Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) [4.03 p.m.]: I speak to the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The Opposition does not oppose the bill in principle, however, it reserves its right to scrutinise the bill and propose any amendments necessary to achieve fairness, equity and transparency—issues about which the other side of the House knows little. Members of Parliament are in a very different situation to those thousands of public sector workers whose pay and conditions have been slashed by the Coalition Government. We do not have the same cost-of-living pressures as public sector workers. Nurses, teachers, social workers and all public sector workers earn half, if not less, of what we earn and the families they support will feel the brunt of the legislation. The real slap in the face is the fact that Barry O'Farrell—

Ms Robyn Parker: Premier O'Farrell.

Ms ANNA WATSON: Premier O'Farrell has rewarded 64 of his 88 Liberal and Nationals members of Parliament with new titles and associated cash bonuses. This bill is a cash splash that flies in the face of all that Premier O'Farrell promised prior to the election. Clearly, he cannot be trusted. More than seven out of 10 Liberal and Nationals members of Parliament will earn tens of thousands of dollars on top of their backbench salaries. Nurses, teachers and other public sector workers will be forced to have their wages cut to prop up these new cash splashes for those opposite. This bill is nothing more than a blatant grab for cash. One week ago 12,000 workers—make no mistake about that—gathered out the front of Parliament House and protested about this legislation.

Premier O'Farrell and the lot opposite prior to the election promised to listen to the people of New South Wales. I did not see one Government member out the front listening to the people—not one. All Government members should hang their heads in shame. Nearly every Liberal and Nationals member of Parliament has been given a whopping pay increase off the backs of public sector workers who were never told of this intention before 26 March 2011. Not one word was said about it. The Government cannot be trusted. Barry O'Farrell has broken his promise to scale back paid parliamentary positions. In fact, he has increased them by appointing quasi committees and positions.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I do not want to interrupt the member's flow, but she is talking about matters outside the leave of this bill. The bill relates to remuneration for Ministers, members of Parliament, councillors, statutory officers, executives and visiting medical officers only. It does not relate to the group of workers to whom she is referring. I ask that the member return to discuss this particular bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member will return to the leave of the bill.

Ms ANNA WATSON: This bill really is not about fiscal discipline; it is all about spin. This bill has no substance. Members opposite should never underestimate the long memories of voters. We remember the little gem known as WorkChoices: the Howard Government introduced it and was dismissed on it. Here we are again in New South Wales with far-reaching changes and no independent umpire. This Government is so arrogant that it believes it has a mandate to destroy the earning capacity of our most valued workers and their families. For those on that side of the House—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I have no problem if the member addresses the issues contained in the bill, but she is not doing that. I indicate also that taking advice from the member for Wollongong probably is not a good idea. I ask that the member be brought back to the leave of this bill. I indicate also to the member that protocols in the Chamber require her to refer to the Leader of the Government as the Premier, not by name.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): The member will return to the leave of the bill.

Ms ANNA WATSON: For those on that side of the House I say one last thing: make no mistake, the people of your electorates will be outraged. They will vote with their feet at the next election. It is a race to the bottom.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [4.09 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I agree with the comments made earlier in the debate by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other speakers. We reserve the right to scrutinise the bill and to propose amendments. It is not the first time that members have spoken on a bill without seeing the detail, and the amount of time provided to us is not unusual. The Opposition has assisted the Government in terms of accepting a shorter time in which to scrutinise legislation. However, the Government must start meeting the rules and regulations of the House so that Opposition members have time to scrutinise the Government's proposals and study them carefully so that we can respond appropriately.

The Government cannot get away from the fact that its proposals are bad for public sector employees, and its proposals should be bad for those who inflicted the proposals on the public service. Labor members have no problem accepting a limited pay rise, given the salaries we receive, which are a different ball game to the salaries of public sector employees. Before the demonstration by more than 12,000 people outside Parliament House—indeed, before the election in March this year—members opposite were talking about transparency and how a Coalition Government would be accountable, open, honest and truthful. What have members opposite proven during their first days in government? They have proven that they are dishonest. As the member for Shellharbour said, not one Government member identified to the community—

Mr John Williams: Careful, Noreen.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Is the member for Murray-Darling threatening me? He should learn the rules of the Parliament.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order!

Ms NOREEN HAY: I will not be intimated by the member for Murray-Darling.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Murray-Darling and the member for Wollongong will direct their comments through the Chair.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I will not be intimated by the member for Murray-Darling not to contribute to this debate. It is not appropriate behaviour in the Parliament for the member to warn me to be careful.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Murray-Darling will desist.

Ms NOREEN HAY: It is a shame that Government members did not tell the truth before the election. That would have helped.

Mr Tony Issa: We did tell the truth.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Members opposite did not tell the truth. They did not tell public servants what the Government intended to do to them. They did not tell the public service their intentions.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I appreciate the enthusiasm of members opposite, but they should acknowledge that the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill refers only to members of Parliament, local councillors, statutory officers, senior executives and hospital visiting medical officers. On the basis of numerous decisions from the Chair, it is entirely inappropriate for members to revisit a debate that has already concluded. At present members opposite are seeking to debate a bill that has already been passed.

Speaker Kelly, a most excellent Labor Speaker, ruled that it is out of order for a member to refer to a debate already concluded. That was confirmed by Speaker Rozzoli in 1990 and 1992, relying on Speaker Kelly's determination. Members opposite should speak strictly about matters contained in the bill and not revisit a previous debate. Labor members, with the exception of the member for Heffron, had ample opportunity to speak in the previous debate. Now they must desist from referring to that debate.

Mr Richard Amery: On the point of order: First, the connection between this bill and general policy in the public service was not raised by the member for Wollongong or other Labor members. In fact, it was raised by the Premier when he introduced this bill. Secondly, earlier in the debate the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition responded to the Premier's contribution, and the member for Wollongong is simply referring to the points raised by those Labor members. I heard the previous points of order taken against the member for Wollongong and the member for Shellharbour. The Leader of the House is trying to truncate the debate to stop members talking. I make this point: the matters raised by Labor members were first raised by the Premier, to which the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition responded earlier today.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The bill before us is the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The member will return to the leave of the bill.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I am speaking to the bill and, as was said earlier, I am responding to comments made earlier in the debate. Nonetheless members of Parliament do not have the same cost-of-living pressures that nurses, teachers and social workers earning one half or one third of our salaries are now facing. The Premier has rewarded 64 of his 88 Liberal and Nationals members with new titles and cash bonuses to go with them. As the member for Shellharbour rightly said, the outrageous cash splash goes against everything the Premier promised prior to the election. I repeat: At no stage before the election did the Liberals and Nationals tell the community or public sector employees what they intended to do.

In fact, it was quite the reverse. Public sector employees and union members were told that they had nothing to fear from a Liberal-Nationals Government, that all would be well under them. Of course, it did not take long to show that that was not the case. As was said earlier, more than seven out of 10 Liberal and Nationals members will earn tens of thousands of dollars on top of their backbench salaries and taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. There is no getting away from that. That is what the Government has done. In the past it would have been described as a sleight of hand. What is the reality of the Premier's actions?

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Ms NOREEN HAY: I understand why members opposite do not want to hear this.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I would love to debate that matter with you because you, at the table of knowledge, with all those allegations of corruption, ended up as a parliamentary secretary on a massive bonus with car spaces everywhere.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The Leader of the House will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The member for Wollongong knows that she is talking drivel.

Ms NOREEN HAY: The Leader of the Government is low.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The queen of the table of knowledge.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The Acting-Speaker is right; I was responding to an interjection. My point of order is that the comments of the member for Wollongong are well outside the leave of the bill. If she has nothing to say you should sit her down, or she should sit down.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Excuse me. I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw his comments in relation to the table of knowledge and me. That lie has been corrected a number of times on the parliamentary record. Once again the Leader of the House has lied to the Parliament, much like the member for Murray-Darling did. Lies are placed on the record and members opposite get away with them every time. I have been forced time and time again to make a personal explanation to rectify the record because they continue to lie to the community. They lie in the Parliament. They have proven to be the same old, same old.

Mr John Williams: You want to take action against the press. They publish it.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! A previous Speaker has ruled on the inappropriate use of those words. The member for Wollongong should desist from using them in the Chamber.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I suggest that members opposite be asked to withdraw those comments. For the benefit of the member for Murray-Darling, the media never printed that I was at the table of knowledge. I will not be corrected on language while you are allowing members opposite to make all those comments.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Wollongong has the call.

Ms NOREEN HAY: There are two sides in this House and I think the behaviour of members on the opposite side has been extremely rude. They really should be called to order. The constant attempts at spin by the New South Wales Government are not good for financial management. It tried to cover up its attacks on public sector employees. It has misled the community and now it is trying to take the moral high ground by hiding the truth and the reality of its intentions.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [4.20 p.m.]: I support the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 in principle. The object of this bill is to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, the Local Government Act 1993, the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Act 1975 and the Health Services Act 1997. These amendments will apply the same government public sector wages cap and bind the Industrial Relations Commission to the determination of remuneration for Ministers and other members of Parliament, local councillors, statutory officers, public sector executives and hospital visiting medical officers. We in Opposition have the right to view, scrutinise and criticise bills and make suggestions and proposals for amendments. Premier Barry O'Farrell has just rewarded 64 of the 88 Liberal and Nationals members of Parliament with new titles and other salubrious bonuses.

In effect, these members of Parliament remain subject to the capped salary components of the bill. However, they are duly financially rewarded and generally unaffected by the salary cap thanks to their allegiance to Premier Barry O'Farrell. Any negative impacts imposed on the public sector as a result of legislative changes should be imposed on those who inflicted the unfair legislation and working conditions upon them. We in this House are in a very different situation from the nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers who were shafted recently by the Government. As a former teacher of 17 years and now the elected representative of the electorate of Fairfield, I am very aware of the cost of living pressures that face the hardworking nurses, teachers, firemen, and social workers who are earning half—

Mr John Williams: Point of order: It is very clear what this bill is about. There is no scope for any discussion outside the leave of the bill. Members opposite continually get on their old hobbyhorse. Let us get on with the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Fairfield will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr GUY ZANGARI: I refer to schedule 1, which amends the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, No. 160, which deals with the basic salary of members of Parliament. We all know what the basic salaries are for members of Parliament. As I was saying, in Fairfield and throughout New South Wales workers are earning one half or one third of our salaries. Talk about deal or no deal. The new members of Parliament get the deal and the nurses, teachers, firemen and social workers get no deal. This is amazing. The golden lining of pockets goes against everything the Premier promised prior to the election. The Government gets the goldmine and the workers of New South Wales get the shaft. I remind the Government of the 12,000 New South Wales workers who came to Parliament to voice their concerns.

Ms Robyn Parker: Point of order: I have sat here for some time listening to this debate and it is clear that the Opposition has to learn what debating legislation is all about. It is about sticking to the leave of a bill, not straying from it and talking about other matters. They are flouting your rulings time and again. This is about wages of members of Parliament; it is not about anything else. I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! We are dealing with the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The member should not rehash what has been discussed previously in this House.

Mr GUY ZANGARI: Going back to schedule 1, the amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, No. 160, I am speaking about the current basic salary of members of Parliament. New members are getting a nice salary increase while the public sector workers of New South Wales suffer the consequences of this arrogant Government. However, here are some of the members who missed the boat: the member for Granville, the member for Smithfield, the member for Rockdale and the member for Campbelltown. Don't worry, fellas—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The bill is pretty clear. If this is going to continue I will simply adjourn the bill until tonight and members opposite can talk a lot of rot during the night. They should stick to the bill. That was the deal. If the member for Fairfield does not want to stick to the bill I am quite happy for members opposite to talk to their heart's content tonight. That is what is going to happen.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Fairfield will return to the leave of the bill and not rehash other matters that have been debated previously in the House.

Mr GUY ZANGARI: I am referring to schedule 1, which deals with the amendment to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 and which was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite are receiving nice fat pay increases while workers are suffering. Seven out of 10 Liberal and Nationals members of Parliament will earn tens of thousands of dollars on top of their backbench salaries. The taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. Are the members for the electorates of Granville, Smithfield, Rockdale and Campbelltown listening? This is how much the Premier cares for you.

The Premier knows that you are only one-term wonders. He does not care about you or your electorates. The Premier has broken his promise to scale back paid parliamentary positions. Cash grabs go against what the Premier promised prior to the election: the wallets of 64 of the 88 Liberal and Nationals members are getting fatter. No salary cap here, folks, just one for the teachers, nurses, firemen, social workers and other public sector workers in Fairfield and throughout New South Wales. This is one aspect of the bill we oppose. That is why the Premier has brought this forward. This is not about fiscal discipline, it is about spin.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: If members needed a lesson in absolute stupidity, this is it. The member for Fairfield said he supported the bill. Now he is saying he opposes the bill. He has gone back to the speech he used in a previous debate. I have already referred to the decisions of the Chair. He is rehashing the speech. If he keeps this up the debate will cease. I am quite happy for the House to sit tonight and for members opposite to carry on. There will be nobody in here except members opposite; they can talk to themselves. It will be empty rhetoric. That is what will happen.

Mr GUY ZANGARI: I am referring to what the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition speakers have said in the debate and I am reiterating and supporting what they have said. I am speaking about the bill. I have referred on numerous occasions to schedule 1 of the bill. What can I say? This is a dodgy effort. The Government is trying to say we are all in the same boat when clearly members opposite are not.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [4.28 p.m.]: I support the Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not think anyone in this House would not support a cap on members' wages, given that schedule 1 clearly outlines that as members of Parliament we are entitled to a base salary of $136,140, which is equivalent to the annual salary payable to a backbencher of the Commonwealth House of Representatives, less $500. No-one in this place would argue that 2.5 per cent for those of us on a six-figure salary is more than generous and reasonable. But I come from a community where people who earn that sort of money are in the absolute minority. As a fellow Illawarra member of Parliament, Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Lee Evans), you will know that our community is doing it tough when it comes to cost-of-living pressures.

I find it astonishing that apart from the Premier not a single person on the Government benches has spoken on this legislation. A couple of weeks ago all members from that side of the House spoke on the Library Amendment Bill. It is astounding that with a couple of days to go in relation to this important legislation that the Opposition supports, capping to 2.5 per cent increases for all members of Parliament, including Ministers of the Crown and Senior Executive Service officers, not one member of the Government will support the Premier and this bill. That says a lot because they were happy to waste time and dilly around a few weeks ago with the Library Amendment Bill.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You don't support libraries in your local area?

Mr RYAN PARK: I completely support libraries. I also support the 12,000 people who were out demonstrating, many of whom were from the Illawarra.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I do not think I need to repeat it, except that this member may not have been listening—I do not know. The Parliamentary, Local Council Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 does not refer to any of the debate that occurred previously. We have already had that debate. I have already referred to decisions from the Chair from Speakers Rozzoli and Kelly. I ask you to rule the member for Keira out of order. If he wants to contribute to this debate he can but if he does not he should sit down.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Keira will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr Tony Issa: Haven't you got something important to say?

Mr RYAN PARK: Obviously the member for Granville has not got anything important to say. He was not awarded with anything. I find it astonishing that members on this side of the House are prepared to speak to this important legislation but apart from the Premier not one member on that side is prepared to speak on this legislation. Even more astonishing, given that their leader, the Premier, introduced this bill and spoke on it extensively—and the Leader of the Opposition spoke on it extensively—I would have thought is that maybe one, two, even three members had the gall to back their leader.

Ms Robyn Parker: Point of order: Over and over again—I know members opposite are learning but they are slow learners—Mr Acting-Speaker has ruled that this debate is about the leave of the bill. The member for Keira should speak to the content of the bill and not tediously repeat the same drivel. This is about the bill and not about who does and who does not speak to it. It is about the content of the bill. Please draw the member for Keira back to the leave of the bill or rule him out of order.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Keira will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr RYAN PARK: All members of the Opposition support the bill, support schedule 1 in relation to the 2.5 per cent, but have concerns that not one other person from the Government spoke.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [4.35 p.m.]: The Parliamentary, Local Council and Public Sector Executives Remuneration Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is a tokenistic gesture providing that parliamentarians, among others, accept a 2.5 per cent increase in remuneration. In reality, the salary of 64 of the 88 Coalition members of Parliament will be topped up with extras, given that many positions are being created. Prior to the election I thought this place was going to be tightened up. I strongly believe that as parliamentarians in times of financial restraint we should lead by example as former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did in 2008: the pay of Federal members of Parliament was frozen in 2009 to set an example of restraint to the community.

We are demanding our front-line workers be dudded, essentially, with lower real wages. We should demonstrate that we can go without any increase at all. The bill is an attempt to create a perception that the Premier and his cohorts are sympathising with the women and men who work as teachers, nurses, firefighters, bus drivers, police, ambulance officers and others in our health and education sectors, our public servants who work hard to ensure that the people of New South Wales have the best services and support available. Instead, the Coalition Government is making sure—

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The bill is clear: Do you want your salaries capped as politicians? It is as simple as that. It is not about anything else. I ask the member for Bankstown to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr Richard Amery: To the point of order: I refer to the Premier's speech on this very bill. He said:

The Government's public sector wages policy is about delivering fair wage increases to hardworking public servants. It is also about ensuring that the State budget can be brought under control.

Clearly, in introducing this bill the Premier linked it to the Government's wages policy. I believe it is outrageous to rule the member for Bankstown out of order because she is talking about the general wages policy after the Premier introduced that point in his agreement in principle speech yesterday.

Mr John Williams: Further to the point of order: Leniency is extended to the Premier or Minister and the Opposition lead speaker when legislation is introduced. Other members must speak strictly to the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Bankstown will direct her comments to the leave of the bill.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Rather than make a genuine attempt to cap our wages, the Coalition Government is making sure that more than 70 per cent of its members will earn tens of thousands of dollars above their base salary and taxpayers will be expected to foot the bill, including our hardworking public servants. This bill serves to throw into the faces of many mums and dads across our State—teachers, health care professionals and others—that they should sadly have to accept the despicable amendment to the Industrial Relations Act which will hamper the Industrial Relations Commission and allow the Government to dictate to thousands of people what their take-home wages will be, without any ability to bargain or demonstrate their job's worth before an independent body.

I would be interested to hear from members representing the electorates of Blue Mountains, Drummoyne, Campbelltown, Camden and others about what the workers in those electorates think about this token gesture of a 2.5 per cent cap. If the Government wanted to demonstrate that it was really serious about financially restraining members of Parliament it could have followed what former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did, that is, freeze our wages entirely for the next financial year rather than allowing a capped increase of 2.5 per cent. This is a tokenistic gesture.

Ms Robyn Parker: Are you supporting it or not?

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: Your Government will have to go back to the people of New South Wales and explain why you slapped in the faces the mums and dads and the front-line workers of this State, including police. How will the member for Campbelltown, one of the most senior police officers in this State, go to the police officers that he worked with and say, "I'm capping your salary, but in reality I will get a bit extra so I'm not too concerned"? It is a sad day when the Government makes such tokenistic gestures while totally disregarding the fact that many public service workers are working hard. Half a million people are giving their time and energy to work hard for the people of New South Wales.

Ms Robyn Parker: Support the bill and sit down.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK: I support the cap on our wages, but I do not think we are going far enough. If the Government were really serious it would have gone a lot further and ensured that we did not receive a 2.5 per cent increase. In reality, Government members are having their earnings topped up by the creation of extra positions. This is a slap in the face for the many workers in this State who deserve the right to have an independent body such as the Industrial Relations Commission determine their wages.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [4.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have spoken in the debate on the bill. I was tempted to come down earlier and rescue the member for Murray-Darling from that vicious attack launched upon him by his very good friend the member for Wollongong. I appreciate in particular the contribution of the member for Bankstown, who since her arrival here only a few weeks ago is making a habit of leading with her chin. I noted her description of this bill as a token gesture. As I said when the bill was first announced at Erskine Park on 25 May, then re-announced a couple of weeks ago, I make no bones about the fact that the impact of this bill will not be the same upon members of this House, Senior Executive Service members, Chief Executive Service members, mayors and councillors as it will be on front-line public servants.

But the principle is absolutely clear: if the policy is good enough to pursue for the public sector it is good enough to pursue for public officials, who are also paid out of the public purse. That is the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that the reason that the member for Bankstown knows not what she says is that this Government is pursuing the wages policy more broadly through other legislation than Labor applied across the public sector for four years. At any stage over those four years did Labor think to cap—or freeze, as the member for Bankstown said—parliamentary salaries? The answer is no. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor once again.

The third theme that I have heard today is about parliamentary committees. I make the point that Labor's wages policy allowed an increase of 2.5 per cent—the same as our wages policy—with any increases beyond that based on productivity increases. Mr Deputy-Speaker, you have one of the three presiding officer positions in this Chamber. As you know, in the last Parliament there were four such positions, and in the Parliament before that that there were two such positions. So over three parliaments the number has gone from two to four, and I have reduced it to three. But what has happened to the number of members of this Chamber over that time? It has not changed at all.

While Labor subjected the public sector for four years to a 2.5 per cent wage cap, while subjecting public servants to a policy that there were to be no increases beyond 2.5 per cent without productivity gains, the Labor Party overnight doubled the number of presiding officers, for the same number of members, giving two more Labor members an opportunity to put their snouts in the trough. Today I have heard it said relentlessly—so relentlessly to be almost wounded by it—that 7 of 10 members of the Liberal and Nationals parties will chair committees, will have presiding officer positions, and the like. What was the percentage under the Labor Party? It was 95 per cent. All but three members had additional salary. What we have done is wind it back in. We have reduced the number of Presiding Officers. We have ended the rort of the supercharged Parliamentary Secretary who ran the House.

We have ensured that the increase in the number of committees will be paid out of the existing budget. How? We have made savings in travel and chairmen of our committees will not be paid the same as chairmen of Labor's committees. That is how you run government: you get more for the same amount, or more for less. We make no bones about applying those sorts of approaches to us in the same way as they are being applied to the public sector. Those opposite ran double standards. I am happy to support this legislation. I am concerned that in the course of this debate we have seen from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an attack upon veterans, and we have seen from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an attack upon the importance of regional health and regional hospitals. Both attacks are despicable and disgusting, particularly from someone who I believe was actually born in the country, but who seems to have forgotten the importance of health facilities to people who live in rural and regional areas.

This bill applies the same government public sector wages cap that binds the Industrial Relations Commission on the determination or remuneration for Ministers and other members of Parliament, local councillors, statutory officers, public sector executives and hospital visiting medical officers. The Government believes statutory office holders and senior bureaucrats should be treated in the same way as nurses, teachers and other front-line public servants. We want to end the double standards and the hypocrisy pursued by Labor over the past four years. In fact, it is necessary to end the double standard to help bring the State budget under control so that we can improve the delivery of essential services and fund vital infrastructure projects.

The Government's wages policy is clear: we will allow 2.5 per cent across the board for public servants, with rises above that level needing to be offset by productivity gains that have actually been achieved. We will not continue Labor's policy of promised productivity gain arrangements between the unions and the government. Those productivity gains were not made and taxpayers footed a $900 million bill for which they got nothing. The wages policy we are implementing is the same as Labor's wages policy, except we will apply it across the board. We are not going to be hypocritical about it.

I finish by saying that I noticed, in relation to hypocrisy, comments in today's papers about how hard-worked members of the upper House are. I note that the Leader of the Opposition in the upper House said there was too little business in the upper House. The last time I checked it had passed 20 bills in the last 21 days. Now that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011 has passed the same number of bills have been passed by this House. So the member for Wollongong is complaining about too much work in this House and the Leader of the Opposition in the other place is complaining about too little work. Is it a wonder that the Opposition is such a shambles? I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.