Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [12.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 which is a long overdue breakthrough in cleaning up politics in New South Wales.

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: The member for Bankstown sought the call. The Opposition does not consider this agreement in principle debate to have concluded. Is a gag motion before the House?

The SPEAKER: Order! The discretion lies with the Speaker as to who is the next speaker. The Premier sought the call well before the member for Bankstown. It is my decision.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: This is an important and historic moment because this legislation seeks to clean up State politics once and for all. It seeks to put in place donation reforms that are meaningful, that will change the face of this Parliament but, importantly, will start to restore public confidence in this very institution. Earlier I spoke on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Ethics and Public Service Commissioner) Bill 2011. For the past 16 years we have seen that confidence in public administration deteriorate. The only thing worse than that was the way in which public confidence in this institution, in the operation of politics in New South Wales, also deteriorated.

The Coalition came to office with two particular goals. First, amongst many, was to restore confidence in public administration across New South Wales. Unless the public has confidence that decisions are being made on the basis of merit and not on sectional interests and public servants who are expected to implement those decisions are doing so without fear or favour, we cannot achieve the reforms and progress that New South Wales requires. A government cannot deliver reforms or progress that will create the opportunities for people across this State unless people have confidence in the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council and the institution of Parliament. We saw under those opposite a decisions-for-donations culture that corroded public confidence in government, politics and public administration across this State.

One only has to read two of the many books that seem to be published quite regularly about the former Government to understand the concerns of even senior members such as Frank Sartor about the way in which those opposite ran their fundraising operations when in government. We know that when Frank Sartor is nervous about such things they must have been pretty crook. This legislation will seek to do what is sensible. This legislation will say that the people who have the biggest stake in any electoral system—whether in this State, nationally, other jurisdictions or democracies around the world—are the citizens on the electoral roll, those who past generations have ensured have the right to vote. This legislation will restrict to those people the right to choose whether they will also donate to a candidate or to a political party of their choice.

This legislation will smash open that cosy relationship that was pushed through Parliament by the Australian Labor Party with the support of The Greens in the Legislative Council before the last election that sought to in some way describe unions affiliated with the Labor Party as independent under the auspices of this legislation. It equated, for instance, the Electrical Trades Union and the Transport Workers Union, which are affiliated with the Labor Party and who get a vote on party policy and in pre-selections, with, for instance, the RSPCA or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales to which the same limits applied. Yet the fact is that they are affiliated organisations. They are members of the same mob. They have the same objectives and by no means are they the independent—

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order: Is the Premier speaking in general or in reply? No motion was moved by the Leader of the House to bring this matter to an end.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with this point of order. The Premier is speaking in reply, as I understand it. It was my decision according to the Premier seeking the call, which was appropriate at the time.

Mr Richard Amery: Further to the point of order: Generally speaking when a debate is gagged or ended—

The SPEAKER: Order! This debate has not been gagged. I have made a decision. The member for Mount Druitt will resume his seat. I will hear no further points of order about this matter. It was my decision—my discretion and my prerogative. The Premier has the call.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am amazed because we all know—those of us who have been a member of this House for not quite as long as the member for Mount Druitt—that normally the Independent members are the last speakers before the close of debate. My understanding is that I followed the member for Sydney in this debate, so I am very happy to reply to the debate. The point is that this legislation will go an enormously long way to rectify a wrong that was put through by the Keneally Government with the support of The Greens. There is no way we can pretend that the Electrical Trades Union—which, until last year, provided even the presidency of the State Australian Labor Party—is a disinterested party in State campaigns and the New South Wales Labor Party in the same way as is the RSPCA or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales.

The RSPCA and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will enter the fray from time to time and the RSPCA will argue for legislation to ban the sale of animals in pet shops or the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will lobby both sides of politics on particular issues affecting the disadvantaged in our community. They will lobby both sides of politics without fear or favour because they are affiliated to neither. One of the important changes this legislation seeks to make is to ensure that we end the pretence that affiliated organisations, whether they are affiliated to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or any other party, can be treated as independent when it comes to expenditure caps and the like.

The Leader of the Opposition demonstrated again—despite his promise on assuming that position that he would be the hardest-working person ever to have occupied it—that he simply does not understand the legislation. He is probably out to lunch again. His main argument is that this legislation will disadvantage vulnerable people who cannot afford to donate individually to political parties. I suspect that his real concern is that they will be given a choice about whether they want to make a donation to a political party that is running campaigns that suit them. As I said, people who support the RSPCA and this Government's election commitment to provide the association with funding will still be able to lend their support.

Likewise, those who want to support campaigns run by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales will still be able to do so. This legislation does not prevent peak bodies and other third party campaigners from running issue-based campaigns on matters that affect their members or supporters. It simply prevents those organisations from donating to a political party and incurring electoral expenditure that influences voting at an election. This reform is not designed to stop campaigning by community groups but to ensure there is a level playing field for all participants in the electoral process.

If the Leader of the Opposition were concerned about vulnerable people not having the financial means to have their voice heard he would support this bill, which levels the playing field. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition stood up in his real guise, which is as leader of the New South Wales union movement. We never get as much energy out of him when he is talking about anything other than union matters—once a union leader, always a union leader. Until I opened my newspapers this morning I did not think there was a more stupid union leader, but there is. The union leader engaged in the battle with Qantas demonstrated his stupidity by trying to destroy the jobs of his workers by sending people away from Qantas.

Mr Nathan Rees: Don't forget Bernie.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I acknowledge the interjection made twice now by the member for Toongabbie, who wants me not to forget Bernie. I assume he is the friend of the member for Terrigal, Bernie O'Riordan from the Electrical Trades Union. He was president of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party, but he is no friend of the member for Toongabbie. He was thought to be a friend of the member for Heffron until the dying days of her Government. This bill does not prevent unions or any third party campaigners from receiving donations from their individual members. It will not stop peak union bodies such as Unions NSW from levying its members provided that those levies are not used to make a political donation or to incur electoral expenditure. New section 87 defines "electoral expenditure" and generally covers expenditure used for the purpose of influencing voting at an election.

That means that peak union bodies will be free to accept levies from their member unions for the purpose of running issues-based campaigns and conducting other activities that are not designed to influence voting at an election. The ban on corporate donations must be extended to third party campaigns if it is to be effective. To exempt third party campaigners from the ban would create a gaping loophole—the sort that members opposite are expert in creating—through which corporate donations could be channelled. That would defeat the purpose of the ban, which is to remove the risk and perception of corruption and undue influence in this State by limiting corporate donations once and for all. As I said, this is historic legislation. Despite the protestations of the leader of the union movement, I urge all members in both this House and the other place to support this legislation. The public want this legislation because it will improve confidence.

Mr Richard Amery: I move:

That the Premier be not further heard.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did not give the member the call.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Stop playing games.

Mr Richard Amery: I stood up before you finished your speech.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: You did not.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gee Mr George Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Holstein Mr Humphries Mr Issa Mr Kean Dr Lee Ms Moore Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson Mr Piper 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 Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Maguire Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burney Ms Burton Ms Hay Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Lalich

Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms Mihailuk Mr Parker Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Mr Bromhead	Mr Daley
Mr Perrottet	Mr Furolo
Mr Piccoli	Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Richard Amery.


The SPEAKER: Order! By leave, I propose to put the bill in groups of clauses and schedules.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [12.36 p.m.]: We support the issue in relation to clauses 1 and 2. I would like to speak to schedule 1, page 3, section 96D—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: As I understand it, the member has indicated support for clauses 1 and 2, which are the matters under consideration. I ask that that question be put and dealt with and then we can move to schedule 1.

Question—That clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [12.37 p.m.]: Subsection (1) of proposed new section 96D, contained in item [2] of schedule 1 reads:

It is unlawful for a political donation to a party, elected member, group, candidate or third-party campaigner to be accepted unless the donor is an individual who is enrolled on the roll of electors for State elections …

That first point is the crux of the Opposition's concerns regarding the loopholes in this bill. Whilst the intention of the clause is to prevent organisations, particularly trade unions, from making a donation to the Labor Party or any other political party, such as The Greens—which I must say has occurred in the past—I would like to ask the Minister or the Premier how they stop the situation where a wealthy landholder—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I have been looking for the amendments that the member must have. Could the member indicate where the amendments are to this provision?

The SPEAKER: The member does not need to have amendments.

Mr Brad Hazzard: So the member does not have any amendments?

The SPEAKER: Nor does he need to have amendments.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: No, I am not moving an amendment; I am just speaking to the schedule.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Further to the point of order: I have listened intently to what the member has said. As he does not propose to move amendments, there will be ample opportunity for this matter to be fully debated in the Legislative Council in due course. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: This is a gag, is it? Is that what you are saying?

Question—That the question be now put—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Fraser Mr Gee Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Holstein Mr Humphries Mr Issa Mr Kean Dr Lee Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson 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 Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Maguire Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burney Ms Burton Ms Hay Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Lalich Mr Lynch

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

Ms Tebbutt Mr Torbay Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Mr Bromhead	Mr Daley
Mr Perrottet	Mr Furolo
Mr Piccoli	Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Question—That schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gee Mr George Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Holstein Mr Humphries Mr Issa Mr Kean Dr Lee Ms Moore Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson Mr Piper 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 Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Maguire Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burney Ms Burton Ms Hay Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Lalich

Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms Mihailuk Mr Parker Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Mr Bromhead	Mr Daley
Mr Perrottet	Mr Furolo
Mr Piccoli	Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.


Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [12.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now passed.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

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

Mr Gee Mr George Ms Gibbons Ms Goward Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Holstein Mr Issa Mr Kean Dr Lee Ms Moore Mr Notley-Smith Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Owen Mr Page Ms Parker Mr Patterson Mr Piper 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 Mrs Williams Tellers, Mr Maguire Mr J. D. Williams

Mr Barr Ms Burney Ms Burton Ms Hay Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Lalich

Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms Mihailuk Mr Parker Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Robertson

Ms Tebbutt Mr Zangari Tellers, Mr Amery Mr Park

Mr Bromhead	Mr Daley
Mr Humphries	Mr Furolo
Mr Perrottet	Ms Watson

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

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