladies from across this great State spending two weeks serving their famous Devonshire tea to visitors to the show. At this year's show, over 300 association members volunteered, and during the fortnight they cooked almost 42,000 scones for show-goers. The Country Women's Association established the tea room at the very first Royal Easter Show, in 1947. That show, the first held after World War II, saw 1.2 million people pass through the show's gates—an astonishing figure, given that Sydney had a population of only 1.5 million people at that time.

My staff recently attended a Country Women's Association handicraft day in Belmont, and it was clear that there is a depth of talent present across the Hunter Country Women's Association branches when it comes to handicrafts. I hope that these ladies pass on their talents to younger generations so that their skills and the products of their work are not lost. Eight ladies from the Mannering Park branch have been chosen to receive awards for their handicraft work at the ninetieth Country Women's Association annual conference, to be held in Blacktown next month.

The association's dedicated sewers and knitters have worked their fingers for many a cause. Country Women's Association members knit blankets for premature babies in hospitals and for the elderly in nursing homes, make trauma dolls for paramedics that are given to children during times of crisis and distress, knit scarves and beanies for children at Ronald McDonald House, and make ladies' nightdresses and knit baby wear for mother and baby packs to be sent to Third World countries. Typical of Country Women's Association members is Sylvia Westerman from the Mannering Park branch, who has spent years knitting over 200 quilts. These quilts have been given to terminally ill children at Westmead Hospital. For her efforts Mrs Westerman will soon receive the Order of Australia in Canberra.

But it is not just their cooking and handicraft abilities that have endeared Country Women's Association members to the public; it is also the association's wider contributions to the social fabric of this nation. The association's Belmont branch also has a proud history of service to the local community. The branch was formed in 1945 and today it has 81 members, two of whom are association life members. Mrs Jess Noble has been a member of the association for 58 years and Mrs Audrey Peck has 35 years' service. The Belmont and Mannering Park branches have supported organisations such as Father Chris Riley's Youth Off The Streets, Aussie Helpers, Make Today Count, John Hunter Children's Oncology Ward, Beyond Blue and Lifeline, as well as many disease awareness initiatives and fundraisers, including Australia's Biggest Morning Tea, Relay for Life and Daffodil Day.

The Country Women's Association has lobbied governments on issues concerning women such as access to health care in rural and regional areas, road conditions and water access, to name but a few. In 1936 the Country Women's Association of New South Wales contributed £1,000 to assist in the establishment of the Flying Doctor Service base at Broken Hill. To this day, the association continues to support this vital life-saving service. The great Australian poet Dorothea Mackellar once wrote that Australia was a "land of drought and flooding rains". The association took this on board when it established the Australia Disaster Relief Fund. This fund has distributed millions to farming communities severely affected by floods, drought and other natural disasters that affect those on the land. It is clear that Country Women's Association members have never lost sight of who they are or what they stand for. They have lived and worked by the words of their motto for the past 90 years:

Honour to God
Loyalty to the Throne
Service to the Country
Through Country Women
For Country Women
By Country Women

No doubt many members in this Chamber who have the privilege as I do of representing rural and regional communities have shared in the hospitality of the Country Women's Association and today will join with me in congratulating its members on their fine work.

BANKSTOWN ELECTORATE CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [7.09 p.m.]: I address the Chamber today about citizenship ceremonies in the Bankstown electorate. One of the great privileges of my present role as member for Bankstown—indeed, as it was when I was mayor of Bankstown—is to welcome new citizens at our local citizenship ceremonies. It is a great pleasure to meet new Australians and have an opportunity to hear their stories and about their plans for a future in our country. Every month in Bankstown more than 100 people in our city become Australian citizens. For new Australians, the decision to become an Australian citizen is a significant one, and the ceremony is a very important event in their lives.

Some came from countries without real democracy; from places where they had no right to vote or where their vote had no effect on the outcome of elections. Those individuals truly appreciate something that many Australians take for granted: the right to vote. As members of this House are aware, my mother and father migrated to Australia in 1959 and 1960 respectively. They were very honoured to have the opportunity to become Australian citizens and to vote for the very first time in their lives. Our migrants come from a variety of cultures and backgrounds. Bankstown is an area of great diversity, with residents hailing from every part of the globe. We are very blessed to have them in our great city of Bankstown. Each generation of successive migrants has added to our cultural landscape.

I have had the opportunity to witness this throughout my lifetime and during my time in public office. One of my proudest moments occurred last year with the opening of the Boat People Monument in Saigon Place in Bankstown. As I have previously advised the House, this monument honoured the brave individuals who lost their lives at sea fleeing from Vietnam. Vietnamese Australians have played a leading role in shaping contemporary Bankstown and south west Sydney and the Boat People Monument and Saigon Place are fitting tributes to them. All members of this place I am sure recognise the importance of citizenship ceremonies. I know that many regularly attend local ceremonies. It is disappointing, therefore, for me to note that certain members of the New South Wales Liberal Party have decided to politicise what is normally a non-partisan event. It appears that a few Liberal Party members have decided to hand out their own certificates at these events.

This is yet another example of dirty politics that shows the lack of professionalism and ethics by some in this House. Recently, the member for East Hills attempted to handout awards at a citizenship ceremony in our local area. Fortunately, the representatives from Bankstown City Council stepped in, ruling that, as no prior approval for such action had been sought, the handing out of additional awards at the ceremony was inappropriate. The council contacted the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and was advised that no member of State Parliament or Minister could hand out awards and that only the mayor, on behalf of the Australian Government, could hand out citizenship certificates at these ceremonies. I bring this matter to the attention of this House as I was greatly concerned about such blatant electioneering at a citizenship ceremony.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: The purpose of a private member's statement is to bring to the attention of the House issues and events occurring in a member's electorate. Private members' statements are not designed to allow members to launch personal attacks on other members in this place. If the member for Bankstown has a grievance with a member whose electorate adjoins hers, there are forms she may use to address that grievance—and I invite her to use those forms. I ask you to instruct the member to confine her remarks to issues that are relevant to her electorate.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! I remind the member for Bankstown that other than by way of substantive motion it is disorderly for a member to make personal reflections on any member of either House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: It is not a personal reflection. It was an event that took place. I am not making any reflection on the member for East Hills—

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: The member for Bankstown is now canvassing your ruling. I ask that you instruct her to return to the issue that she wishes to raise and not allow her to launch into a personal attack, or else direct her to sit down.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: If the member for Bankstown has a problem with your ruling I suggest that she take this matter to the Ethics Adviser or handle it by way of Standing Order 73. She should not raise such a matter in a private member's statement.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Mr Acting-Speaker— [Time expired.]

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [7.14 p.m.]: I acknowledge the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 inquiry into the management of public land in New South Wales, which is pertinent to my electorate. As part of this wide-ranging inquiry, the committee will investigate a decision made by the previous Government relating to the conversion of State Forests into national parks. The process followed by the previous Government did not recognise the number of people who were involved in the industry. Much of the scientific evidence that was raised by the Natural Resources Commission was challenged by locals. There was ongoing discontent about the former Government's decision.

It was not until after forests were closed that we found out that the Australian Bureau of Statistics was accurate in its account of the number of people engaged in the forestry industry. In its census, 1,200 people stated that they earned their living from forestry. As a consequence, the fallout has been felt throughout the Riverina communities and many questions need to be asked. Those who live and work in the forests in an industry that has been in existence for the past 100 years find it difficult to accept that the industry is not sustainable, given that a number of reports have highlighted its sustainability.

I compliment the chair of the committee, the Hon. Rick Colless, for following up this matter. Hearings will be held in Deniliquin and Balranald, which are in my electorate. Those communities were greatly affected by the conversion of forestry areas into national parks. As a consequence, their economies, and those of Mathoura, Moama and Barham, are suffering very badly. They have a strong feeling that they were sold a pup. I hope that the inquiry will reveal, one way or another, the basis of the decision taken by the former Government and the processes that it followed. The intent of both the Federal Government and the former State Government to convert those forests to national parks regardless is quite clear. Most people believe that the decision was made before the Natural Resources Commission completed its recommendations.

The inquiry will provide an opportunity for those affected to talk about what is currently on the table and what opportunities remain for them. The management of those national parks is a matter of concern. The Natural Resources Commission report recommended that certain thinning operations take place, and that plays an important part in the maintenance of a good, viable and healthy forest. Silviculture was practised by State Forests for more than 100 years, and that process sustained the forests. There will be a number of challenges for the future if thinning practices are not implemented. Quite clearly, without thinning, red gum tree saplings will compete with other trees. As an analogy, it is obvious that if 100 cattle are put in a paddock that can sustain only 20 cattle, they will all die. That is how it works with red gums; they compete with each other and when they are not getting sufficient water, many die as a result of that competition. Management of these forests is probably more important now than it has ever been. It seems that regardless of the recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission no move is being made to carry out thinning operations.

LOCAL SCHOOLS, LOCAL DECISIONS PROGRAM

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [7.19 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to some of the fantastic work being done in local schools in my electorate. During the recent recess I took the opportunity to visit just about every school and school principal in my electorate to talk about what is going on. I will now provide the House with some of my findings. I will not make any political comments; rather, I will offer some observations. The principals to whom I spoke are both excited and concerned about the opportunities that the Local Schools, Local Decisions policy offers. The most important issue they raised is that their desks are covered in work now and they work many extra hours each day and on weekends, and they wonder what responsibilities will be redirected to allow them the time they will need to implement this policy.

I was intrigued and astounded by some of the other issues that the principals raised. From my experience in the secondary education sector I know that every high school takes students from a number of feeder schools in the local area. These principals talked about some amazing resources that they need in their schools, including occupational therapists, speech pathologists and people to assess reading and writing skills to establish whether children have dyslexia and so on.

Mr Daryl Maguire: I have been saying that for years.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: Who has been saying that, principals?

Mr Daryl Maguire: No, I have.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: They didn't lose them in the past 12 months.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: That is correct.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: We have had 16 years of Labor administration.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: It was a learning experience for me to talk to those principals and I agree with them wholeheartedly. I pointed out that we already have those services in the health system and everyone can get an assessment and so on. They replied that those services are available but only if people put their names on a waiting list, if they have the time and resources to access specialists and treatment, and if they persevere. Many families are hurting because of multi-generational problems that are difficult to resolve. The principals offered some commonsense solutions and referred to the resources that some young students need to ensure that they have every opportunity to be well educated and prosperous. I walked away from those meetings having had a mind flip about how we should work with young people and their families to improve their prospects.

Having been a high school teacher I know that many problems are ingrained and difficult to resolve if they are not addressed before children reach 12, 13, 14 or 15 years of age. We must catch young people with problems much earlier than that. The thought that a young person could go through school suffering from dyslexia and not have it diagnosed is a serious concern. That happened to a number of people in my generation and previous generations. The principals said that they need the services of occupational therapists and physiotherapists and I asked them why. They explained that students need postural strength to be able to sit in school all day, and hold a pen and write. If they do not have that strength they cannot speak effectively because their voice box, oesophagus and diaphragm do not work properly. I found that concept fascinating.

I advise members opposite who have been badgering me about having had 16 years of Labor administration that as an educator I am willing to work with any government—this Government or a future Labor government—to ensure that our schools have the resources they need, including occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech pathologists. We have to get it right for our kids. We must discover any problems they have early and fix them. I had an amazing time visiting those schools and I appreciate the work that the principals are doing.

Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.24 p.m.]: I thank the member for Cessnock for his comments and the support he is offering to the Local Schools, Local Decisions policy being driven by this Government. These pressing issues have been a concern in the community for a long time. As a primary school teacher I know that the education sector has been crying out for years for the services of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech pathologists to identify problems at an early stage. The member for Wagga Wagga has long been a strong advocate for these changes, as has the member for Coffs Harbour. I am very pleased that this Government is putting students at the centre of education—that is what Local Schools, Local Decisions is all about. I congratulate the member for Cessnock.

MONARO ELECTORATE ROAD CLOSURES

Mr JOHN BARILARO (Monaro) [7.25 p.m.]: I congratulate Roads and Maritime Services on the way in which it has handled the impact of the wet weather that we have experienced over the past couple of months in the Monaro region. I refer in particular to two landslides that cut the Snowy Mountains Highway at Brown Mountain and the Kings Highway, which are strategic tourist and transport routes. On Thursday 1 March a Roads and Maritime Services bridge crew travelling on Brown Mountain observed some cracks in the pavement. The crew called the Bega office seeking advice, and technical experts travelled to the site to assess the situation. While the crew waited for the technical experts to arrive, the road started to slip away. They managed the situation with the equipment they had on site until additional crews were able to assist.

The road was closed and within the hour the Transport Management Centre and the media were advised. The landslide removed half of the eastbound lane and affected the stability of both lanes. That part of the road—which is about one kilometre from Piper's Lookout—has experienced a number of landslides in the past. The repair work was expected to take between four and five weeks. It was a tough time for the businesses in Bemboka and Nimmitabel, which rely heavily on the passing traffic that uses that route. Businesses in Bemboka experienced a 95 per cent decline in turnover, so it was important that the work be completed in the shortest time frame possible. Crews worked seven days a week and undertook long and multiple shifts to get it done.

We were all very relieved by the announcement made on 2 April that the Snowy Mountains Highway at Brown Mountain would be reopened on Thursday 5 April, just before the hectic Easter weekend. Temporary pavement and crash barrier work was done to ensure that the road could be opened so that the affected businesses would not be impacted further. I have visited the affected businesses since Easter and they reported a huge increase in turnover during the holiday weekend. Of course, that has not made up for the five weeks they suffered with little passing traffic, but it was much-needed relief. Unfortunately, luck was not with us in the Monaro during the recent wet weather. Another landslide occurred on the Kings Highway a few weeks ago blocking the other side of the mountain. That put stress on the other regional roads because traffic was being diverted and at times motorists had to travel an extra 200 kilometres to get to their destination.

Rocks fell onto the highway on Clyde Mountain about 400 metres west of Pooh Bear corner. The landslide was first reported to Roads and Maritime Services at about 1.30 p.m., but landslides continued to occur throughout the afternoon. Emergency services were quickly on the scene diverting traffic; luckily no accidents occurred. Traffic was being diverted away from the Kings Highway at Braidwood and onto Nerriga Road, which, as those who have travelled on it know, is still not sealed completely. Roads and Maritime Services did great work looking after the local roads while Kings Highway was closed. A geotechnical study was done in the area and after the debris was removed the road was opened on 26 April—four days before the projected completion date. I congratulate Roads and Maritime Services personnel who worked on Anzac Day and the weekends and did double shifts to get the road open.

Roads and Maritime Services has put in temporary protections and barriers to ensure that traffic can flow but the Government will have geotechnical studies of the area done together with other necessary investigations to ensure that the road continues to be safe. I will be working with the Eurobodalla Shire Council, which should be congratulated on its role in helping Roads and Maritime Services to open the road and get the works completed. The Government will put in place a strategy to minimise the landslips that we now see on both the Kings Highway and the Snowy Mountains Highway at Brown Mountain. I congratulate Roads and Maritime Services on a job well done. I am proud to be part of a Government that has public sector workers who continue to work hard for this Government.

SAIL PORT STEPHENS 2012

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.30 p.m.]: Tonight I refer to an important annual event in my electorate. Sail Port Stephens is regarded as one of the fastest-growing sailing regattas in Australia. From 16 April to 22 April I was again privileged to share my beautiful electorate with the rest of the country. The week coincided with a record rainfall but the regatta achieved its own record—an incredible 165 entries. In 2011 the event had 127 entries. I note that the member for Cessnock is the sole person on the Opposition benches. I know that he, as an employee of Port Stephens Council, was involved in those earlier events. The week of racing was lauded by organisers, officials and competitors, despite the mixed conditions on the water. The weak winds, coupled with poor visibility, heavy rain and choppy swell made for an interesting week of sailing, but the sun came out in the end.

Sail Port Stephens was established in 2006 when local business operators agreed that Port Stephens was an ideal location to host a major sailing event. Sail Port Stephens is positioned to offer a strong alternative to the two current largest regattas in Australia—Hamilton Island Race Week and Festival of Sails, Geelong. What sets Sail Port Stephens apart is that it is marketed and viewed as being a family friendly and affordable regatta in a highly desirable holiday location. The family friendly holiday aspect comes primarily from the fact that Port Stephens is the ideal destination for a family holiday, but also because the dates for the event fall in the New South Wales school holidays, separate from Easter, to maximise the opportunity for boat owners and crew to incorporate the event into their family holiday plans—as if the boaties needed any further excuse to sail out on the beautiful blue water wonderland that is Port Stephens. Bringing the kids along and knowing that they will be safe and happy is a bonus.

This year saw an expansion of the regatta with junior classes being introduced. The weekend regatta markets drew further crowds for local retailers. Destination NSW has provided support for the event since 2010 with a financial investment over a three-year period through to 2012. The event provides benefits to Port Stephens as a destination and delivers social, economic and community benefits. The final day always draws the largest crowd to the event, culminating in the overall regatta presentation, where prizes are given for all major races of the week. I was honoured to be a part of the presentation. I was perhaps a little envious of the competitors but I was happy to be part of the wonderful atmosphere of camaraderie and sportsmanship at the culmination of this magnificent event. The media coverage of the event was also fantastic. Accolades for the event have been coming from far and wide. As reported on the Sail Port Stephens website:

Dockside, Marcus Blackmore said "We are very pleased to have defended our 2011 New South Wales IRC Championship here at Port Stephens. This event is for us a key part of our Hamilton Island Race Week preparation. I can't say enough good things about this event—great sailing waters, superb race management and great event management overall. Sail Port Stephens is at a convenient time of the year and so close to Sydney."

I congratulate the organisers of Sail Port Stephens 2012 and say: Bring on Sail Port Stephens 2013.

Private members' statements concluded.

SYDNEY WATER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (BOARD MEMBERS) BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck—Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business) [7.33 p.m.], in reply: I speak in reply to the contributions of members to the debate on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Board Members) Bill 2012. I thank the members for the electorates of Marrickville, Parramatta, Keira, Penrith, Cabramatta, Riverstone, Blue Mountains, Mount Druitt, Wakehurst, Bankstown, Granville, Fairfield, Menai, Cessnock, Londonderry, Myall Lakes, Newcastle, Sydney, Wagga Wagga, Mulgoa, Balmain, Camden, Monaro, which represents the highest part of the catchment, Oatley, Toongabbie, Murray-Darling, Tamworth, Smithfield, Wyong, Orange, Bathurst, Coogee, Cronulla and Baulkham Hills for their contributions to debate on this bill. It is pleasing to see such a high level of interest in such an important topic. This bill is about broadening the skills and expertise that the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority must have.

The member for Keira spoke about the importance of clean drinking water. He is right—no-one in this House would disagree with him. What I find astounding is that the member for Keira and other members of the Opposition are opposed to the amendments. They are amendments that will require qualifications and experience relevant to water quality and public health, as well as qualifications and experience relevant to water supply planning and asset management. If those opposite were really interested in clean drinking water they would support the amendments. A number of members—including the members for Marrickville, Cabramatta and Penrith—spoke of local government and the importance of partnerships with the community. That is why we propose that the board must contain practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government and planning in the catchment area. The person with this knowledge and these skills will be individually accountable to the catchment, and indeed the whole of greater Sydney, to represent the community on the board. At present we must have a councillor who is currently elected, and therefore accountable, to just a single council. I am not sure whether members opposite have looked lately, but there are 15 local governments within the catchment area and another six within the broader area of operations of the Sydney Catchment Authority.

The bill also introduces the requirement that the board must contain practical knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture and industry in the area. This will ensure that the board member is not just some academic—a matter that was raised by the member for Cabramatta—but will be someone with local knowledge and experience who is able to properly represent the community. The catchment above the dams contains a wealth of important agriculture and it is important that these areas are properly represented. It is worth noting at this point that agriculture and industry in the area do not stop at the dam walls. Below the dams there are also important agricultural enterprises that grow fresh vegetables for Sydney and turf for Sydney's sporting events.

There is also an important fisheries sector. The fisheries in the Hawkesbury estuary include vibrant oyster production, a range of other commercial fisheries sourcing fresh seafood for Sydney, and recreational fishing areas. It is important that these industries are properly supported and represented and I am committed to seeing this happen. If members opposite were interested in representation on behalf of the entire community they would support these amendments. The member for Penrith spoke about my commitment to ensure that local government is properly represented on the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority.

I assure members that I will be seeking nominations from across the broad spectrum, including the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, the NSW Farmers Association, the Local Governments and Shires Associations, councils within the catchment, and the area of operations of the Sydney Catchment Authority. This will ensure that I am able to select the most skilled people for the job and the people who are able to best represent the community and give it a strong voice. The Government is not excluding anyone from the board; it is removing the exclusions that were already in place and ensuring that board members are selected from the broadest possible pool of candidates. There will be no automatic appointments or reappointments. Appointments are to be made on merit and ability.

Many Opposition members seem to have a misapprehension about this matter. I repeat for the benefit of those members that we are not excluding anyone. The bill is only a couple of pages long. Opposition members should not have difficulty in understanding this point. I address some of the specific points that were raised by some speakers. I listened to the member for Mount Druitt who queried the skills we are proposing under section 7 (3) and who sought clarification of definitions and regulations. I advise the member that the terms "qualifications", "experience", and "practical knowledge" will be used according to their standard dictionary definition. There will not be a need for a separate regulation to expand on this. If the member needs further clarification, staff in my office will be happy to work with him in relation to the matter.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Send him a dictionary.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Maybe a computer. The Government wants the most appropriate qualifications for a particular skill. Clearly that will not always be a PhD or some other highbrow degree; it will be the most appropriate qualification. The member also queried why the Government is requiring qualifications for some skills and for others it is requiring practical knowledge. The Government requires an appropriate mix of formal qualifications and practical knowledge to ensure that the board brings the best possible range of skills and talent to produce the best outcome for the Sydney catchment.

As the opening remark of the member for Keira was somewhat puzzling I cannot leave it without correction. He said that "the Sydney Catchment Authority has nothing to do with the price of water". The Sydney Catchment Authority does not give water away for free. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] determines the prices for the Sydney Catchment Authority. It sells water to both Sydney Water and local councils. Further, the Sydney Catchment Authority has capital works programs that are cost recovered through Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal-determined prices. Not only does it charge for its water; it also can have a significant impact on water prices through the quality of water supplied to Sydney Water. Higher quality water means lower water treatment costs for Sydney Water, which places a downward pressure on prices. Better governance can help to ensure better quality water.

The member for Balmain spoke at length about the merit-based selection process. I have already addressed his concerns about various organisations being excluded—which they are not—as have a number of other speakers on this side of the House. He also raised concern about "cavalier Ministers" and in doing so implied that Ministers should not be trusted. He suggested instead that we should be putting our trust in a select few organisations and a single person elected to local government. I remind the member for Balmain that the Minister responsible for the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act is the elected representative of the voters of New South Wales. I will be seeking, and pleased to receive, the nominations of these organisations but there will be no automatic appointments. It is important for us to carefully examine each and every candidate in order to select the best people to fill these positions—the New South Wales public expects no less.

I turn now to the process of the merit-based selection for the board, which will involve seeking nominations and advertising widely. The nominations will be scrutinised by a selection panel specifically convened for the task. The panel will look for the best mix of the required skills and expertise, and it will conduct interviews to allow these candidates to expand on their applications. Following this, the panel will put a number of recommendations to me, including reasons for its recommendations. I will look carefully at those recommendations before making any decision. I am passionate about proper, merit-based selection. Since becoming Minister I have made it very clear that there are no automatic appointments and no automatic renewals. Every appointment or proposed appointment must be carefully scrutinised to ensure that the best people are appointed.

I repeat: there will be no automatic appointments. The bill will ensure that the selection process is completely merit based and that the skill set required is broad and in the best interests of the community. The member for Toongabbie, despite being a former Minister responsible for the Sydney Catchment Authority, seems to have a real lack of understanding of this issue. He mentioned the allocation of Acts. If he were to take the time to read them he would see that I am the Minister responsible for the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998—the fact that this bill stands in my name should have been some sort of clue for him. The former Minister did not even realise that as the Sydney Catchment Authority is not a State-owned corporation there is no shareholding Minister.

It is quite troubling that the member for Toongabbie does not seem to realise that the Sydney Water Corporation—for which Minister Pearce is the portfolio Minister, not the shareholding Minister—and the Sydney Catchment Authority are quite separate organisations. No wonder the former Government had so many problems when a former Minister, indeed a former Premier, does not even have this basic understanding. The bill seeks to ensure that the composition of the board of the Sydney Catchment Authority is as diverse as the community it serves. The bill continues the process of ongoing improvement by introducing changes to the key area of governance, in particular the composition of the board. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 58

Mr Anderson
Mr Annesley
Mr Aplin
Mr Ayres
Mr Baird
Mr Bassett
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Bromhead
Mr Brookes
Mr Conolly
Mr Constance
Mr Cornwell
Mr Coure
Mrs Davies
Mr Dominello
Mr Doyle
Mr Edwards
Mr Elliott
Mr Evans

Mr Flowers
Mr Fraser
Mr Gee
Mr George
Ms Gibbons
Ms Goward
Mr Grant
Mr Gulaptis
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Holstein
Mr Issa
Mr Kean
Mr Notley-Smith
Mr Owen
Mr Page
Ms Parker
Mr Patterson
Mr Perrottet

Mr Piccoli
Mr Provest
Mr Roberts
Mr Rohan
Mr Rowell
Mrs Sage
Mr Sidoti
Mrs Skinner
Mr Speakman
Mr Spence
Mr Stokes
Mr Toole
Ms Upton
Mr Ward
Mr Webber
Mr R. C. Williams

Tellers,
Mr Maguire
Mr J. D. Williams

Noes, 20

Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery

Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mrs Perry
Mr Rees

Mr Robertson
Ms Tebbutt
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari
Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Lalich

Pair

Mr Humphries

Mr Park

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson agreed to:

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

CO-OPERATIVES (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—The Assistant-Speaker) [7.54 p.m.]: I support this voluminous piece of legislation and congratulate the Minister for Fair Trading on the work he has done on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012. As we all know, cooperatives in regional New South Wales are an integral part of our community, from the banana growers cooperative through to cooperative stores, credit unions, et cetera. The proposed reform will simplify the requirements for cooperatives that want to carry on business across State or territory borders. The cross-border provisions in the law aim to ensure that the same requirements apply to a cooperative when it wants to carry on business in a State or Territory, other than the jurisdiction in which it originally registered; enable the registrar for cooperatives in each State or Territory to withdraw the authorisation of a cooperative registered outside its jurisdiction to carry on business in its jurisdiction if the cooperative does not obey the law; and remove cumbersome cross-border requirements that currently apply to cooperatives, but not to companies, thereby removing disincentives for the formation of cooperatives.

Currently, the New South Wales Act makes a distinction between the cooperatives law of another jurisdiction that is substantially the same as the New South Wales cooperatives law. Cooperatives registered in such a jurisdiction are known as participating cooperatives. Where the cooperatives law of a jurisdiction is not substantially the same as the New South Wales law, cooperatives registered under that law are known as non-participating cooperatives. The cross-border requirements differ between these two types of cooperatives. For example, a non-participating cooperative may need to provide additional paperwork to the registrar of the jurisdiction in which it wishes to carry on business. An assessment can then be made as to whether that cooperative can be registered in that jurisdiction as a foreign cooperative to carry on business. Foreign cooperatives, from the perspective of New South Wales, are those cooperatives that were not first registered in New South Wales but that wish to carry on business in New South Wales.

Under the Co-operatives National Law, this distinction between different laws and the types of cooperatives is not required. This is because the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement means that all jurisdictions will apply either the Co-operatives National Law or alternative law that is consistent with that law. Under the current New South Wales law, a foreign cooperative is prohibited from carrying on business in New South Wales unless it is registered under that law. The registration process may be quite complex, with different arrangements for participating and non-participating cooperatives, fees and the ongoing lodgement of documents with the registrar. Under the Co-operatives National Law, it is proposed to replace the registration system with an automatic authorisation system. While this system will prohibit a cooperative from carrying on business in a jurisdiction unless it is authorised to do so, authorisation will be automatic.

This will mean that a cooperative registered in any State or Territory under the law will be authorised to carry on business in New South Wales or in any other jurisdiction unless that authorisation ceases. The authorisation will be subject to the same conditions or restrictions that apply to the cooperative carrying on its business in the jurisdiction in which it was registered. The authorisation ceases where a cooperative is deregistered or otherwise ceases to exist as a cooperative under the law or where a registrar in a jurisdiction withdraws the authorisation. The following current requirements will be removed as a result of the reform of the cross-border business laws. These requirements currently need to be met for each State or Territory in which a cooperative successfully applies to carry on business in that jurisdiction.

The cooperative must complete and lodge the initial set of documents, including the cooperative's rules, for registration as a foreign cooperative. A participating cooperative needs to apply for a compliance certificate from the jurisdiction in which the cooperative was first registered and which is valid for only two months. A non-participating cooperative will probably need to lodge additional paperwork to enable a registrar to determine whether the cooperative can be registered in that jurisdiction. Average fees for registering as a foreign cooperative in all jurisdictions—other than the jurisdiction of original registration—and for obtaining a compliance certificate are about $1,250. A cooperative has to provide ongoing advice to the registrar of certain changes affecting the foreign cooperative, for example, changes to the rules or the directors.

A cooperative has to lodge with the registrar within six months of the end of every financial year a copy of its balance sheet and supporting documents. The proposed cross-border business reform under the Co-operatives National Law will simplify requirements and reduce the costs for a cooperative that wishes to conduct business across jurisdictional borders. The proposed reform will also mean that cooperatives will be regulated in a similar way to companies when doing business across borders. This reform will remove the disincentive to form a cooperative because of the more cumbersome cross-border requirements and fees that presently apply. It would be remiss of me in speaking to this legislation not to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Gerald Beresford Ponsonby Peacocke, a former Minister for Cooperatives and a great supporter of cooperatives, and one of his senior policy advisers, James McCall, who is now head of the Motor Traders Association of New South Wales, which, in effect, is a form of cooperative.

Those two men greatly contributed to the heart of regional New South Wales forming cooperatives as a basis of doing business in New South Wales. This enabled small groups of businesses such as motor traders, credit unions, banana grower cooperatives and other grower organisations in New South Wales to form a business unit to assist in the marketing of produce and the production of value-added goods from their lines. As a result of the time I spent with those two gentlemen—one as a colleague in this House and the other as a senior staff member of the Hon. Gerald Beresford Ponsonby Peacocke—I came not only to regard cooperatives very highly but also to understand fully the great work cooperatives performed as a collective of people in regional New South Wales. I appreciated also that cooperatives provided opportunities for growers, by their acting collectively, to demand premium prices for their produce. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.02 p.m.]: I speak on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012. Earlier today I witnessed something unusual when the member for Bankstown praised the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Anthony Roberts. I acknowledge that the Minister is a very good member, but it is unusual for the member for Bankstown in particular to support an initiative of the Government. However, I will go one step further. Although I believe that Minister Roberts does an excellent job, I believe his staff do an excellent job also; they are studious, intelligent and forthright. They have done excellent work in assisting the Minister to draft legislation for the uniform Co-operative National Law in New South Wales as the host jurisdiction, in line with the arrangements in the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement.

This bill is of particular importance to my electorate and constituents. The Tweed electorate is located in the most northern part of New South Wales adjacent to the Gold Coast, Queensland. The Gold Coast is the sixth largest city in Australia. I have often said in this House that our front door is Queensland and our backdoor is New South Wales. As 30 per cent of my constituents work in Queensland, there is a lot of interaction between the border areas. Cooperatives are groups of people with common interests, such as fishing cooperatives or banana growers. There are many and varied cooperatives. For cooperatives in my area to successfully operate they must be registered in both States, thus creating a doubling up of administration, registration and reporting costs. In many cases these costs have been prohibitive. The Gold Coast is the largest economic driver within my region and is probably Australia's number one tourism destination. It is also one of the fastest-growing regions. Many cooperatives on the other side of the border cannot expand and offer similar services in New South Wales, which is why this bill is so important.

It would be remiss of me not to refer to the Coalition's recent appointment of a Cross-Border Commissioner, Steve Toms, a very experienced operator. One of his main aims is to resolve cross-border issues, and I am sure he would be supportive of this bill. Cooperatives enable people to work together to provide necessary services. In New South Wales there are 680 cooperatives owned by 1.8 million members, generating around $2.9 million worth of revenue each year. It is now generally agreed that the cost of meeting the full annual financial reporting requirements in the current cooperatives legislation may be excessive for many small cooperatives, given the nature and size of their operations. For example, an audit by a registered company auditor may range from $3,000 to $60,000 annually, depending on the complexity and size of the cooperative.

The existing cooperatives legislation in New South Wales—and most other States and Territories—requires all cooperatives to provide the Registrar of Co-operatives with an annual report each year. This includes an audited financial report and any report by the auditor or directors of the cooperative. Some jurisdictions, including New South Wales, may exempt cooperatives and certain people from the financial requirements of the legislation depending upon their particular circumstances. To assist small cooperatives—this affects regional and rural areas that have many small cooperatives—a small cooperative will not be required to prepare annual audited financial or director reports unless directed to do so by at least 5 per cent of the cooperative's members or by the Registrar of Co-operatives.

This relaxation of requirements under the Co-operatives National Law will be risk managed within the following framework. Small cooperatives will need to meet minimum annual reporting requirements to their members, as set out in the national regulations. These requirements will be consistent with keeping the members of a democratic, member owned and controlled organisation informed. The rules of a cooperative also may set out financial reporting requirements to its members in addition to what is specified in the national regulations. All cooperatives will be required to keep their financial records for seven years. This seeks to minimise the financial imposition on very small cooperatives, particularly those in border areas, and assist in their operations.

The electorate of the member for Monaro has cross-border problems between Queanbeyan and Canberra, and the electorate of the member for Albury has similar problems. However, those problems are magnified up north because of the large number of people moving to the area and its large population base. Currently, the Gold Coast's population is around 600,000 to 700,000 and growing. The population of the Tweed is 80,000 with 2.9 per cent growth; it is the fastest-growing regional area in New South Wales. I applaud the Minister's initiative and direction. I also compliment his staff on the efficient manner in which this bill was drafted. The key stakeholders were consulted on a regular basis. I am sure every member in this Chamber and everyone associated with cooperatives would applaud the Minister and support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [8.09 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012, which, as the name implies, is one of the many pieces of legislation in New South Wales that introduces complementary legislation to national laws.

Mr Stephen Bromhead: Who wrote your speech?

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I can assure the member for Myall Lakes I certainly wrote my own speech. To tell the truth, I did not write one. I am not going to read the whole overview of the bill but the first paragraph probably says it all:

jurisdictions

Obviously, since the legislation on cooperatives was first established in this Parliament in 1923 there have been quite a number of changes to it and also to the way that cooperatives operate. In the 1990s I was shadow Minister for cooperative societies and the Minister was the Hon. Gerry Peacocke, the former member for Dubbo. On 30 April 1992, I think it was, I led for the Opposition on a substantial piece of legislation that changed the 1923 Act. I want to place on record that I have always recognised Gerry Peacocke, the former National Party Minister for Cooperatives, for doing a sterling job in rewriting the cooperatives legislation during the term of the Coalition Government between 1988 and 1995. I know Gerry is not very well at the moment and I send my best wishes and those of all members to him. He had a proud legislative program in this place and on one particular occasion when I spoke to him he mentioned the Co-operatives Act and the Local Government Act as major reforms that he undertook.

I just wanted to make the point that the legislation that is now being incorporated into national laws has been changed many times by both sides of the House, and I must say there has been very little conflict between the major parties about how cooperatives should be regulated. Members have already referred to the role of cooperatives. I understand there are up to 800 in New South Wales. Some are longstanding cooperatives that have stood the test of time and have done an extremely good job of employing people. They have withstood the rigours of economic downturns and the like. Many others, of course, have fallen by the wayside either through a break-up in the relationship between the owners of the cooperatives or because of some economic trends.

Cooperatives cover industries such as child care and taxi services and of course they are very well known in the agriculture area, particularly in the dairy and banana industries. Cooperatives have been set up to provide various country services and have been well supported. There have been a number of cases over the years where a company has closed its doors, creating the potential to put many employees out of work. Subsequently, after taking legal and financial advice, on a number of occasions the affected employees of a company that was going broke took over the business and set up a cooperative society.

Of course, things have changed since 1992 in more ways than one. There has been an ongoing process at the Federal and State level to harmonise legislation around the country. Some of the major cooperatives that operate in this State and that are home grown now have a national focus. Obviously the deregulation of the dairy industry brought some changes to that industry. Victorian and New South Wales cooperative societies that never used to compete against each other, because they were basically restricted by State boundaries, were affected as a result of the national focus on their industries. There are many others; one of the members representing a North Coast electorate mentioned the banana industry and there is also the sugar industry, but I am unaware of the status of those cooperatives. They are also industries that have a national focus.

There has been a trend not only in cooperatives but in credit laws and so on to harmonise the legislation so that the participants in these businesses have one law no matter where they operate or in which State they trade. Therefore, I think the Government is doing the right thing. Obviously it has been accepted at a national level that there should be uniformity in cooperative laws around Australia. It appears from the Minister's second reading speech and the clauses of the bill that, as a result of this process, there have been minimal changes as far as the loss of any benefits in this State's legislation are concerned. All governments around Australia support this move. I support the bill before the House.

Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.16 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012. It is entirely fitting to be speaking to this bill in 2012 as it is the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives. Its passage would be a welcome acknowledgment in the celebration of cooperatives that this year brings. As the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "Co-operatives are a reminder to the international community that it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility." Indeed, economic viability and social responsibility are a hallmark of the O'Farrell Government. The International Year of Cooperatives, the Secretary-General said, is "intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions of cooperative enterprises" and also "highlights the strengths of the cooperative business model as an alternative means of doing business and furthering socioeconomic development".

Put simply, the Secretary-General is saying that cooperatives are about people. They enable people to work together to provide the services they themselves need. That sounds very much like a Liberal principle. The decisions made through cooperatives consider the need for profit as well as the needs and interests of members and their communities. They are people centred and membership driven and those factors clearly distinguish cooperative enterprises from other organisations. Cooperatives provide the type of organisational structure required for individuals and small businesses to acquire the goods and services they need from industries that are increasingly dominated by larger corporate organisations.

In New South Wales, as our colleague Richard Amery said, there are about 700 registered cooperatives, each with people at the centre of their businesses and organisations. With a membership of about 1.8 million people through those cooperatives and an employment level of approximately 10,000 people, cooperatives in New South Wales generate almost $3 billion in revenue annually. This is a significant part of the New South Wales economy. Nationally there are around 1,700 cooperatives operating in a diverse range of industries such as education, sporting clubs, dairy produce, petrol supplies, cotton growing, grocery supplies and tourism. They also provide vital services for our community such as housing, health care, child care, training and job search. In my electorate of Vaucluse there are about 10 cooperatives.

These include the Briars Ski Club Co-operative Ltd in Woollahra; the famous Bondi Icebergs Club Co-operative Ltd off the southern side of Bondi Beach, which has a rich history dating back to 1929; the Rose Bay RSL Club Co-operative Ltd, known as Club Rose Bay, in Vickery Avenue, where I attended a memorable Anzac Day ceremony last week; and last but not least the Waverley-Woollahra Arts Centre Co-operative Ltd, which was established in 1968 to provide art and craft classes to the community and in doing so provide employment to local artists. At present cooperatives are regulated by legislation in each State and Territory, as our colleagues have noted tonight, under the Core Consistent Provisions Scheme, which was established in the mid-1990s. This bill, which I applaud, will be part of making legislation largely consistent between the States and Territories and will update the administration, oversight and regulation of cooperatives.

It has been well over a decade since this regulation was reviewed, and so it is timely. The uniform template, the Co-operatives National Law, in this bill will provide enhanced consistency of regulation across States and Territories. As other members have said, each State will apply the template directly in its jurisdiction or it will make legislation consistent with the law within 12 months of the assent of the law in New South Wales. I make a plea to the other States and Territories that that they adopt this model as consistently as they can because the whole policy intent behind harmonisation is that each State and Territory has harmonised law that does not provide for inconsistencies or differences between States. We must make that happen so that this national law operates as it is intended to.

The bill will provide greater certainty for not only cooperatives but also regulators in each State and Territory on the rights, duties and powers relating to cooperatives. It will assist in lowering the cost to cooperatives, simplify their paperwork and cut red tape for cross-border operations between cooperatives. They are worthy policy objectives. This bill also will help address key problems within the existing New South Wales Co-operatives Act 1992. Registered cooperatives in New South Wales, or anywhere in Australia, will be mutually recognised in other jurisdictions. This will save them time and money on compliance fees and registration, enabling them to do business across our State and Territory borders. Financial reporting and auditing requirements will be simplified for smaller cooperatives through a risk assessment based system.

One aspect of the bill that is dear to my heart and a former interest of mine before I entered this august Parliament is that the responsibilities and duties of directors and officers will be updated to align with the requirements of directors and officers that apply under the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001. As a former director and legal counsel at the Australian Institute of Company Directors I understand the benefits of clarifying and making uniform the responsibility of directors and officers in our State and across the nation. I believe there is a need for a broad business judgement defence or a safe harbour for directors that is consistent across our Commonwealth, State and Territory laws. Surveys conducted across Australia—in which I was involved and which the Australian Institute of Company Directors has continued with since—of directors of large and small companies and cooperatives clearly indicate that a safe harbour or a business judgement defence, such as we have in this bill, will add to the ability of those directors to make strategic decisions and manage the risks of the organisations that they lead.

The business judgement defence in new section 192 (2) states that directors and officers who make a business judgement are taken to have exercised their duty of care and diligence under the legislation and at common law and in equity if they make the judgement in good faith for a proper purpose, they do not have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the decision, they inform themselves about the subject matter of the decision to the extent they believe to be appropriate, and they rationally believe that the judgement is in the best interests of the cooperative. If the actions of directors and officers meet the criteria—which mirror the provisions in the Commonwealth law relating to directors—they should not, with the benefit of hindsight, be liable for errors of judgement. That is simply unfair, and the provisions in this bill recognise that. Commerce in this State and indeed our nation's prosperity rely upon reasonable risk-taking by businesses and cooperatives. This law reform enables directors and officers of co-operatives who carry out their duties, no doubt diligently, to better focus on their decision-making in the interests of their members.

This bill is part of the broader approach of the Government aimed at reducing regulation and red tape. It is about recognising that unnecessary regulation can stifle the enterprise, focus and strategy of businesses in the community. Our aim is to increase the competitiveness of New South Wales as a business destination. This is part of what I call a pruning of the massive build-up of legislation that occurred under the Labor Government. The former Government made new laws, often ad hoc, and amended existing legislation without proper analysis of whether the underlying law actually needed to be reviewed or indeed repealed. We often found that laws were disproportionate to the problem they were aimed at solving, and that always means unintended consequences. The growth in regulation under the former Government and the resultant administrative costs were large and costly issues for our community. The O'Farrell Government understands that and is acting accordingly, not only in the area of cooperatives but more broadly across State legislation.

The Government has made regulatory reform a target in its 10-year State Plan, NSW 2012. The Government will reduce red tape for businesses and communities by 20 per cent by 2015, and I applaud that objective. As we have seen, governments acting in isolation can create regulatory regimes that are inconsistent or overlap, creating unnecessary hurdles for activities that span the State and Territories. I believe this bill is a breath of fresh air in that regard as it introduces consistency and uniformity. New South Wales is the host jurisdiction, of which we should all be proud. Other participating jurisdictions will step up to the plate shortly. In summary, this bill will deliver benefits to the sector of cooperatives across New South Wales and the national economy. I welcome it. It will be a positive and welcome difference to all 1,700 cooperatives in this country and, indeed, the many cooperatives in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.26 p.m.]: I am delighted to make a contribution to the Co-operatives (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012, which will bring about national law in New South Wales as the host jurisdiction in line with arrangements in the Australian Uniform Co-operatives Laws Agreement. I have long talked about the need to have uniform laws across Australia, and I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit through discussions with the Council of Australian Governments to bring this legislation to this place. This bill will reduce red tape and allow cooperatives throughout Australia to operate in a uniform manner. One only has to go back a short time in history when there were different railway gauges to see that we could not agree on anything. There will always be issues about which we cannot come to an agreement, such as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I suspect there will be much debate on that.

We all agree on the issues in this bill, the provisions of which were so eloquently stated by the member for Vaucluse. Many members in this place have very successful cooperatives in their electorates. Over the years cooperatives have come under enormous competitive pressure to offer benefits to their members. Sadly, many of them have gone by the wayside and succumbed to those business pressures that enterprise and competition bring. But others have flowered, succeeded and expanded. Two that come to mind are the Riverina Co-operative Ltd in Wagga Wagga and the Batlow Fruit Co-operative Ltd. Many members of this place have enjoyed Batlow apples that have been brought to Parliament for promotion purposes.

For many years the Batlow community has prospered from the advent of the cooperative. That cooperative has allowed the growers to get together to market their product, build facilities and create employment in the town. They have faced challenges together as only a united community can. The community is united in trying to benefit their town and the cooperative. Recently I travelled with the Minister to inspect the terrible hail damage at Batlow that wiped out the crop for the next three years. We met with board members of the cooperative, the local council, the mayor and growers and inspected the facilities. I believe it is the strength of membership that is the benefit of a cooperative. Although this bill deals with the national law and regulations, the reality is that the strength of membership and the board bring about prosperity to the growers and help them to meet challenges such as a terrible hailstorm.

Last week I received correspondence from John Power, the Chief Executive Officer of Batlow Fruit Co-operative, providing an update on the hail damage. He informed me that they are only a few weeks away from the harvest, and that 22,000 bins of hail-damaged fruit will be packed and about 5,000 of those bins of fruit will be juiced. That cooperative and its growers have suffered enormous damage. Their problem is that they have a contract to sell that juice and they need assistance. I am proud and pleased to say that the Minister and her department have been meeting with the cooperative directors and others to arrange assistance to enable them to meet the challenge of dealing with the damaged fruit. In the end that will result in sales. In fact, it has been suggested that the increase in orders is such that even using the damaged stock they will be stretched, but they believe they can rise to the challenge. As a cooperative, that group has had much more influence than it would otherwise have had.

The fact that officers from the Department of Primary Industries and others have met with them gives me hope that the situation will be resolved. In the end that will benefit the community, and that is ultimately what cooperatives are all about. I mentioned the Riverina Co-operative, which has delivered many benefits to its members. I declare that I have been a proud member of that cooperative for the 24 years that I have lived in Wagga Wagga. It is another group of growers and producers buying and marketing produce to obtain better prices and to create employment opportunities for its local community. The board members of Batlow and Riverina cooperatives have great acumen but their most obvious characteristic is their community commitment. Their only interest is in ensuring that the cooperative prospers, that its members benefit and that they deliver for their community. This bill deals with the myriad legislation that we must deal with daily across Australia.

The trucking industry is a good example of an industry that faces challenges because it does business across State boundaries, and I could cite many other examples that must be addressed. We have had a number of debates on legislation such as this and I suspect that we will have more addressing the regulatory inconsistencies across this country. We are a population of 22 million people and we know that red tape is imposing huge costs on businesses. Ultimately that cost is passed on to taxpayers and shareholders. That money could be used to pay dividends or invested to create jobs. The member for Vaucluse and the Minister have effectively articulated the benefits that this bill will deliver with the application of uniform national law and addressed the five key problems in the Co-operatives Act 1992. This bill addresses various machinery issues in the administration of cooperatives and deals with savings and transitional matters. Those issues are important and addressing them will benefit cooperatives. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Stephen Bromhead and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Government business having concluded, the House will now proceed with the matter of public importance.

AUSTRALIAN YEAR OF THE FARMER

Matter of Public Importance

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [8.35 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to advise the House that 2012 is the Australian Year of the Farmer. It would be impossible in the five minutes available to me to do justice to the role played by people whom we loosely describe as farmers and to honour what they do to enhance our way of life. The work done by farmers throughout the world could never be recognised adequately in a debate as brief as this. The term "farmer" or "primary producer" covers many people and many industries. In raising this matter I exclude no-one who produces the food and drink that we consume or the clothing that we wear. Many debates in this House highlight the negative side of being a farmer, and we must recognise the challenges that they face. In producing their crops they must withstand floods, drought, fires and disease. They are also challenged daily by myriad laws and regulations that have been enacted to ensure that they protect the environment and do their bit to prevent disease.

This year we recognise the thousands of people who plough their fields, manage large flocks and herds, and work in intensive primary industries. The member for Wagga Wagga spoke earlier about the problems that producers in the Batlow area have confronted recently. That is also true of citrus growers and wine producers in the Murrumbidgee area. Tens of thousands of people work on the land every day, sometimes in very difficult circumstances created by the natural environment, by international competition and so on. These people produce our world famous wines, the highest quality fruit, vegetables and meat, and some of the world's finest wool, cotton and other fibres. The range of products they grow is too large to detail.

This year we as a nation are celebrating farmers, but as a member of the New South Wales Parliament I will focus on our State's producers. Our agricultural industries are an important part of both our national and our State economies. NSW Farmers Association figures indicate that agriculture contributes some $10.2 billion to this State's economy. A fair proportion of that is produced by irrigators in the west of the State and in outer Sydney. Growers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area also produce a large range of fruit and vegetables. Australia has six States and two Territories, and the farming sector of this State, which employs more than 122,000 people, delivers more than one-quarter of the country's agricultural production.

While recognising the worth of our farmers we should encourage metropolitan residents to visit rural areas to observe the work done by people on the land who we know as farmers. Some farmers refer to themselves as "irrigators" and some egg producers refer to themselves as working in an intensive industry. Some are horticulturalists, wine producers and so on. My intention in speaking on this matter is to recognise the fact that the level of primary production in our State, in every region, including the Sydney Basin, is something we should all be proud of and recognise in this Australian Year of the Farmer. I am pleased to recognise those great citizens who do a fine job for our community, for our State and for the State's economy.

Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.40 p.m.]: I join with the member for Mount Druitt and thank him for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I agree with him that the short time frame we have to speak on this important issue is not sufficient to do justice to what is a wonderful initiative. As the member for Mount Druitt said, 2012 has been declared the Australian Year of the Farmer. This initiative will provide the opportunity to showcase, promote and celebrate farmers in the agricultural sector throughout the year. The objectives of the Australian Year of the Farmer are comprehensive and include establishing closer ties between Australia's rural and urban communities, celebrating the broad range and fine quality of the produce our farmers grow and harvest, showing the way in which Australia is leading the world in farming techniques and innovation, highlighting the essential role of Australian agriculture in the maintenance of national and global food security, and promoting the role of farmers who play an essential role as environmental managers, creating and delivering sustainability through best practice management.

The Australian Year of the Farmer recognises farmers for their work in feeding the nation and sustaining our vital agribusinesses. Its purpose is to communicate to all Australians the importance of farming and rural communities to our national economy and social fabric. The Australian Year of the Farmer will encourage Australians to reflect on the origins of the food they consume every day and to strengthen the call to buy Australian produce. Finally, it will put the focus on preparation for the future of farming in Australia by creating an awareness of the career opportunities that exist in agriculture and related areas. The Australian Farmer of the Year 2012 initiative was launched officially last year by the patron of the organisation, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, AC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Appropriately, the launch was held at the site of Australia's first farm within the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney.

New South Wales has joined other States in making significant contributions to the establishment of the Year of the Farmer and has provided a significant support. Since the establishment of the Year of the Farmer the NSW Department of Primary Industries has held regular meetings with the team members of the Australian Year of the Farmer. One of the team members is Glenn McGrath—a great Narromine guy and an ambassador for the Australian Year of the Farmer. I had the privilege of catching up with him recently at the Royal Easter Show. A New South Wales planning committee was established to enable coordinated planning and promotion of New South Wales events throughout this year to support the key themes and messages that I referred to earlier.

The Government's support for this initiative was showcased recently during the Royal Easter Show when the Department of Primary Industries display in the Dome was themed with Our Farming Future—a theme consistent with the goal of the Australian Year of the Farmer. Throughout this year the Government will work closely with industry partners and stakeholders to showcase our farmers and their many achievements. We will do this through events such as the New South Wales Farmer and Young Farmer of the Year awards. We will also continue to identify events that enable us to engage with consumers, to bring home the important message of the Australian Year of the Farmer, which is about developing a better understanding and appreciation of where our food and fibre products come from.

Like many within this Chamber, I come from a farming heritage. For a number of generations my family were proud dairy farmers on the Allyn River in the Hunter Valley. My wife's family were cane and small crop farmers from Bundaberg. I know from firsthand experience some of the challenges that the member for Mount Druitt referred to. I have experienced the resilience of my father-in-law and his family—Rino Arnicar, his brother, Lou Arnicar, my good friend, Gavan McLennan, and my brother-in-law, Paul. I have seen the challenges they face and their level of resilience. It stands them in good stead and is often under-appreciated and under-recognised.

The resilience of our farmers through the challenges of droughts, floods, pestilence and the financial and economic ups and downs is amazing to witness. On a recent tour of the New South Wales Riverina for the Murray-Darling Basin consultations I saw some young farmers who were doing magnificent things within the industry through efficiencies. I know our farming future is in great hands. The Government is delivering services that are relevant and that will make a difference to our hardworking rural and regional communities. What we want to deliver for our primary industries is not just money but also value for money. The Australian Year of the Farmer initiative is to be commended.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [8.45 p.m.]: In recognising the 2012 Australian Year of the Farmer I offer this contribution, an email that arrived on my desk on 7 March 2012 from Kim Barnes, who says:

She is talking about coal seam gas. She goes on to say:

So, I tell you this and ask you to carry this in your heart with any dealings you have with government in the hope your heart may influence a little significant turn in policy in some way. We, as farmers are so very scared, we love our land so much that it hurts ... we are so connected to the environment that we cannot imagine that any government would want to take part in a coal seam gas mining scheme where not enough studies have been done... I am an educated person who could be making money elsewhere ... but instead I choose to stand by my husband on this farm because I love it. Today, even though I know there are good individuals in government in all parties, I feel that I don't want to vote any more for anyone.

I offer that to the House because it is a heartfelt plea from a farmer—a farmer who is married to a farmer and who shares the land. We are on a precipice at the moment with coal seam gas. I do not want this to be a political statement. I acknowledge that Labor has given out 14 petroleum exploration licences over the past 16 years and I acknowledge that the Government is in an opportune situation to make decisions about the future. We must work together on that. It is all very well to stand in this House and applaud everything our farmers do and the food they produce, but we have to get policy right: it has to be right for them. Kim goes on to say, "I may be a farmer but I would vote for someone with your ethics". I wonder about the great divide between being a farmer and the opportunity to vote for a Labor person. I hope that we are not so far apart that Kim, at some stage in the future, might be able to vote for this young fellow from Labor. But Kim feels frightened.

The year of the Australian farmer is about celebrating the connections between rural and urban Australia—$405 billion created in our economy and 27 per cent of our gross domestic product. Careers in farming include marketing, sales, science, biotechnology, engineering, agronomy and information technology. Six young girls from Cessnock High School recently won the Cows Create Careers national competition. The Hunter has Tocal College, which trains students for agricultural careers. Tocal College opened in 1965 but it did not enrol its first female student until 1972. We are indeed lucky to have farmers in our community. Heads up to Norm Smith, the New South Wales Farmer of the Year in 2011-12 and to Mark Green, the New South Wales Young Farmer of the Year in 2011-12.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [8.48 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the members for Dubbo and Cessnock, who spoke on this matter, and thank them for their contributions. The member for Dubbo represents a part of the State that is very different from that of the member for Cessnock and certainly much different from the electorate that I represent. His electorate contains broadacre properties and is more affected by drought than is mine or that of the member for Cessnock. We have different industries. The member for Cessnock is proud of the fact that his region has a great winegrowing area, like the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and new areas such as Mudgee. Sometimes within the farming community light-hearted debates are had about whether someone is a wool producer, meat producer, horticulturist or viticulturist but this discussion of a matter of public importance is in recognition of the work of all farmers.

The member for Cessnock referred to an email he had received about coal seam gas. That is but one of the many issues confronting farmers that may affect the future of their industry. Farmers in western Sydney may be fearful about urban sprawl, a second international airport or the capacity of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system to continue the long-term sustainability of the industries in the area—I am confident they will be sustainable—while farmers in western New South Wales may be fearful about things such as coal seam gas exploration and water reform.

Over the years farmers have faced many challenges, including deregulation, microeconomic inform, environment policies et cetera. Whilst they may not have liked many of those challenges, they have sat at the table and made a contribution. Farmers want to continue to be seated at the table when those decisions are made. As legislators at both the State and the Federal level it is important that we hear the voice of the farmers when considering these necessary environmental and economic reforms. I again thank the members for the electorates of Dubbo and Cessnock for supporting this matter of public importance. I am sure all members wish our farmers the very best for the future of their industry, which I am confident is a sound one.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): As a member representing a regional electorate I thank the member for Mount Druitt for raising this matter of public importance.

Discussion concluded.

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2012

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
__________

SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY FORUM

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn—Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Women) [8.51 p.m.]: Last year the Government released New South Wales 2021: the Government's 10-year strategic plan to rebuild the State and make New South Wales number one again. This year the Government has taken its draft plans to the community to seek feedback and suggestions, which will contribute to the final plans to be released later this year. On 18 April at Mittagong I was proud to host one of the largest turn outs to a New South Wales 2021 forum. More than 170 constituents braved an extraordinarily cold, wet, highlands evening to participate in the most consultative process this State has ever seen. I was accompanied by my Cabinet colleague Chris Hartcher, whose role as Minister for Resources and Energy was well exercised by the end of the evening.

A discussion paper outlining priorities important to the Illawarra region had been prepared as a starting point. Small discussion groups were then led by a facilitator to answer questions. What are your priorities for the region? What actions should the New South Wales Government take to deliver the priorities for the Illawarra? The northern part of my electorate has long been included as part of the Illawarra region, yet if you ask a resident of Bowral, Mittagong, Moss Vale or a resident from one of the villages nestled in the surrounding countryside, they will proudly call themselves a Southern Highlander; just as the southern residents think of themselves as hailing from the Southern Tablelands. Not unsurprisingly, the night's first resolution was to seek a regional name that defines who we are. Ideas were discussed and thrown into the mix.

"Hume Corridor" was mooted, but we do not want people to think of us as an area just for passing through. In the end the consensus was for the self-explanatory "Southern Highlands/Tablelands" and the meeting asked for a regional action plan to be developed for this newly defined region. The discussion groups reached a consensus on more than half a dozen priorities, including mining, transport, health services, the economy, the environment, and support for both the older and youngest members of the community. None of them came as a surprise to me—they are the very issues that are presented to my office on a daily basis. The impact of mining exploration activities in the Southern Highlands has galvanised the local community. Ever since Peter and Kim Martin, conveners of the Southern Highlands Coal Action Group, raised this with me in July 2010 the determination of local landowners and residents to reject mining in the highlands has been evident.

Mining is simply inappropriate under one of the largest aquifers in the State. Surely my colleagues will remember the previous Government's attempts to tap into the same aquifer during the last drought before mothballing the project in favour of the desalination plant. The then Government's determination to proceed to extract water for Sydney was based on the confirmation of the vast size of the aquifer, its purity, and excellent rate of recharge. For precisely the same reasons I am confident that the Aquifer Interference Regulation will protect this region from mining. Mining dominated the question and answer session.

Minister Hartcher answered questions in his forthright way, while assuring the community that all stakeholder groups would be involved in the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy to be mapped out for the Southern Highlands and which will be in place before the end of the year. When questioned about a moratorium on new mining licences the Minister quoted three zeros: zero renewed exploration licences, zero new exploration licences, and zero fracking licences under the O'Farrell Government. Minister Hartcher said he could not stop Hume Coal from continuing exploratory drilling until its renewal licence was determined. Of course, community submissions will be considered as the process requires. The bad old days of brown paper bag determinations are over.

Part 3A, an old Labor legacy that allowed State significant development decisions to be determined by the Minister alone, has thankfully been abolished. The introduction of part 5 to the planning Act sees equivalent development proposals determined by the Planning Assessment Commission—an independent body. Other issues raised in the hour-long discussion period included the need for a new Bowral hospital, improved transport, affordable housing and economic growth to provide local jobs. Renewable energy was raised and participants were pleased to learn that Parliamentary Secretary for Renewable Energy Rob Stokes is preparing a discussion paper. New South Wales 2021 includes a target to achieve 20 per cent renewable energy by 2021.

Feedback from the evening has been overwhelmingly positive. Many concerns were put to rest and the excitement of being able to contribute to the discussion about our region was evident—a truly democratic process. Over the next couple of months regional action plans, which will identify the priority actions to be delivered by the Government for each region, will be finalised. On Friday of this week the city of Goulburn will host a transport master plan forum—another hot topic in my electorate. I encourage my constituents to come along, as it is an excellent opportunity to speak directly to both the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads and Ports, who will be present on the night.

NSW POLICE FORCE 150TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [8.56 p.m.]: This year the NSW Police Force celebrates 150 years of policing. On Tuesday 17 April, as part of those celebrations, the Brisbane Water, Tuggerah Lakes and Lake Macquarie local area commands joined together to march in commemoration of the 150-year anniversary of the NSW Police Force as one organisation. The Brisbane Water, Tuggerah Lakes and Lake Macquarie local area commands comprise 12 police stations and have 672 officers, whose responsibility extends over the population of three local government areas. Serving police and retired officers marched proudly from The Entrance police station to Memorial Park accompanied by the police marching band, and despite the cold and rain a great crowd lined the streets to cheer as it passed.

I have acknowledged the great work done by police in this House before. These outstanding men and women dedicate their lives to serving their community in a challenging job that is sometimes unseen and thankless. It was a great privilege to be a part of this celebration and to have the opportunity to honour the men and women of our Police Force, both past and present, and to thank them for their service to our community. Attending a dedication to Chief Inspector Paul Baker at the new Wyong Police Station that morning made it all the more poignant. Chief Inspector Paul Baker—now deceased—was a member of Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command until he transferred to Waratah, where he succumbed to cancer. Superintendent David Swilks of Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command recounted:

We all learn from those who have gone before us, and behind each of us remains a legacy. Paul Baker left behind a legacy that inspires our serving officers, and will continue to inspire those who are not yet serving. The 150th anniversary of the NSW Police Force is a great reminder to us as a community of the roles our local police play, from enforcing law and justice to protecting and serving, and everything in between. I thank them for their service.

Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.00 p.m.]: I join the member for The Entrance and thank him for drawing to the attention of members the wonderful celebrations in the 150th year of the NSW Police Force. No doubt we are joined by another former police officer, the member for Mount Druitt, who is in the Chamber. We have both had the privilege of serving in the NSW Police Force at various times. I witnessed the police celebrations in Dubbo last Saturday. It was tremendous to see the level of community support for the NSW Police Force, particularly across the three local area commands of Brisbane Water, Tuggerah Lakes and Lake Macquarie, to which the member for The Entrance referred. These celebrations are a great opportunity for the community to engage with police. Having been a former colleague of Paul Baker, I join with the member for The Entrance in supporting the comments of Superintendant Swilks. Paul Baker was a fine man and a fine police officer. I take this opportunity to vale Paul Baker.

Private members' statements concluded.

The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 9.01 p.m. until
Thursday 3 May 2012 at 10.00 a.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 2 May 2012, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links