The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

The PRESIDENT: I report the death of the Hon. Harold Gregory Percival, OBE, known as Greg Percival, aged 86 years. He was a member of this House from 1977 to 1978 and from 1986 to 1988. I report further that on behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Council in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I inform the House that on Tuesday 3 May 2011 the Hon. Rick Colless was elected as Deputy Government Whip in the Legislative Council.

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

Petition opposing the proposal to close services to Newcastle station, including from Wickham, and requesting the House to reject any proposal to close services to Newcastle Station, including Wickham to Newcastle services, to put in place a fully funded comprehensive integrated transport study and plan for the Lower Hunter, and to provide to the transport expert preparing the transport study a copy of the document entitled "Newcastle: Towards a Sustainable and Vibrant City—A Proposal for CBD Integration", prepared by Save Our Rail Inc. NSW, received from the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

Petition requesting that the House put communities and the environment ahead of the profits of gas companies, support a moratorium on coal seam gas exploration and extraction activities, and support an independent investigation into the environmental, social and economic consequences of coal seam gas activities, received from the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham.

Petition opposing the closure of the Newcastle rail line and termination of rail services west of Newcastle station, including termination at Wickham, and requesting that the House reject any proposal that would involve the closure of some or all of the Newcastle railway line and the removal of heavy rail services direct to Newcastle station, received from the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

Private Members' Business item No. 14 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Robert Brown.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [2.46 p.m.]: I seek leave to move business of the House notices of motions Nos 1 to 11 on the Notice Paper in globo.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I seek leave to move business of the House notices of motions Nos 1 to 4 and Nos 6 to 11 on the Notice Paper in globo.

Leave granted.

Motions, by leave, by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That the following sessional orders be adopted:

1. Sitting Days

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, this House meet for the despatch of business each week as follows:

First day 2.30 p.m.
Second day 11.00 a.m.
Third day 11.00 a.m.
Fourth day 9.30 a.m.
Fifth day 9.30 a.m.

2. Motion for the Adjournment
That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, proceedings must be interrupted at 6.30 p.m. on the first, second and third sittings days each week and at 3.30 p.m. on the fourth and fifth days to permit a motion for adjournment to be moved to terminate the sitting if a Minister thinks fit.

3. Precedence of Business

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. Government Business is to take precedence of General Business on the first, second, third and fifth sitting days each week, and after 3.30 p.m. on the fourth sitting day.

2. General Business is to take precedence until 2.30 p.m. on the fourth sitting day each week.

4. Debate on Committee Reports

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, debate on Committee Reports is to take precedence after Questions on the first sitting day of each week until 6.30 p.m.

5. Suspension of Standing Orders

That, for the remainder of the current session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 198 be amended to read as follows:

1. In urgent cases, any standing order or other order of the House may be suspended by the House in whole or in part:

(a) by a motion on notice, or

(b) by leave of the House.

2. On a motion for the suspension of a standing or other order a member may not speak for more than five minutes, and if the debate is not concluded after the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion will then be put.

3. Where a standing order or other order of the House is suspended by the House in whole or in part, any subsequent procedural motion is to be put without amendment or debate.

6. Lapsed Question
1. That, for the remainder of the current session, Standing Order 106 be amended to read as follows:
106 Lapsed questions

Debate on a lapsed question may be resumed, by motion on notice, at the place where it was interrupted.

2. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, for the remainder of the current session:

If the proceedings of the House are interrupted by lack of a quorum and consequent adjournment of the House, the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next day of sitting, and when the order is called on the proceedings will be resumed at the point where they were interrupted.

7. Tabling of Reports and Documents When House Not Sitting

That, for the remainder of the current session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 55 be amended to read as follows:

1. Where, under any Act, a report or other document is required to be tabled in the House, and the House is not sitting, such report or document may be lodged with the Clerk.

2. Any report or document lodged with the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,

(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,

(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under authority of the House, and

(d) to be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House.

3. A report or other document which is not required to be tabled in the House according to legislation may not be lodged with the Clerk when the House has been prorogued.

8. Committee Membership

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 210 (10) be amended to read:

210(10) No member may take part in a committee inquiry where the member has a direct pecuniary interest in the inquiry of the committee, unless it is in common with the general public, or a class of persons within the general public, or it is on a matter of state policy.

9. Formal Motions
That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, for the remainder of the current session Standing Order 44 be varied as follows:

1. Before the House proceeds to the business on the Notice Paper, the President will ask with respect to each notice of motion, at the request of the member who gave the notice, whether there is any objection to its being taken as a formal motion. If no objection is taken, the motion shall be taken as a formal motion.

2. Formal motions will be taken in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper.

3. The request from a member that a notice of motion standing in their name on the Notice Paper be taken as formal business must be signed by that member and handed to one of the Clerks at the table during the sitting of the House, on the day before the member wishes the matter to be considered as formal business.

4. The question of a formal motion must be put and determined without amendment or debate.

5. An order of the day for the third reading of bills may be dealt with as a formal motion.

10. Quorums

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, for the remainder of the current session Standing Order 29 and Standing Order 30 be varied to read as follows:

29. Quorum at commencement of sitting

1. If there is no quorum present when the Chair is taken at the time appointed for the meeting of the House, the bells will again ring for five minutes. If there is still no quorum present the President will adjourn the House until a later hour of the day or the next sitting day.

2. A member who enters the chamber at or after the time appointed for the meeting of the Council may not withdraw until a quorum is formed or the House is adjourned.

3. When the House is adjourned for lack of a quorum, the names of the members present will be entered in the Minutes of Proceedings.

30. Quorum during sitting

1. If it appears, on the report of a division of the House by the tellers, that a quorum is not present, the President will adjourn the House until a later hour of the day or the next sitting day. No decision of the House will be considered to have been reached by that division.

2. When the Chair of Committees informs the President that a quorum is not present in Committee, the bells will ring for five minutes. The President will then count the House, and if a quorum is still not present, will adjourn the House until a later hour of the day or the next sitting day. However, if a quorum is then present, the President will leave the Chair and the Committee resume.

3. If a member draws attention to the lack of a quorum, the bells will be rung until a quorum is formed but for no longer than five minutes. If after five minutes a quorum is not present, the President will adjourn the House until a later hour of the day or the next sitting day.

4. When the attention of the President, or the Chair of Committees, has been called to the absence of a quorum, a member may not leave until the House or Committee has been counted.

5. The doors of the House will be unlocked while the President is counting the House.

6. When the House has adjourned for lack of a quorum the names of the members present will be entered in the Minutes of Proceedings.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [2.48 p.m.]: I move:

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. Questions are to commence at 4.00 pm on the first sitting day of each week and at 2.30 p.m. on the second, third, fourth and fifth sitting days.
2. Whenever the House adjourns to a day and time later than the time appointed in paragraph 1, questions are to commence 30 minutes after the time appointed for the meeting of the House.
3. If, at the time for interruption:

(a) a division is in progress, the division is to be completed and the result announced,

(b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chair is to leave the chair and report progress,

and any business then under discussion, if not disposed of, is to be set down on the Notice Paper for a later hour of the sitting.

As The Greens objected to leave being granted to allow the motions to be moved in globo, I presume that they oppose this motion. In fact, they may intend to move an amendment to it. I have not seen any such amendment. However, I point out that we have made many changes to the sittings of the House for this session. We have indicated in good faith to all members that some of the changes may work and some may not. Therefore, we have sought to introduce the changes on a suck-it-and-see basis so we can see how they go.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That's a very technical term!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, it is a very technical term—it is point one from the Crookwell Road book. This motion forms part of that change. The upper House now sits for four days a week, which means four hours of question time—a whole hour more of question time each week than we have had before. I can only assume what the argument or the amendment might be from The Greens, because I have not received anything from them. Perhaps The Greens are worried that they will lose visibility because question time will now be held at the same time as it is in the lower House. In fact, the Leader of the Government received a phone call from someone from our ABC who asked whether we were changing the time for question time and he confirmed that we were. That is part of the sessional orders that we put forward for endorsement today.

When I was discussing the matter with the Leader of the Government I realised that I cannot remember the last time I saw media from our ABC present during Legislative Council question time. Occasionally Quentin comes up. I know that the hardworking people at our ABC would be down in their office at this moment listening. There are at least three people in the ABC bureau at Parliament House in Sydney, just as there are in News Limited, Fairfax and the others. If question time is held at the same time in both Houses one person could listen to one question time and another person could listen to the other, or they could send someone up to the press gallery.

As for The Greens losing a presence in the media, for all of last week there were no media representatives in the gallery. When The Greens and the new Greens were prosecuting their case and the new Opposition was prosecuting its case and bringing us to our knees there was no-one in the press gallery.

[Interruption]

There he is—Rumpole of the Bailey. He's back—Guthrie Featherstone, QC, MP. Last week there was no media present. Zero minus one is still zero; it will not change, it is minus zero. Quite often members of The Greens and members of the Opposition in the upper House would like to have meetings with Ministers. Having question time at the same time in both Houses will give members four more hours in which to meet with Ministers—so that is another plus—and it will also give the Opposition and the Government a greater ability to have meetings of members, Ministers and the leadership group.

I have suggested to the Opposition that a question time committee would be a good idea. It is not really my job to give the Opposition ideas, but I am told that if you have question time at the same time in both Houses there are certain tactics that could be employed. But I will not tell them any more. I know that if they were to have a question time committee they would work it out.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I don't think so.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We can always wonder. There is no great trap here; it is an offer of a change and it is a suggestion we have put forward in good faith. If it is not working and if people do not like it, we will review it at the end of June and discuss it before we come back from the mid-year break.

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

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.55 p.m.]: The Greens do not support this change to question time because it reduces accountability of the three Ministers in the upper House. Running question time in the upper House at the same time as question time in the lower House would mean less media focus on what occurs in this Chamber.

[Interruption]

A member asks, "How much less could there be?" I noted that in his contribution the Leader of the House conducted a gratuitous attack on the ABC by suggesting that it does not listen.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: At no time did I say in my contribution that the ABC does not listen. In fact, to the contrary, I indicated that they did not attend question time but that they were probably listening in their office.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay knows that that is not a point of order. If he believes that he has been misrepresented, he can make a personal explanation at the appropriate time.

Dr JOHN KAYE: While it was not a point of order, I accept the point made by the Hon. Duncan Gay. However, it is true that there are opportunities for the media to be present in the press gallery in the Chamber. Members all ooh and aah when we talk about the media, but the media are the eyes and ears of the people of New South Wales and what happens in this Chamber and, through that, what happens in the Government. The Government seems to think that this is a clever ploy, so clever that in all the discussions held with the crossbenchers—at least between the Government and The Greens—about the future of the sittings of Parliament a change to question time was never mentioned. We mentioned the change in sitting times, we mentioned all the other arrangements—and we acknowledge that we were consulted—but we were not consulted on the change to question time. The Government hoped that it would be snuck through and that we would not notice. We did notice and we now need to talk about it.

The reality remains that the running of question time in the upper House at the same time as the running of question time in the lower House will inevitably mean less media coverage in the upper House. There will be fewer opportunities for journalists to be in the press gallery—and often there are journalists in the gallery. Therefore, there will be fewer opportunities for Ministers, their faux pas, their errors and their admissions to be made public. That is bad for democracy and it is bad for this House. It lowers the visibility of this House. Every member in this Chamber is here because they believe in the importance of an upper House. That might not have been true in the case of a former leader of the Labor Party in this House—Mr Egan—but most upper House members believe in the importance of this House and the importance of it being visible. Running our question time at the same time as the lower House will reduce that visibility. Therefore, we do not support this motion. We believe that it is an attempt by the Government early in its time in office to avoid accountability.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.00 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party is deeply disappointed with the Government. Its proposals do not go anywhere near as far as we recommended. I call it wimping out.

Dr John Kaye: What were your recommendations?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I cannot tell; it is a secret. I will address a couple of the issues raised by Dr John Kaye. There should not be a competition between the other place and the senior House as to which House gets the press of the day. I am also sure that the media outlets have sufficient resources to be able to cover both question times and to decide which is the most newsworthy. The job of this House is to get on with the business of government and the proceedings of Parliament. I concur that the people get most of their information about what happens in this place through the popular media, including the ABC. However, in reality, the Premier sits in the other place and he can attract all the media attention he wants and that does not interfere with the way we do our business. The Government's proposals make sense in terms of saving time.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.02 p.m.]: Dr John Kaye made the point that the new arrangements for question time would reduce accountability. I cannot see how that could happen given that we are surrounded by video cameras and microphones, the Hansard reporters are producing a report and the ABC's journalists on level six are listening to every word. It is clear that there is plenty of accountability. Dr Kaye did raise a question that I asked of the Deputy Leader of the Government. If we were to follow Dr Kaye's suggestion—that is, not to change the sessional orders—would that mean that when the motion is defeated we would have no time set aside for question time or would we automatically revert to a previous sessional order? What is the situation? In response to the Hon. Robert Brown, if members were to visit the offices occupied by members of the press gallery, they would see that they all have recording devices; they are recording everything we say—

Dr John Kaye: That is not true of the print media.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am sure that the print media have the resources available to install a recording process to which they can refer. That is what they do every sitting day when they want to check what a member has said. This is scaremongering by The Greens. If they plan to dump on the Government during question time, they give the media the heads up. They say, "Watch question time; we have a cracker." If they think something media-worthy has come up in question time, they tell journalists to check the tape. The Deputy Leader of the Government's proposals are reasonable and I ask members to support them.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.04 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "2.30 p.m." in paragraph 1 and inserting instead "12.00 noon".

There may well be some media organisations, such as the ABC, Fairfax Media Limited or News Limited, that have sufficient resources to have two journalists in attendance at State Parliament at the same time, one listening to the Legislative Council and one listening to the other place. However, many other media organisations do not have those resources. Indeed, they often have only one journalist or a part-time journalist employed to follow the proceedings in the entire Parliament. Obviously, conducting question times simultaneously means that those organisations simply will not have the capacity to hold this place to account by reporting on proceedings. If the question times are run simultaneously and this Chamber has three Ministers and the other has a dozen or more Ministers, and if media groups have limited resources—which is the case for many such organisations—they will allocate their resources to covering the proceedings in the other place. That will reduce the accountability of the three Ministers in this House, which is not in the interests of the good governance of New South Wales.

The purpose of question time is for members to ask timely questions and to get timely responses from Ministers and the government of the day. A timely response informs the people of New South Wales about what is being done on their behalf by the Government. By running the question times simultaneously, the Government is seeking to avoid that necessary accountability and it will hamstring those media organisations that cannot provide a journalist to cover each House, thereby limiting their capacity to hold the Government to account. The Government might think the Ministers in this House require that level of protection. The Whip might believe this is a way in which the Government can protect vulnerable Ministers in the upper House. That is most unfortunate. A far better outcome in terms of accountability would be to ensure that question time in both Houses can be properly reported by all media organisations, not only those with the resources to have a journalist in each House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.07 p.m.], in reply: I would love to rebut an argument, but I did not hear one.

Question—That the Greens amendment of Mr David Shoebridge be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Colless Ms Cotsis Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Ms Ficarra Mr Foley Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Mr Moselmane Mr Obeid Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Primrose Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Ms Westwood Tellers, Ms Fazio Dr Phelps

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of Mr David Shoebridge negatived.

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

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders:

Appointment

1. Three standing committees are appointed as follows:

(a) Law and Justice Committee,

(b) Social Issues Committee, and

(c) State Development Committee.

Law and Justice Committee

2. The Committee may inquire into and report on:

(a) legal and constitutional issues in New South Wales, including law reform, parliamentary matters, criminal law, administrative law and the justice system, and

(b) matters concerned with industrial relations and fair trading.
Social Issues Committee

3. The Committee may inquire into and report on:

(a) issues concerned with the social development and wellbeing of the people of New South Wales, including health, education, housing, ageing, disability, children’s services and community services, and

(b) matters concerned with citizenship, sport and recreation and gaming and racing.

State Development Committee

4. The Committee may inquire into and report on:

(a) issues concerned with state, local and regional development in New South Wales, and

(b) matters concerned with planning, infrastructure, finance, industry, the environment, primary industry, natural resources, science, local government, emergency services and public administration.
Referral of Inquiries

5. (1) A committee:

(a) is to inquire into and report on any matter relevant to the functions of the committee which is referred to the committee by resolution of the House,

(b) may inquire into and report on any matter relevant to the functions of the committee which is referred by a Minister of the Crown, and

(c) may inquire into and report on any annual report or petition relevant to the functions of the committee which has been laid upon the Table of the Legislative Council.

(2) Whenever a committee resolves to inquire into a matter, under paragraph 5 (b) or 5 (c), the terms of reference or the resolution is to be reported to the House on the next sitting day.

Powers

6. A committee has power to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and, with the approval of the President, elsewhere in Australia and outside Australia.

Membership

7. Each committee is to consist of six members, comprising:

(a) three Government members,

(b) two Opposition members, and

(c) one Crossbench member.
Chair and Deputy Chair

8. (1) The Leader of the Government is to nominate in writing to the Clerk of the House the Chair of each committee.

(2) The Leader of the Opposition is to nominate in writing to the Clerk of the House the Deputy Chair of each committee.
Quorum

9. The quorum of a committee is three members, of whom two must be Government members and one a non-government member.

Subcommittees

10. A committee has power to appoint subcommittees.

Participating Members

11. Unless a committee decides otherwise, a member of the House who is not a member of the relevant committee may take part in a private meeting of the committee but may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division.

Electronic Participation in Deliberative Meetings

12. (1) A committee member who is unable to attend a deliberative meeting in person may participate by electronic communication and may move any motion and be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division, provided that:

(a) the Chair is present in the meeting room, and

(b) all members are able to speak to and hear each other at all times.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph 13(1), a member may not participate by electronic communication in a meeting to consider a draft report.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011 delivers on a Coalition election commitment to restore democracy to local councils in the Illawarra—a commitment for which the Coalition has a clear mandate. Clearly, the Coalition has listened to the community and has seen the importance of making these council elections a priority for the newly elected Government. The community desire for local representation was further emphasised in the Illawarra Mercury editorial last Thursday, which stated:

We need fresh energetic local government leaders. We need new faces, new voices and new ideas. The council's time under administration has allowed us to put some distance between the present and the sorry and sordid past of the corruption in Wollongong and dysfunctionality in Shellharbour. Now, we need to keep walking.

I can inform members that the bill will allow new faces, voices and ideas for the people of Wollongong and Shellharbour in their local government areas because it will allow fresh, energetic local leaders to have a chance to become elected representatives. Following an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry, which identified systemic corruption in Wollongong City Council, that council was dismissed. Clearly, the culture of shameful corruption and Labor politics needed to be dealt with at the time. That culture is magnified when we consider that last Thursday former Labor councillor on Wollongong council Frank Gigliotti was sent to jail for lying to that ICAC inquiry. Shellharbour council was also dismissed in 2008 after an inquiry found that the council had become dysfunctional.

Now it is time to arrange for new elections so that the communities concerned can be represented at a local level. The previous Labor Government decided that both councils were to remain under administration until September 2012. This Government wants to return democracy to the people of Wollongong and Shellharbour local government areas. This Government made a commitment that both Wollongong and Shellharbour councils would have democratically elected councils in place in 2011. This Government fulfils its promises. The council elections will take place on 3 September 2011.

Turning to the detail of the bill, it will ensure that the ratepayers of both councils are not faced with the cost of another council election within 12 months. The bill provides for a one-off five-year term for both councils, saving Wollongong council an estimated amount of $943,000 to conduct another election and Shellharbour council an estimated amount of $307,000—very important funds of the local community that will now be available to apply to the backlog of roads and other works that local councils will have to undertake. The next local government elections for these councils after 2011 will be in September 2016. This will bring these two councils back into line with the local government elections cycle for the rest of the State. Given the sorry history of the past few years, there are strong arguments that the new councils will be able to utilise the longer term to restore confidence in their local administrations and ensure that their plans and programs are well and truly up to date, looking forward, and reflect the needs of the constituencies.

In relation to Shellharbour City Council, the bill also addresses concerns raised in the Shellharbour public inquiry report about the structure of the council, which structure the inquiry found had contributed to its dysfunction. This bill seeks to abolish the ward structure of the council because the report highlighted the problems in retaining a ward structure. The size of the Shellharbour local government area makes Shellharbour City Council more suited to having no wards at all. Shellharbour is relatively small in size, about 147 square kilometres, with a population of approximately 65,000. Shellharbour is about 100 square kilometres smaller than its neighbouring council area, Kiama, which also has no wards. In addition to this, the former Labor Mayor of Shellharbour, Mayor Hamilton, gave evidence at the public inquiry stating that the maintenance of the ward boundaries is problematic.

The bill removes the need for a constitutional referendum to be held to abolish all wards, the result of which would not have come into effect until 2016. The bill also reduces the number of councillors for Shellharbour City Council to seven. By doing so, it addresses another factor identified by the Shellharbour public inquiry as contributing to the dysfunction of the council. It is also appropriate considering the number of councillors elected in other council areas of a similar size. It is inappropriate that a council of Shellharbour's size should have more than seven councillors. Former Mayor Hamilton also stated at the public inquiry that he held a personal view that a reduction in councillor numbers to six and a mayor would be a good option. He gave evidence that he believed it would lead to better governance and save money. He further stated that:

... councillors would still be able to represent the residents at a high level.

The council itself, in a submission to the public inquiry, also acknowledged the advantages of reducing councillor numbers. The abolition of wards and the reduction of councillor numbers to seven will mean that the method of electing councillors will change from optional preferential to proportional representation, with a quota of 12.5 per cent plus one for a councillor to be elected. Currently, the system for counting votes in a contested election for a ward or undivided area is to be optional preferential if the number of councillors to be elected is one or two, or proportional if the number to be elected is three or more. The proportional voting system is generally used across all levels of government in multi-member electorates because it is designed to allocate seats or offices in proportion to the overall number of votes obtained by the candidates.

The abolition of wards in the Shellharbour local government area will lead to a lower quota, which is expected to encourage more people to stand for office, and therefore enhance the democratic process. The bill also changes the method of election for the mayor at Shellharbour City Council. The mayor is now to be elected by the councillors every 12 months from one of their number. The bill, therefore, provides for all of these important changes to be in place in time for the fresh elections on 3 September 2011. This will enable the newly elected council to start afresh without having to incur the costs of conducting constitutional referenda to make these changes to its governance structure. If, in the future, the council wants to divide itself into wards, alter its councillor numbers or change the manner in which its mayor is elected, it will be able to do so on its own initiative and with the approval of its constituency.

In relation to Wollongong City Council, in 2008, following the Independent Commission Against Commission Operation Atlas hearing, ratepayers' satisfaction with Wollongong council was at an all-time low. However, a recent administrator's report noted that public confidence in the council has improved markedly due to actions taken by the administrators, including restoring the reputation of Wollongong City Council; maintaining a corruption-resistant organisation with zero tolerance of corruption; introducing contemporary local environmental planning controls and more efficient processes for assessment applications; effective corporate governance and leadership; and diligent management of council finances, including budgeting and control.

The bill requires the administrators of Wollongong City Council to reduce the number of wards for the council from six to three by 24 June 2011. This will mean that the council will have three wards with four councillors per ward and a mayor who is elected by all of the electors. This reflects the geographical size and population of Wollongong. The population is almost 200,000 people and it has an area of 684 square kilometres comprising a long coastal area stretching from the Royal National Park to Lake Illawarra. It is the third largest city in New South Wales and the ninth largest city in Australia. Its central business district is a major commercial hub.

The bill allows for this to happen within a short period. This is because all ward boundaries need to be finalised by 24 June 2011 in order for the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner to do the work required to conduct the elections on 3 September 2011. This change in ward structure will mean that the method of electing councillors for each ward will change from optional preferential to proportional representation. This is the method used in most council areas in New South Wales and will allow greater diversity and representation. As in the case of the changes to Shellharbour City Council, the bill preserves Wollongong City Council's ability to make future changes to the number of its wards should its community so desire.

Once again, this Coalition Government is determined to deliver on a commitment to the people of the Illawarra. The Liberal-Nationals Government will help the people of Wollongong and of Shellharbour to walk away from the corruption and dysfunctionality of the past. We want to return democracy to Wollongong and Shellharbour and we believe that this bill is the way to do so. As a result, those communities will have local representatives and the chance to have fresh ideas and new faces. We are keeping our promises. It gives me a great deal of pride as Minister for the Illawarra to deliver on this commitment—a commitment that was widely accepted and demanded by people in the Illawarra. It is a great day for us in moving forward with this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.28 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I support the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011 and congratulate the Government on introducing this important piece of legislation so promptly in its new term of government. There are a number of reasons why The Greens support the bill, and I will deal with them one by one. The first relates to the sorry tale of Wollongong City Council. The appalling state of affairs that led to the sacking of that council by the previous Government—arising from, in large part, the terrible set of planning laws that were in place at the time that allowed that form of corrupted decision-making to flourish in a local government when it was considering planning matters—is a matter that has been of real concern, not only to the people of the Illawarra but to people across New South Wales. Indeed, getting rid of Wollongong City Council was just, hopefully, the first step in reforming planning laws to ensure that that kind of localised corruption cannot happen.

It was only because of the enormously discretionary, incredibly opaque and corruption-ready planning laws that were in place, and indeed still are in place, under the New South Wales planning laws that that kind of corruption could foster in Wollongong. But there was a second reason why Wollongong City Council became such an example to the rest of New South Wales of how not to do local government: the existence of two-member wards. Indeed, two-member wards, as elected under legislation in New South Wales, produce of necessity a non-democratic outcome. The way counting operates in two-member wards is that as soon as any party or any ticket gets 50 per cent plus one vote, they dominate that ward and they elect those members from a two-member ward.

The previous system of six two-member wards across Wollongong produced, in effect, a gerrymander for the party or ticket that could get a majority in Wollongong. That gerrymander meant that there were no checks and balances on the floor of council. There was not that loyal opposition that any good administration requires; there was not that free interplay of different voices in a council that is really necessary for local government to work effectively. It produced, in effect, a council that operated largely as a rubber stamp to the dominant set of councillors of the day. That produced no accountability on the floor of council; it led to an environment in which corruption was allowed to occur. From The Greens' perspective, that non-democratic culture in Wollongong council in large part led to the council's downfall and those corruption outcomes.

Therefore, The Greens genuinely welcome the Government's decision to get rid of two-member wards and put in place three wards of four members each. Indeed, having three wards in the Wollongong local government area naturally divides the local government area into three communities of interest. North, central and south Wollongong become three distinct communities of interest, properly represented by three separate wards. The Greens congratulate the Government on that. Retaining the popularly elected mayor in Wollongong seems to be a matter the people of the Wollongong local government area support. We are pleased also that local government elections will take place in September this year, as opposed to the proposal under the previous Government, which intended to have no local democracy in the Illawarra until September 2012. That would have been an appalling outcome.

The Greens would also welcome the introduction at some point of legislation to limit the term of any administration in a local government area. There seems to be no rational basis upon which an administrator, appointed by a State Government Minister, should have a term of office that is in excess of 12 months. One could understand a 12-month administration being required with regard to getting rid of corrupt practices, which may involve going through the bureaucracy and investigating new systems that have been put in place as well as financial administration changes. But in the case of Shoalhaven, the people of Shoalhaven were looking at having effectively four years without local democracy.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Shellharbour.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Shellharbour. I thank the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane for correcting me. I withdraw any suggestion about Shoalhaven, a beautiful municipality that is working well. There is no reason why the administrator should have been in Shellharbour for anything like the time that Labor was proposing, and therefore it is a good outcome for the Illawarra that local government elections will be held in September. There is one reservation in relation to this bill, and that is the drastic reduction in councillor numbers in Shellharbour. Shellharbour has a footprint of about 150 square kilometres. It is by no means the largest geographic local government area in New South Wales; nevertheless, it is a substantial size.

Shellharbour also previously had 13 representatives, 12 councillors plus one directly elected mayor. Those 13 representatives were divided into six wards of two councillors, plus the democratically elected mayor. Those two-ward councillors produced in Shellharbour exactly the same lack of accountability and lack of local democracy as occurred in Wollongong. Indeed, there were so few checks and balances on the floor of council that it allowed the council to fall to bickering. It allowed also for developer interests to get the ear of a majority of councillors and push through matters that were not in the best interests of the people of Shellharbour because the council was not democratically reflective of the people of Shellharbour.

The Greens welcome the abolition of two-member wards in Shellharbour and again congratulate the Government on taking this step. It is a positive step forward and we fully recognise that. However, the decision to reduce the number of councillors from effectively 13 councillors, when one includes the popularly elected mayor, to just seven produces a poor outcome for local government and for local democracy in Shellharbour. The Greens will move in Committee an amendment to increase the number of councillors elected across Shellharbour from seven to nine. I will speak in more detail on that when the bill is considered in Committee. The Greens welcome the Government's decision to introduce local democracy and are pleased about the prompt timetable. As I said, The Greens welcome the abolition of two-member wards. I cannot wait to hear what the Hon. Sophie Cotsis has to say on the matter. We look forward to further debate on the number of councillors in Committee, and we look forward to the Government seriously considering that greater democratic representation by having a minimum of nine councillors.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [3.37 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. I speak for the first time on a bill before this place as shadow Minister for Local Government. It is an honour to make this speech about such a great region. The Illawarra is a region with a robust and dynamic industry. It is home to one of Australia's largest seaports, at Port Kembla, and has a varied and very strong economy. It is also an area with great natural beauty and a unique coastal culture. I congratulate the hardworking members for Keira, Wollongong and Shellharbour on their success in the March 2011 election. I look forward to the opportunity to work closely with these great local members over the next four years.

Labor is committed to the Illawarra and to its people. The Leader of the Opposition, an esteemed former member of this House, has demonstrated his commitment to the Illawarra by taking responsibility for this important region. I take this opportunity also to congratulate the administrators, both past and present, of Wollongong and Shellharbour councils—in Wollongong, Ms Gabriel Kibble, Dr Col Gellatly, Mr Robert McGregor and Mr Richard Colley, and Mr David Jesson in Shellharbour. The Minister for Local Government announced in the other place that he has received advice from the Wollongong administrators stating all recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption relevant to council flowing from the Operation Atlas hearing have been implemented. While we on this side welcome this news, we still have some serious concerns. What the Minister did not say was whether the Wollongong administrators specifically recommended, or even supported, holding elections one year ahead of schedule. In relation to Shellharbour City Council, the Minister also failed to address whether all the recommendations of the Colley report had been implemented and whether the administrator recommends going to an election year ahead of schedule.

It is important to note that as recently as March this year Mr David Jesson, administrator of Shellharbour council, was quoted in the Illawarra Mercury as stating that he doubted the Government's timetable for elections. A timeline was in place based on recommendations from the independent inquiries held into both councils for elections to be held in 2012. The administrators appointed to Shellharbour and Wollongong councils were expected to serve four-year terms.

The Opposition supports any move to re-empower the people of the Illawarra, but the Opposition wants to make it very clear that when it was in government it acted in the best interests of the ratepayers in both local government areas. It may well be the case that both Shellharbour and Wollongong councils will be ready for elections this September but the Government has not made it absolutely clear that that will be the case. I place on record the Opposition's disappointment, both in this place and in the other place, at the way this important bill has been handled. Matters of this type should never be decided at a breakneck pace and we all agree that the proposed elections are important to the ratepayers of both councils. Members in the other place were provided with a copy of the bill only hours before it was debated, which gave them only a few hours to consider their position. The Premier has stated publicly time and again that his Government has been elected on a mandate of honest, open and accountable government, which makes this behaviour particularly unfortunate. The bill is now before this House and for the second time the Government is rushing to move it through Parliament. The community expects more from its government and I trust it is not a sign of things to come.

The Government is proposing to remove the democratic right of the people of Shellharbour to directly elect their mayor instead proposing that the mayor be chosen by councillors once they are elected yet the Government supports maintaining a popularly elected mayor in Wollongong. The geographical size and population difference between Wollongong and Shellharbour councils was offered as the reason for this but it is a peculiar argument. We all know that councils of all sizes across our great State have both types of mayoral elections—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Have a look at the rest of the local government councils.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: We see it in the St George area—the Hon. Marie Ficarra should know that. There are large council areas with non-directly elected mayors and small councils with directly elected mayors. This is an excuse, not a reason. Due to the size of Shellharbour it makes sense to change the number of wards and the number of councillors—the Colley report recommended as much. It does not make sense to abolish wards altogether or to move from a system of directly elected to appointed mayors. It is true that the idea of doing away with the directly elected mayor was raised during the inquiry but it was an opinion of an individual not the consensus of the inquiry or a recommendation of the eventual report.

Instead of three wards with three councillors, as recommended by the Colley report, the Government is proposing no wards with seven councillors in total. Rather than a popularly elected mayor, the Government proposes to have a mayor chosen by the councillors once they are elected. I foreshadow that the Opposition will be moving amendments to address the concerns I have outlined and I call on all members in this place to support those amendments. I reiterate that the Opposition supports returning democracy to the people of Shellharbour and Wollongong. However, the Opposition is concerned about the model of democracy being proposed by the Liberal-Nationals Government and it will be moving to address this. The Opposition will also not be supporting the foreshadowed Greens amendment.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.44 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. This bill is an important step in returning democracy to the people of Wollongong and Shellharbour. After listening to the contribution of the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, it is evident that Opposition members do not understand the concept of returning democracy to the people of Wollongong and Shellharbour. This important step will give ratepayers the chance to elect their own councillors, their representatives of choice, and not someone that the Government wants to impose upon them. The councils will then have a mandate to represent local communities and to make significant choices that will affect their daily lives.

The bill reflects the Government's commitment to the residents of Wollongong and Shellharbour that it would restore the democracy of having elected councils by holding new elections on 3 September this year—a year ahead of the former Government's plan. That commitment was given during the election and will be adhered to. I find it sad that Opposition members have such a problem understanding a government wanting to fulfil a commitment given during an election. The bill has come about because that commitment was spoken about extensively during the election. The Opposition clearly has had notice of that commitment, yet it indicates surprise at the Minister moving this bill. Perhaps the Minister should have waited two or three years after the commitment was given to deal with it, as the Opposition did when it was in office.

This bill includes a provision for a one-off five-year term for both Wollongong and Shellharbour councils. Not only does this provision ensure that the election will take place with the next ordinary elections of all other New South Wales councils in September 2016, it also saves the significant cost of conducting another ordinary election in 2012. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this bill, which makes sense and is appropriate. It will result in the best possible outcome by allowing the residents of Wollongong and Shellharbour to elect their councils a year ahead of time and not subject them to the expense of a second election 12 months later. The residents of Wollongong and Shellharbour will again have elected councils, which will be accountable for the decisions they make about planning, services and facilities. New democratically elected councils will provide a fresh start and herald a new era of better representation in the interests of the communities of Wollongong and Shellharbour.

The new structure will introduce also a system of proportional representation, which will bring into line the electoral system used by most councils in New South Wales. Shellharbour City Council will be restructured. Important changes were identified by the public inquiry to ensure that the dysfunction of the previous council does not recur. The bill abolishes all wards in Shellharbour council, allowing the new elections to be conducted in September with the new structure. This is significant as the inquiry commissioner reported that the current structure of Shellharbour council contributed to its dysfunction. As such, this bill takes the responsible steps necessary to ensure that Shellharbour has the most suitable structure for its council. I remind Opposition members that the idea behind this bill was to ensure that the council did not operate as the previous council had: in a dysfunctional manner.

It is important to note that the Shellharbour local government area is comparatively small in size—about 147 square kilometres. Its population is approximately 65,000. Another factor identified by the Shellharbour public inquiry as contributing to the dysfunction of the council was the number of councillors. The bill addresses this issue by reducing the number of councillors from 13 to seven. I note that The Greens will move an amendment in Committee on this issue. I will not speak to the proposed amendment at this stage; suffice to say, I will not be supporting the amendment. It is my opinion that the appropriate number of councillors is seven, particularly when comparing Shellharbour local government to other councils.

The result of these two significant changes is that the method of electing councillors will change from optional preferential to proportional representation. By abolishing wards in the Shellharbour local government area it is expected that more people will be encouraged to stand for civic office, thereby enhancing the democratic process. Once again, that is probably a matter that members opposite do not like. They do not agree with anything that enhances the democratic process. They would rather keep it all to themselves so that it is easier to control. Further, the bill allows the mayor of Shellharbour City Council to be elected by councillors from the pool of elected councillors every 12 months. The councillors will be elected by the people. The Opposition's argument that the people will not be able to elect the mayor is nonsense, given the size of the Shellharbour local government, both in area and in population. The mayor will be elected by councillors who are elected by the residents. These revitalising changes allow Shellharbour City Council to have a fresh start without the additional cost of a constitutional referendum. It is important that this council does not incur extra costs.

In its report into Wollongong City Council, the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended that 11 people be charged after the council was sacked in 2008. Three years later, it is time to restore democracy to the people of Wollongong. As the Minister said in his speech, Wollongong is the third-largest city in New South Wales. It is inconceivable that Wollongong should continue without its own elected representation. The member opposite said that the administrators were appointed expecting to serve a four-year term.

Mr David Shoebridge: The poor dears.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: With all due respect to the member opposite, this is not about what the administrators expect or are entitled to: this is about what the residents of Wollongong expect and are entitled to. I disagree with the assertion that an administrator should have a specific term of 12 months, two years or four years. Every case must be looked at on its merits, not only at the time of the appointment but also during the period of administration, and appointments of administrators may be made for six months, 12 months, two years and so on. It has been suggested by the Opposition that an administrator is appointed for a fixed term and should remain for that term, as if it is a breach of contract if that does not occur.

The bill provides an incentive for community members to stand for council, thereby engaging the community in the local democratic process. The Government has confidence in the people of Wollongong and wants to ensure that they are able to choose their own representatives. The Government fulfils its promise and commitment made to the people of Shellharbour and Wollongong to restore their democratic rights. I support the bill.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.54 p.m.]: I speak briefly in debate on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. In principle we support the Government's bill. There has been much debate about the form the new local government will take on issues such as wards, number of members and a popularly elected mayor. Members who were here in the last Parliament would recall my private member's bill in 2007 to try to restore a democratically elected government to the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area. I agree with members who said that the people in Wollongong and Shellharbour have waited long enough to return to an elected council. The people in Port Macquarie-Hastings have waited more than five years to return to a democratically elected council. The difference is that there was no corruption within the Port Macquarie-Hastings council.

The Government's proposal establishes a stepped approach. It returns a democratically elected council and in the future allows the ratepayers of the council areas, particularly Shellharbour, to decide whether they want to increase the number of councillors, to have wards and to have a popularly elected mayor. The important point is the timing. I applaud the Government on introducing this bill at the earliest possible time to give the people back their elected local government. However, it is not hypocritical but remiss of the Government not to consider the people of Port Macquarie-Hastings at the same time.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.56 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. The Opposition welcomes the return of democracy to the people of Shellharbour and Wollongong. However, Opposition members wonder why other communities in this State are missing out. The Government has moved to bring on elections early in Shellharbour and Wollongong, but there is a community that has waited even longer for an election. This is a community that the Government seems all too happy to take for granted. I speak of the council of Port Macquarie-Hastings. This council is in The Nationals heartland, yet The Nationals have remained strangely silent on the absence in this bill of Port Macquarie-Hastings. What possible motivation could they have for doing so? Could it be that the Government has already made its move in Port Macquarie-Hastings by last month installing its own man as administrator? It seems that Mr Neil Porter has the Government's full confidence, after having served his career under The Nationals councillors.

Under a Coalition Government some communities seem to be more equal than others. I might accept that more work is needed to ensure that Port Macquarie-Hastings is ready for an election. I might, except that if more work is required in Port Macquarie-Hastings, I would think the same is likely of Shellharbour and Wollongong. I wonder why the Government is rushing to have elections in the Illawarra. Could it be that an election in Port Macquarie-Hastings is a foregone conclusion, but an election in the Illawarra in our current political climate might prove more favourable for the Coalition than the Government might usually expect? That might be the case.

I support the comments made by my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. The local government model proposed by the Government for Shellharbour is not in line with the recommendations of the Colley report. The Colley report specifically recommended three wards with three councillors in each. Yet the Government has chosen to ignore this recommendation and to implement changes that suit its own purpose. The Coalition has shown its political agenda in redesigning the electoral system of this local council. The Government's changes to the electoral processes of Shellharbour council are designed to give maximum benefit to Coalition candidates. Removing wards allows the vote across the entire electorate to be pooled so that the parties with a lower share of the primary vote can gain the maximum benefit. Further, the whole council area has to vote in a by-election, increasing the financial impost on the ratepayers of Shellharbour. With ward systems, a much smaller number is required to vote in a by-election.

Having an appointed mayor rather than a popularly elected mayor maximises this benefit by removing the wishes of electorates from the equation of mayoral appointments. The ideal model for the Opposition in Shellharbour would be three wards with three councillors, as recommended in the Colley report. I foreshadow that we will move amendments to have three wards with two councillors in each to bring our amendments closer in line with the Government's bill. I join with the honourable shadow Minister in asking all members of this House to carefully consider our amendments to the bill and to also carefully consider why the Government has chosen not to include Port Macquarie-Hastings in this bill. Let us have some democracy for the people of Port Macquarie-Hastings as well.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister for Police give a guarantee that the Government will not cut or reduce benefits to officers under the Police Death and Disability Scheme?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Liberals-Nationals Government has always maintained a commitment to ensuring the welfare of sick and injured officers. Where possible, officers should be encouraged and assisted and, if necessary, retrained to take up suitable duties as soon as they are able to do so. If they are unable to continue to work officers, should be given the opportunity to exit the New South Wales Police Force with dignity and financial security. Those principles will be at the forefront of any negotiations on a new death and disability scheme. The priorities of the new scheme will be to protect injured workers, to rehabilitate those officers who are able to return to work, to allow a dignified exit from the Police Force for those who are unable to return to work and to enable them to be fiscally responsible.

We remain committed to providing all police with appropriate death and disability arrangements to ensure injured officers receive adequate compensation and are treated with respect. That is the big point—that they are treated with respect. When we were in opposition, the Coalition for many years called on the then Government to start to show some respect—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who was the Minister?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They went through police Ministers as if they had taken a dose of salts—some were worthy of mention, some were not. The fact is that the former Government was asked on many occasions to start to put in place a process to rehabilitate and retrain injured officers and give them an opportunity to go back to work if they were in a position to do so. The former Government's response was to not take any responsibility for its treatment of police but to simply put in place a process that covered only death and disability. Sure, there is a place for that, and we continue to say that there needs to be financial protection for police, but first and foremost we have to start to show a bit of compassion and care for injured police officers and ensure that they are protected in such a way that once they are in a position to return to work they will have an opportunity to do so.

Not once did the former Government look at the delineation of jobs in New South Wales to ensure that there is a better understanding of which jobs in the New South Wales Police Force can be covered by non-fully operational police. Labor members talk about being the workers' friends and go on about how they look after injured workers, but time and again when they were in government we asked them what they were doing to help injured police officers and they did nothing. And today all we hear from them is a question asking whether we will maintain a focus on death and disability. Yes, we will maintain a focus to ensure that police are protected. As I have said time and again, we will maintain that focus, but primarily it has to be about ensuring that there is an opportunity for injured workers to return to work, and that will be the basic tenet on which we proceed with this issue.

I have said to those opposite many times that this Government will maintain a death and disability scheme for police as one of a suite of measures to ensure that we protect injured workers in a way that those opposite could never have dreamt of, because although they had the opportunity for years to do something they failed to deliver.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister outline to the House what is being done to tackle drunks on our streets?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The O'Farrell Government shares the dismay of most of our community when viewing seemingly endless news footage of drunks causing mayhem on our streets, particularly at night-time. The police are sick and tired of being punching bags for dirt bags on our streets. Police bear the brunt of what Commissioner Scipione has rightfully called a "drink to get drunk culture". Police are the ones being assaulted, breaking up the fights, scraping the vomit off their shoes and babysitting drunken children until their parents come to collect them. I acknowledge the work already done when it comes to ensuring that liquor licensees do the right thing; in particular, that they do not serve intoxicated persons or minors. We will build on this when we introduce our three strikes policy in respect of problem venues, which I emphasise are only a small minority.

This Government believes that there must be a great emphasis placed on individual responsibility when it comes to drinking alcohol; it cannot just be a matter of making things tougher for thugs and licensees, as we have seen in the past. There needs to be a focus on individual responsibility—I like to call it responsible consumption of alcohol. For far too long the previous Government focused purely on the responsible service of alcohol. That is why we are introducing a new offence of "intoxicated and disorderly". We are expanding the term "drunk and disorderly" to include those people affected by drugs and other substances. It is a term already defined in a number of New South Wales statutes.

I assure the House that the new offence is not intended to be used to harass vulnerable members of our community, whether they are what we call rough sleepers, people with chronic alcohol dependence or members of our Indigenous community. In keeping with the tenet of the original legislation, the new offence is aimed rather at those cashed-up, predominately young thugs whose excessive drinking makes far too often a late night for themselves a night when other people are confronted with dangerous, unacceptable and quite often hostile behaviour. Their chosen lack of self-control makes life miserable for bar and club staff, for other patrons, for people trying to sleep in neighbourhoods and for those who work in a late night economy, such as taxi and bus drivers. Making it a criminal offence to be intoxicated and disorderly in a public place should bring it home to people in that condition that their actions have consequences, possibly including a criminal record.

We are also strengthening police powers to give move-on directions to intoxicated people who are acting in a way that might cause harm to themselves, to others or to property. Currently, police can only give a move-on direction where a group of three or more people are intoxicated. We are changing that so that the direction to move on can be given to intoxicated individuals as well. That is a valuable preventive measure, and in many cases a person will be able to avoid a charge of being intoxicated and disorderly by simply complying with the police move-on direction given to them once their actions and their conduct have been drawn to the attention of members of the New South Wales Police Force. I thank the men and women of the New South Wales Police Force and ensure them that the O'Farrell Government will give them all the support they need to undertake this difficult and unpleasant work.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. The Government has the results of a statewide risk assessment of regional school bus routes that, taking into account the prevalence of conditions such as road curvature, gradient, traffic density and speed, and climate conditions such as fog and snow, includes a list of the most dangerous routes classified as Environment 3 routes. Given the fact that the previous Government sat on its hands for so long on the issue of safety equipment in regional school buses, what has been the Minister's response, as the new Minister responsible for roads, to this risk assessment and what is the Minister doing to ensure that children travelling on these Environment 3 listed routes in regional New South Wales are safe?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for her question and provide the same advice I gave her colleague last Friday: If members wish to ask me a question relating to another Minister's portfolio, I would appreciate it if they would say so at the outset. The question the member has just asked was directed to me in my capacity as Minister for Roads, not as representing the Minister for Transport. Therefore, technically it is out of order. However, as I said on Friday, I am a benevolent and nice person and I will take the question because it is important.

Mr David Shoebridge: You are a sensitive new age Minister.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There has been a change of government and a change of attitude. That is the way it is. I cannot help it; we are just nice.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Are you going walking?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Walking, not riding. My brother-in-law gave me some lycra over the weekend. And, yes, it was a very large size, but I will not be wearing it. The O'Farrell Government means what it says and says what it means. During the election campaign, the then shadow Minister promised that a Liberal-Nationals Government would establish a community advisory committee to examine school bus safety in regional and rural New South Wales. The School Bus Safety Community Advisory Committee will comprise road safety experts, transport operators, parents and school representatives. It will closely examine all issues relating to safe transportation to and from school.

As a first step in establishing this important committee, letters have already been sent to relevant organisations asking them to participate. The Minister for Transport will make a further announcement about the composition of the committee as soon as possible. The committee will be tasked with assessing the status of school bus safety in rural and regional New South Wales, considering the full range of school bus safety measures with reference to national and international experience and recommending the most effective ways to make school bus travel as safe as possible.

This Government will be encouraging New South Wales school bus operators to tap into the Federal Government's Seatbelts for Kids program where appropriate. That program allocates up to $25,000 per school bus for the installation of seatbelts. So far, eight New South Wales companies have been granted a total $222,000 to fit seatbelts in their buses. Applications for the next round of grants are expected to be called soon and $6.4 million will be available nationwide in 2011-12. The New South Wales Government appreciates the role the Federal Government has played in this area with the Seatbelts for Kids program and looks forward to working with it on further safety measures. Many people feel strongly about the provision of seatbelts in school buses, and that is one of the issues that will be considered by the new safety committee. The vast majority of school travel occurs without incident. Buses are a very safe way to get children to and from school—safer than the alternatives. Ozroads data shows that bus travel is the safest mode of transport for our schoolchildren— [Time expired.]

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. When was the Minister informed that responsibility for land tax, payroll tax and gaming tax was being transferred from the Treasurer to him?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the best of my recollection, it would have been when the administrative orders were published.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I will ask the Minister for Finance and Services a real question. What information can the Minister provide the House about unpaid fines and overdue taxes?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: This is a very important question. The former Government left this State with an overdue fines debt of $1.04 billion. That comprises $620 million in Crown fines, $298 million in commercial fines and $126 million in costs, and about $250 million is being managed under payment arrangements. Under the previous Government, the level of overdue debt for fines increased by $206.1 million. As members are aware, outstanding fines are actively pursued using a range of enforcement actions under the Fines Act 1996. These include licence and vehicle sanctions, property seizure orders, garnishee orders and community service orders. Fines debt can be resolved in different ways, including payment withdrawal, court election, caution, community service and work and development orders. Debt that is unrecoverable or uneconomic to recover is written off.

Thanks to the former Government, as at 28 February 2011 the overdue tax debt in New South Wales was $544 million. Of that, $340 million is subject to deferred arrangements, objection or appeal in the courts. A single amount of $259 million relating to duty on the sale of Sydney Airport is subject to appeal in the Supreme Court. Members can be assured that they will hear a lot more about that as time goes by. The adjusted overdue tax debt as at 28 February 2011 was $204 million, which represents 1.2 per cent of estimated tax revenue for 2010-11. Why is this information important? It is important because once again it demonstrates not only the former Government's inability to manage the State's finances but also its absolute neglect of those finances. That is why financial management was such a major issue in the people of this State determining to throw out the Labor Party. I am very pleased that we now have a government with a focus on financial management.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it a fact that the Federal Labor Government has committed to setting up by the end of next year marine parks on those parts of Australia's coast that are not already protected? What areas of the New South Wales coast has the Federal Government targeted for its next round of lockouts? What representations is the New South Wales Government making to the Federal Government to prevent the establishment of further marine parks and exclusion zones off our coastline?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What a good question.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: What are you doing about it?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That was Eddie! He is still here. I welcome him back. He is another former Labor fisheries Minister. In fact, he was the architect of the marine parks policy. It is great to have him back. This is an important question and one that I suspect would be better left to my colleague the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson to answer. The Minister is doing a cracking job in this area. She has moved very quickly to introduce legislation to revoke the regulations as promised by the fine former shadow Minister.

The Hon. Robert Brown: A substantial fellow.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, very substantial. The key point that arises from the member's question is the fact that these marine parks, both Federal and State, do not operate in isolation; they have a cumulative impact. I will not do members opposite an injustice by naming them, but I do know that some of them knew when they were in government that the fishing families of this State were being badly treated by their government's policy.

When the Hon. Robert Brown, the Hon. Robert Borsak or I tabled petitions from thousands of fishermen I recall seeing the nods of acceptance from members on the other side of the House. Theirs was a failed policy. It was a policy that denied children and grandparents the ability to fish, and it was based on voodoo science and voodoo environmentalism. It was based on the premise that if you shut something up, you protected it. But that was not the case. The greatest threat to our fisheries and fishing species is land-based, terrestrial: acid soils, stormwater and bad housing development. As far as I am aware not one species of fish—with perhaps one exception—in New South Wales has become extinct because of overfishing, and certainly none has become extinct because of recreational fishing. So, with a little balance and commonsense, and putting science into place—

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Voodoo science?

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Evidence-based science.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We will remove the voodoo environmentalism and voodoo science and we will use proper environmentalism based on real science, not political science, which is the basis of the policies of the former Government and The Greens.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports and I refer him to comments made by the Opposition spokesman on roads last year that the speed on the Newell Highway and other country roads should be increased above 100 kilometres an hour. What guarantees can the Government make that this will not have any adverse impact on the safety of country drivers?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This is an important question. The quote, however, is slightly inaccurate. The spokesman's pledge was—

[Interruption]

This is an important point if the question is based on a false premise. Technically the Leader of the Opposition suggested that our spokesperson said that the speed limit would be increased from 100 kilometres an hour. What the spokesperson promised was to restore the speed limit of 110 kilometres an hour to roads whose limit had been reduced from 110 kilometres an hour. The difference is obvious when the spokesperson is properly quoted. I understand that role of the Leader of the Opposition is to make the rhetoric suit his questions—I was in a similar position for a long time, and I accept that. However, I emphasise that the Government is committed to delivering on its election promise to reinstate a 110 kilometres an hour speed limit along those sections of the Newell Highway that had been reduced to 100 kilometres an hour by the previous Government in 2009. For the people of Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes this was a key election issue and it resulted in them voting overwhelmingly for a new local member, The Nationals' Troy Grant, who achieved a swing of 14.5 per cent. Significantly, the Government is not alone in wanting the 110 kilometre an hour speed limit—and this addresses the honourable member's reference to safety—reinstated along those sections of the highway. Earlier this year, the NRMA—not a fly-by-night organisation but a pretty reputable organisation—

[Interruption]

Which member of the Opposition said that the NRMA was not a reputable organisation?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I did.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Opposition Whip has been named and outed.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I support members of the NRMA but—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That was not what you said. You said that you found the organisation to be less than reputable, and now you are trying to backtrack. Earlier this year the NRMA reiterated its support for returning the speed limit to 110 kilometres an hour on these stretches of the highway. The NRMA said that increasing the speed limit to 110 would be a huge relief to motorists on the Newell Highway, after the 2009 speed limit reduction to 100 kilometres an hour had forced trucks and cars to travel at the same speed. Significantly, the NRMA also said that the safety risk on the highway certainly did not justify the speed limit being reduced to 100 kilometres an hour for cars. Indeed, the NRMA stated:

When cars were travelling at 110 kilometres an hour on the highway they could share the road safely with the vehicles limited to 100 kilometres an hour. Yet, when the speed limit was dropped a range of safety concerns came into play such as overtaking safely, traffic bunching up together and tailgating.

Similarly, on 2DU radio on 27 September 2009 Assistant Police Commissioner John Hartley made the following comment regarding Newell Highway speed limit reductions:

There are some long stretches where 110 is quite sufficient, and to reduce it may make criminals out of people who are doing the right thing.

So, it is not only the Government that has this view; the NRMA and John Hartley are of like mind. On the other side there is the Labor Party playing games.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister please inform the House how the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals Government intends to fix notorious black spots and ease traffic congestion on our roads?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I congratulate the Hon. John Ajaka on the job he is doing as a Parliamentary Secretary. He still has not yet found his way to my office, but—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: He is too busy having dinners.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a harsh call. I am sure he will be excellent; in fact, I said so the other day. As promised during the election, the New South Wales Coalition Government has committed an extra $200 million to the roads capital works budget to help fix black spots and reduce congestion on our roads. This funding increase is on top of the existing annual roads budget for New South Wales. The additional funding will be prioritised for local projects that improve road safety by fixing black spots and well-known regional deathtraps, and reduce travel times, relieve congestion and upgrade road quality—factors that will help improve New South Wales economic productivity.

The New South Wales Coalition Government will not stand idly by while people die at well-known black spots on our roads. The former Labor Government had 16 years to fix these black spots but, instead, focused on revenue raising. Five black spots to be given further funding as part of the $200 million package include Wiseman's Ferry Road, with a $5 million upgrade. The delivery of this critical upgrade was one of the reasons that the people of Gosford voted for Liberal candidate Chris Holstein, who, at every opportunity during the election, campaigned hard for this upgrade. In the end, Chris won the seat with an impressive swing of 16.7 per cent. Another black spot to be given further funding is Heathcote Road, with $7 million going towards upgrading the Deadman's Creek Bridge. Heathcote Road is a crucial link between Sydney's south and the Liverpool region, but for years there has been a lack of funding to address known black spots on this road.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Long overdue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Long overdue. Little wonder the people of Menai voted overwhelmingly for Melanie Gibbons, who recorded a resounding swing of 27.1 per cent. On Picton Road, $12 million is going towards the construction of median barriers along the most dangerous section of the road between Wilton and the Cordeaux Colliery. Over the past 10 years there have been more than 20 deaths on this dangerous stretch of road. Jai Rowell, who took the seat of Wollondilly with an impressive swing of 18 per cent, campaigned hard on this issue and is now determined to deliver this upgrade for his electorate. This comes on top of the funding that has already been allocated, yet another illustration of the Government's commitment to deliver safer roads for New South Wales motorists. Funding includes $250,000 towards the construction of a turning lane on the Newell Highway at Forbes.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: How paltry is that?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a turning lane that you hadn't put in there, obviously. Recently a semitrailer nearly ran up the back of a school bus as it turned off the Newell Highway into Oxford Street, Forbes. They do not have to be big ones; they have to be ones to do with local communities and local safety. That is why Troy Grant won that seat. In fact, he had a huge swing—I cannot remember how big.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It was big.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It was big.

[Interruption]

He was a decorated police officer in a former life and he knows that section of the Newell Highway like the back of his hand. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. John Ajaka is an outstanding Parliamentary Secretary. He does not need to come to the office if he does work like that. Funding of $250,000 will be allocated towards the construction of a turning lane on the Golden Highway at Ballimore, east of Dubbo. I know that the Hon. Tony Kelly knows where it is, but I suspect other members opposite do not. Troy Grant has already been lobbying my office for this to happen as soon as possible. We will deliver many more local initiatives across New South Wales—in western Sydney, on the Central Coast, in the Illawarra and the Hunter, on the mid North Coast, in Tamworth, the Monaro and the Central West. This is all part of our commitment to improve road safety and deliver a more efficient road network for the people of New South Wales.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services in his capacity as the Minister for Finance and Services. Did the Minister publish in the Government Gazette last week a notice under section 51 of the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 declaring the Sydney desalination plant to be a monopoly supplier in respect of being a network operator and a retail supplier? Will the Minister explain to the House why it was necessary to do this? What effect will this declaration have on the Government's plans to lease out the plant?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As usual that is a very good question from Dr John Kaye. I can confirm that, yes, I did issue a letter last week, which I think subsequently does appear in the Government Gazette. The purpose of that letter and the function that flows from it is that it allows the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to commence a process of pricing the water that is sold by the desalination plant. I gather that will take six to nine months. It will involve public consultation. Dr John Kaye is familiar with the process that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal undertakes.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer by explaining whether that is the water that is sold to Sydney Water or the water that it sells under its own retail licence?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The supply of bulk water is not part of Sydney Water's core business. Water from the desalination plant can be supplied by a private sector owner and is already supplied by a private sector operator. This is not an unusual arrangement as all the large water treatment plants in Sydney and the Illawarra are already privately owned and operated. Private operation of the desalination plant will not affect the cost or security of water from the desalination plant. Water availability will be guaranteed under an agreement with a private sector operator. The regulated prices are being set, as I said, by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given the Government's election commitment to reduce advertising, can the Minister advise the House how much the Government has spent on advertising since 26 March?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her question, which I will take on notice.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the results of the latest police attestation?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I apologise to the House for my inability to be here last Friday. I had a very important role to fulfil as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services at the graduation of class 312 at the Police Academy in Goulburn. It was my first in my new role as Minister for Police and Emergency Services. One of the first things I had an opportunity to announce down there was clarification of the uncertainty that exists around the name of the organisation.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was well received.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was well received. It will now return to its former name of the New South Wales Police Academy, not the police college. That announcement was very well received by the sworn officers. The attestation certainly brought back memories of when I was in a similar position, standing on the parade ground at Redfern more than 30 years ago. Whilst a lot of things have changed in policing, a lot of things have not. Obviously the equipment, the cars and the uniform have changed, but certainly one thing that has not changed is the high calibre of probationary constables coming through the academy. They are required to pass through a tough course, both physically and academically, to prove they can cut the mustard as officers in the New South Wales Police Force. Who knows, even Eric Roozendaal might apply to join the New South Wales Police Force—although he may not pass the integrity test.

They are men and women who are prepared to do their best for the people of this State and who will undertake this job on a daily basis, often in the most difficult of circumstances. The 111 probationary constables who attested at the ceremony have joined more than 15,000 officers in the Police Force. They come from all walks of life. Over 22 per cent of those who attested are women. Forty per cent come from outside metropolitan Sydney. Sixteen were born overseas, in countries such as Russia, Germany, Malaysia, China and even Botswana. They speak Arabic, Greek, Cantonese, Armenian, Dari, and Khmer. They will be posted to 59 local area commands across the State, from Albury in the south, to Richmond in the north, from Barrier in the west to the heart of Sydney. Forty-four of the officers have been assigned to non-metropolitan or rural regions.

Irrespective of where they have been posted they are on the front line. They stand between the community and the dangers of crime and other antisocial behaviour. A number of these new police officers deserve special mention. Firstly, the winner of the Robert Brotherson Award for the highest level of academic achievement was Probationary Constable Stephanie Hill. The winners of the Steven Roser Memorial Award for the highest male and female achievers in physical training were Probationary Constable John Feuerstein and Probationary Constable Sandra Chaban. The Juan Carlos Hernandez Award, given to the student with the highest marksmanship score, was Probationary Constable James Patrick. Probationary Constable Jessica Agland was the recipient of the Simulated Policing Acquiring Confidence Award.

I met some of the officers on Friday and I can confidently say that the New South Wales Police Force has a strong future. These officers can be proud of their achievements. Their family and friends can be proud of them for all the hard work they have put in to get there. The people of New South Wales can be proud of these people for choosing a selfless profession, dedicating their working lives to ensuring the safety and protection of the community. I am sure all members of the House will join me in wishing our newest police officers all the very best for their careers in the New South Wales Police Force.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of a grassroots campaign by recreational fishers on the North Coast to establish a more extensive recreational fishing area for the Clarence River in which it is claimed 140 professional fishermen have access? Has the productivity of the river been declining to the point where stocks are in danger? Is the Minister aware that locals say it was not possible to catch a legal sized whiting this past summer? Has the Minister been approached about this campaign and, if so, will the Minister initiate discussions with the relevant stakeholders, being the professional and recreational fishers, regarding the health of the fishery and the sharing of the fish stock resource?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Robert Brown for his question. It is an important and good question, as one would expect from someone who is interested in fishing. I will refer the question to my colleague Katrina Hodgkinson, the Minister for Primary Industries. The Hon. Robert Brown referred to the Clarence River Professional Fishermen's Association, an association that interestingly now has John Harrison working with it. As many members of this House would be aware, John Harrison is a former recreational fisherman and one of the leading lights in that organisation. He is now doing an excellent and balanced job in the professional fishing area.

The Hon. Robert Brown: A very capable representative.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He is a very capable representative. It highlights the fact that the enemy has not been between recreational and commercial fishers; the enemy has been bureaucracy and bad policies. The association is working to achieve a better outcome for the river, the fishers—both recreational and commercial—and the environment. Obviously, as I am no longer involved in that portfolio area I do not have a role in it, but I know my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries would be interested in the matter and that her office will be listening to this answer.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. I refer the Minister to his statement during question time last week that "Regional Ministers are not allocated responsibility for any Acts". Will the Minister advise the House of his top five priorities as the Minister for the Illawarra?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for her question. For 16 years the people of the Illawarra were neglected and taken for granted by the former Government. Not only did Labor's mates and relatives on the local councils take the people of the Illawarra for granted, they took them—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: The table of knowledge.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, the table of knowledge.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis' question related to the Minister's top five priorities for the Illawarra. The Minister has totally failed to address that in his answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is too early to rule that the Minister's answer is not relevant to the question asked. He is giving a preamble.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Thank you for your ruling, Mr President. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis must have been missing from the debate earlier today on a bill relating to Shellharbour and Wollongong council elections. Our first priority for the Illawarra is to return democracy to Wollongong and Shellharbour councils.

[Interruption]

I cannot talk about that at the moment because the bill is presently before the House. Unfortunately, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is again showing her inexperience. I guess I take back what I said last week: that the Opposition does not have any youngsters coming through. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis is clearly inexperienced and it will be good to see her develop. I find it extraordinary that not less than an hour or two ago this House was debating a bill relating to Shellharbour and Wollongong council elections and members opposite did not notice that our first priority for the Illawarra is to return democracy to those councils. Where did democracy with regard to those councils go? The former Government trashed it. The former Government ignored the demands and requests of the people of the Illawarra to have proper, honest and capable local government. So what did we do? In our first week in office we introduced the legislation.

[Interruption]

I am going to take a lot of time to take members opposite through my priorities for the Illawarra. I will talk about them incessantly. We will actually deliver for the people of the Illawarra—unlike the former Government, which over 16 years simply took them for granted and made their lives a misery. I will refer to some further priorities later.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of relocating football in the Illawarra region to Lysaght Oval?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: This is the sort of question members opposite should have been asking me, rather than asking me to expose the former Government's incompetence and the fact that it took the people of the Illawarra for granted for so long. The development of the innovation campus of the University of Wollongong from 2002—has the Hon. Sophie Cotsis been to the innovation campus of the University of Wollongong?

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Yes, I have.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: —meant that new home ground facilities have had to be developed for the two local football teams, the South Coast Wolves and Wollongong Olympic.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Were you there last week, Greg?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I was there on Saturday actually. In 2002-03 the former Government identified—this is another mess the former Government has left us—the Lysaght Recreation Centre at Figtree as a suitable new venue, and granted $2.5 million to fund the ground upgrade and club relocation costs. Wollongong City Council agreed to administer the funds. Since 2003 there have been delays and rising costs in completing the necessary works to bring the facility up to A-grade playing standard, including the bankruptcy of a construction company and new owners of the centre who wanted changes to the planned facilities. With the windup of the National Soccer League and the launch of the A-league, Football South Coast was established as the regional football association. The Department of Premier and Cabinet met with Football South Coast late last year, supposedly to expedite matters and to discuss ways to complete facilities to the standard required by footballers and spectators in the Illawarra.

I am told it was agreed that the best approach would be for the transfer of the stadium and adjacent land out of private ownership to the control of Football South Coast. Last February the former Premier announced a final grant of $2.5 million so Football South Coast could buy the facility and complete the upgrades so the stadium would be operational in 2012. Any additional costs incurred will be the responsibility of Football South Coast. Football South Coast is currently negotiating with the private owners to reach an agreement for site purchase and transfer. As the negotiations are still underway, no funds have yet been transferred. So here we are, eight years on, and once again what should have been a very significant project for the Illawarra has not been completed. It is just another example of the former Government's incompetence and its lack of respect for the Illawarra.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the Minister explain to the House the nature of the agreement between the Government and Shenhua with regard to how its Watermark coalmine project will comply with the new strategic regional land use policy? In particular, is it a written agreement signed by the appropriate Minister and the company or simply a verbal agreement?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham for his question and I congratulate him on being a quick learner. It has taken years for some of his colleagues in The Greens to understand some of these processes. But he being from the Orange Greens, he is an exception—and the first tie wearer as well. He has set the trend—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: And tartan, too!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I note the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is wearing a tartan tie. Since I highlighted the fact that ties go with leadership, on the second day of this parliamentary session there was a Shoebridge tie and on the third day Dr John Kaye was adorned in a tie as well. So the leadership stakes are back out for a day! In answer to the question: the agreement was a verbal agreement. It was a gentleman's agreement. I know that some members of this House would not know about a gentleman's agreement, but I would have thought someone from Orange, where there are still some remnants of gentility, would know about a gentleman's agreement. I asked, and the company accepted.

Mr David Shoebridge: You walked down the aisle together—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Isn't it interesting? Only The Greens cannot accept that people can have an honourable agreement. Even the Labor Party was silent on that one. The Greens cannot accept that anyone could have such an agreement. Can I suggest it is time you got over it because these guys have said that they are willing to be part of it!

Dr John Kaye: Answer the question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am answering the question. If you keep asking them you will get the same answer because there is only one answer. We asked them whether they would be willing to come in and be appraised under our new strategic plans and they said yes. There is no more, no less. They are part of the part 3A but they have agreed to have the strategic lands part as part of theirs as well. I will refer the question to my colleague.

The Hon. Luke Foley: What?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Well they came in under part 3A under the last government but they agreed to be assessed under our strategic lands. There is nothing funny about it. I thought they should have been applauded. I would have thought that fair-minded Greens would have gone to these people and said, "Good on you. You have accepted that there is going to be a tougher standard and you are willing to be part of that tougher standard." They have, and they will.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister feel that a verbal agreement and a handshake is a good way to administer our resources in New South Wales, including strategic agricultural lands such as the Liverpool Plains—

The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order: I appreciate that the member is new to this place, but that is clearly a completely different question.

The PRESIDENT: I was not clear whether the question was asking for an opinion. Does the member have his question in writing?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Yes, I do.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Having read the question, I rule that the question was seeking an expression of opinion and is therefore out of order.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I refer to the Attorney General's scheme as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 July last year to reduce the jail population by one-fifth and reduce sentences for assault, theft, fraud and drug offences. Has the Minister sought any advice from the NSW Police Force on the Attorney General's proposal? If so, what were the details of that advice? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We have not sought any advice from the department in relation to the former Government's handling of matters in relation to policing, particularly in the Attorney General's area. No-one has brought to the Government's attention any reason why it should be looking at it, whilst we are trying to look at so many other areas of policing.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: I am afraid the Minister has misunderstood the question I asked of him. I am referring to the current Attorney General's scheme.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Amanda Fazio knows that that is not a point of order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It appears that the member has misunderstood her own question. I have not sought any advice.

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on upgrades to Galston Road at Galston Gorge?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Are you right, Duncan? Do you want some more time to get ready?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have got a good answer here; I just have to find it. I was hoping someone would ask me a question such as that—I was expecting it to come from the Opposition but it did not. Galston Road via the Galston Gorge is an important regional link road; it offers the most direct route between Galston and Hornsby. Each day this busy stretch of road experiences 5,000 vehicle movements. In the past over-length vehicles—typically greater than 7.5 metres in length—have become stuck on the road as they attempt to drive through the Galston Gorge, creating major traffic problems for commuters. On average three trucks each year find they are unable to negotiate the tight, steep bends of Galston Road. In the process, they block the road to traffic.

To prevent this problem from occurring in the future, the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government has committed to delivering a new roundabout and truck barrier on the western side of Galston Gorge by July this year. These works are a first for a State road and will work to deter over-length vehicles from using the road. Extra signs have also been installed to discourage over-length vehicles from using the road, and a new vehicle monitoring system is currently working to reduce the number of road closures in the Galston Gorge. This system will encourage drivers of over-length vehicles to comply with length restrictions and will remove a source of possible blockage of Galston Road for the people of Galston and Hornsby. It should be noted that the vast majority of heavy vehicles use Pennant Hills Road and then the F3 when travelling north towards Newcastle. This system is designed to deter drivers of over-length vehicles from running the gauntlet of Galston Road. In addition, due to legitimate community concerns, vehicle inspections had been moved to other sites during the period of the upgrade to improve road safety.

The former member for Hornsby, Judy Hopwood, was a tireless advocate for her electorate, supporting works to improve road conditions at the gorge. The current member for Hornsby, Mr Matt Kean, retained the seat for the New South Wales Liberals with a vote of 62 per cent, giving him a strong mandate to advocate for the people of Hornsby. He has already met with my office to ensure that these upgrades to Galston Road are completed on schedule. I also acknowledge the contribution of Ray Hadley from Radio 2GB, who has campaigned tirelessly to ease traffic problems on Galston Road. Since I have been the Minister for Roads and Ports, Ray has raised the issue with me. His determination to improve the conditions at Galston Gorge has been instrumental in helping to achieve this positive outcome.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I address my question to the Minister for Finance and Services. Noting that the Minister's spokesperson was quoted in the weekend media as saying that senior judicial figures were consulted by the Government on removing the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission in regard to work safety matters, will the Minister advise exactly which senior judicial figures were consulted? Specifically, was the President or Acting President of the Industrial Relations Commission or the Chief Judge of the District Court consulted on this change?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I must say I was quite disturbed when I read the Sunday newspaper to see that the correspondence from one of the State's most senior judicial officers to me had been released to the media without any opportunity on my part to respond. I received a letter late on Friday. Members well know that we were busy on Friday. I did not see the letter until late on Friday night when I was reviewing correspondence. It is really quite disturbing. I have written to the President of the Industrial Relations Commission today.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Will you give us a copy?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, I will not give you a copy of his letter.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: No, your letter.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, I will not give you a copy of my letter because I regard it as correspondence between me and a judicial officer who is responsible both to me and to the Attorney General.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Just wait a couple of days, we will get a copy.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Acknowledge that interjection!

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Greg Donnelly said that in a couple of days those opposite will get a copy. Our policy on the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has been well and truly in the public arena for nearly two years. We have not been in government for long, but we are acting quickly on major policy areas. The harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws, which the former Government agreed to until it backflipped, is an important part of our 100 Day Action Plan. For a short period we were able to consult with interested parties. I am advised that the Attorney General's Department, at the request of the Attorney General, Greg Smith, consulted with the heads of jurisdiction, namely Chief Magistrate Henson and Chief Justice Spigelman. Justice Boland was on leave during the period we undertook consultations. I have not met formally with or spoken to Justice Boland about the Government's policy on occupational health and safety harmonisation or its implementation.

At no time did I make any personal assurance, as alleged in yesterday's Sun-Herald. I gave no undertakings or assurances to the judge or anyone else in relation to the Industrial Relations Commission. My comments have always been to the effect that the Industrial Relations Commission has a future and that the Coalition in government would enact the model law. I did not give specifics as to the role the Industrial Relations Commission would play. In the model legislation the most serious offence, the category one offence of reckless conduct exposing an individual to a risk of death or serious injury, is to be heard as an indictable offence by the Supreme Court. The Work Health and Safety Bill creates a serious criminal offence and it is the Government's view that such offences should be heard by mainstream criminal courts.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: During question time on Friday the Hon. Luke Foley asked me a question in relation to the legal advice of the Crown Solicitor referred to in a minute provided to me by my department—which I tabled, I believe, on Thursday—which stated, "The Crown Solicitor's Office has confirmed that for the purpose of section 13B of the Constitution Act …". This morning I asked my staff to request a copy of that opinion from my department and I also asked for advice as to whether it would be appropriate for me to table that opinion. I have received advice from the director general of the department, which states, "The department has spoken to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which has advised that the Crown Solicitor's advice referred to in the briefing note attached to your email"—that is the briefing note I referred to—"was verbal advice."

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Hon. James Jacob Spigelman, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000
J. J. Spigelman
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, as a consequence of the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, having assumed the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth, he has this day at 10.00 a.m. assumed the administration of the government of the State.

8 May 2011

Pursuant to sessional order debate on Committee Reports given precedence.

Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Robert Brown.

Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Robert Brown, on behalf of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [5.06 p.m.]: In speaking on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011, I state at the outset my surprise at The Greens' position on this bill. The bill imposes changes to local government, particularly in relation to wards and the number of councillors. This is not the process to make such changes. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government
said that it has listened to the community. That is not entirely true. How could the Government have listened to the community when it did not afford the people of Wollongong and Shellharbour an opportunity to participate in a proper constitutional referendum? It is through a constitutional referendum that such changes can be implemented, and only if they are supported by the residents and ratepayers of Wollongong and Shellharbour. Why was this matter not the subject of a referendum? Why were the good people of these council areas not given the opportunity to decide on the model of their own local governments? What is the Government's rush? We all welcome democracy, but it is not acceptable when legislation is introduced in such haste.

As was reported in the Illawarra Mercury, the people of Wollongong want fresh and energetic local government leaders with fresh ideas and a determination to serve the community. To achieve this, the people must take control of their own destiny and not have it imposed on them from above. The Government relies on the views of former Mayor Hamilton. The mayor is entitled to his views, as are all politicians. But the mayor's view should not be accepted as gospel when it comes to ward structure and the number of councillors. Under the Constitution Act, that is a matter for the people. Former Mayor Hamilton stated at the public inquiry that he held the view that a reduction in councillor numbers to six and a mayor is a good option. He gave evidence that he believed it would lead to better governance and save money. This is his personal opinion. Many people do not share his views. The former mayor's personal opinion should not be imposed on the good people of Shellharbour and Wollongong, unless they call for it and approve it under a constitutional referendum.

I echo the concerns raised in this place by the shadow Minister, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, and in the other place by Mrs Barbara Perry, the member for Auburn, that we must be concerned about the intentions behind the decision to ram this bill through Parliament with little notice being given of it in the other place. All members in this place understand the importance of giving the people of Shellharbour and Wollongong a chance to elect their councillors and to get on with their lives. But one must be concerned about the Government's motives for moving this legislation. It was intended that the administrators for both councils would serve a four-year term in order to ensure that the public had confidence in their council and its functions before a new council was elected. That is exactly what Labor did while in government.

We hope that the Liberal-Nationals Government has received advice from the administrators of both Wollongong and Shellharbour councils that they are ready to proceed. One would hope that the work done by the administrators on the cultural change issues and the other matters that Wollongong faced has been finalised and that the administrators are satisfied and support the Government's plan to call an early election. As the former Minister, Mrs Barbara Perry, argued in the other place, the Government should come clean about its motivation for introducing this bill. The Government must tell this House whether this legislation is a natural consequence of the necessary reforms being implemented ahead of schedule or the political manoeuvring of an inexperienced government.

I note that Mrs Perry asked why the elections are necessary in Shellharbour and Wollongong but not in Port Macquarie. That is especially troubling, given that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has been under administration longer than the other two councils. If the Government believes the time is right for elections in Shellharbour and Wollongong, surely it is time for an election in Port Macquarie. On the one hand, the Government has expressed its concern about the restoration of the democratic rights of the residents of the Illawarra, which we all support and, on the other hand, it limits those same rights by imposing reforms to ward councillor numbers without proper community consultation—a clear policy inconsistency.

The people of Shellharbour and Wollongong should determine the composition of their councils; it should not be imposed on them from above, and particularly by a Government whose members are still unaccustomed to their portfolios. Why is it that the ward changes are not the subject of a referendum? Why are these councils not given the power to determine their own local government models? If the approach of the Government is going to be ad hoc policy by stealth, it appears that the people of New South Wales will be short-changed and will not receive the natural rights they deserve. If the Government wants to recommend changes in the field of local government and the way local government is run it should give notice of that intention and throw open all local government issues and have them debated and argued by the communities in each of the local government areas, not simply impose changes on councils from above.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [5.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to debate on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [5.16 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 on sheet C2011-017 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, clause 4 (1) (a), line 7. Insert "mayor and" before "councillors".

No. 2 Page 3, clause 4 (2), line 9. Insert "mayor and" before "councillors".

No. 4 Page 4, clauses 6 and 7, lines 6 to 21. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

6 Number of councillors for Shellharbour City Council
(1) Shellharbour City Council is to have 7 councillors for the term of office commencing from the 2011 elections, being:
(a) the mayor (who is to be elected by all the electors for the Shellharbour City Council area), and

(b) 6 other councillors.

(2) After the 2011 elections:
(a) the Shellharbour City Council may, in accordance with section 224 of the Local Government Act, change the number of its councillors, and

(b) a decision may be made in accordance with Division 2 of Part 2 of Chapter 9 of the Local Government Act that the mayor is to be elected by the councillors from among their number.

These amendments maintain the number of councillors in Shellharbour, as proposed by the Government, but reintroduce a popularly elected mayor from that number, meaning that there will be seven councillors including the mayor. There is no justification for the Government's proposal to remove the right of the people of Shellharbour to elect their mayor; it is their right to elect their mayor, and we should abide by their wishes. I do not know what the Government's motivation is in this regard and I call on all members to support the amendments as they are in the best interests of the people of Shellharbour.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.18 p.m.]: Madam Chair, I congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will do an excellent job over the coming years and I look forward to working with you. The Opposition supports reducing the number of councillors to seven. The issue for the Opposition is whether we have a separately elected mayor. Shellharbour council was too big and it became dysfunctional; the councillors and the officers simply could not function. The public inquiry report referred to various pieces of evidence including, interestingly, that of Mr O'Rourke, the Shellharbour council Director of Community Planning and Strategy, who said that "wards have all sorts of grotesque shapes based on fulfilling that requirement of the regulations, but having far less to do with local organic communities of interest".

Mr O'Rourke said he did not believe that the ward structure was conducive to engendering a whole-of-city approach to the challenges and opportunities ahead. He was focusing on coming up with a whole-of-city approach that would enable the council to face the challenges and opportunities ahead. On the political side, former Mayor of Shellharbour, David Hamilton, also gave evidence at the inquiry and he took the view that maintaining the ward boundaries was problematic. However, he also stated that he held a personal view that a reduction in councillor numbers to six and a mayor would be a good option. He said that he believed it would lead to better governance and that it would save money. He further stated that councillors would still be able to represent residents at a high level.

This State has 16 councils with six or seven councillors, including Tweed Shire Council, the Council of the City of Botany Bay and Strathfield Municipal Council. The question put was whether councils with seven councillors and no wards should have a separate mayoral election. It was determined that the extra expense of a mayoral election could not be justified and that the most efficient process would be to elect the councillors and then allow them to elect the mayor, which occurs in many other councils. On that basis, the Government will not support the Labor Party's amendments.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.21 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Opposition's amendments for a number of reasons. First, the Opposition seems to be joining with the Government in agreeing to a reduction in the total number of local government representatives in Shellharbour to just seven. Again, no explanation has been given for how such a drastic reduction can support local democracy. It is most unfortunate that both major parties seem content to slash the number of democratically elected local representatives. What is even more concerning about the Labor Party's amendments is the combined effect of amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 4. The combined effect will be to reduce ward numbers to three and councillor numbers to six. That will reinstate Labor's classic two-member gerrymander in Shellharbour, which is one of the key reasons for the problems that emerged. Why is the Labor Party so committed to this undemocratic approach to local government? It is completely incomprehensible.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Because they haven't learnt their lesson.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: That does appear to be the case; Labor members have not learnt their lesson. They are trying to reinstate the system that caused all the problems in Shellharbour. While in certain cases a popularly elected mayor can be appropriate in a local government area, one of the key reasons this local government area became dysfunctional was that the popularly elected mayor did not have the consistent support of his councillors. That is a recipe for dysfunction and failure. If the chair of the council does not have the support of the members on the floor, he or she will be subject to constant successful dissent motions. As a result, the chair cannot control the council. That is what happened at Shellharbour City Council when it had a popularly elected mayor. The Labor Party seems keen to replicate all the features of the last dysfunctional administration and to compound those problems by dramatically reducing the number of councillors. Therefore, The Greens do not support the amendments.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I will put Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 and deal with Opposition amendment No. 4 at a later time.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 [C2011-017] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Cotsis Mr Donnelly Mr Foley Mr Kelly Mr Moselmane

Mr Obeid Mr Primrose Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood Tellers, Ms Fazio Ms Voltz

Mr Ajaka Ms Barham Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Buckingham Ms Cusack Ms Faehrmann Ms Ficarra

Mr Gallacher Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Harwin Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones

Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Shoebridge Tellers, Mr Colless Dr Phelps

Mr Hatzistergos

Mr Clarke

Question resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 [C2011-017] negatived.

Clause 4 agreed to.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [5.32 p.m.]: by leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 5 on sheet C2011-017 in globo:

No. 3 Page 4, clause 5, lines 2 to 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

5 Reduction in number of wards in Shellharbour City Council area
(1) The administrator of Shellharbour City Council must, before 24 June 2011, alter the ward boundaries of the Shellharbour City Council area to reduce the number of wards from 6 to 3.

(2) The change to the boundaries of the wards must not result in a variation of more than 10 per cent between the number of electors in each ward in the area.

(3) Before altering the ward boundaries, the administrator must:

(a) consult the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician to ensure that, as far as practicable, the proposed ward boundaries correspond to the boundaries of appropriate districts (within the meaning of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912) and census districts, and to ensure that the proposed boundaries comply with subsection (2), and

(b) prepare and publicly exhibit a plan detailing the proposed alteration (the ward boundary plan).

(4) The administrator must give public notice of the following:
(a) the place at which the ward boundary plan may be inspected,

(b) the period for which the plan will be exhibited (being a period of not less than 30 days),

(c) the period during which submissions regarding the ward boundary plan may be made to the administrator (being a period of not less than 30 days after the date on which the ward boundary plan is placed on public exhibition).

(5) The administrator must, in accordance with the notice, publicly exhibit the ward boundary plan together with any other matter that the administrator considers appropriate or necessary to better enable the plan and its implications to be understood.

(6) Any person may make a submission to the administrator regarding the ward boundary plan within the period referred to in subsection (4) (c).

(7) The administrator must consider submissions made in accordance with this section.

Note. The provisions of subsections (2)–(7) broadly mirror provisions in sections 210 and 210A of the Local Government Act relating to the alteration of ward boundaries.
(8) An alteration to ward boundaries is not invalid merely because the administrator failed to follow any one or more of the steps set out in subsections (3)–(7).

(9) After the 2011 elections, the Shellharbour City Council may, in accordance with section 210 of the Local Government Act, alter its ward boundaries.

No. 5 Page 7. Insert after line 25:

10 Transitional—preparations for alteration of ward boundaries in Shellharbour City Council area
Any thing done by the administrator of Shellharbour City Council, before the commencement of this Act, for the purpose of enabling the alteration of ward boundaries referred to in section 5, is taken to have been done under that section and as if that section had already commenced.

There is a good reason why local councils have wards. It makes local representatives responsible to a specific community within a local government area. As such, having councillors represent wards is good for the same reason as having lower House members represent electorates. It ensures a counsellor is aware of the issues that affect the local community and is able to advise on and work to find solutions to those issues. He is available to listen to the concerns of residents and to convey those concerns to council. This is a basic tenet of our representative democratic system. The constituents, in this case the ratepayers, know who is their representative in council. So the question is: Why does the Government want to make this change?

Having no wards means that the vote for council will be spread across the entire local government area and the local government area will be considered as though it were one single electorate. As a result, the parties that traditionally do not perform as well in Shellharbour have an advantage. What is more, the Colley report did not recommend abolishing wards; it recommended reducing them. The Colley report recommended that there be three wards with three councillors in each. In a spirit of compromise we have reduced the total number of councillors proposed to bring our amendments closer in line with the Government's proposal. I urge members to consider and to join us in voting for these amendments for the benefit of democracy in Shellharbour.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.35 p.m.]: As I indicated earlier, the bill amends the governance structure of Shellharbour City Council. Shellharbour City Council's present structure of elected representatives divides the council's local government area into six wards with two councillors per ward and a mayor elected by the electors, giving the council a total of 13 councillors. As I indicated earlier in my speech, the Shellharbour council population is roughly one-third of the Wollongong City Council population and it does not make any sense to have the same number of elected councillors for Shellharbour as exists in Wollongong city, which is also the major regional central business district. One of the findings of the public inquiry into Shellharbour City Council was that the structure was an impediment to good governance.

I acknowledge that the commissioner recommended the area be divided into three wards with three councillors per ward and a mayor elected by the electors, which would have given a total number of 10 councillors. Earlier, the Opposition indicated that it did not favour increasing the number of councillors to 10; it agreed with the Government's position that seven councillors would be a more sensible representation for a council of this size. I am pleased that the Opposition is not trying to reopen that issue. While the public inquiry recommended three wards, it highlighted also the problems in retaining a ward structure. I referred to those earlier in quotes from various witnesses, including the former mayor, and I do not think I need to go over those again.

The Government considers that the geographical size and population of the Shellharbour local government area makes this council more suited to having no wards at all. The current administrator is also supportive of the Shellharbour local government area having no wards. Presently, a council must conduct a constitutional referendum before it may abolish its ward structure, reduce the number of its councillors, or change the method of electing its mayors. In order to have a council election on 3 September 2011 and for us to deliver on our commitment to the people of the Illawarra, clearly it would have been impossible to run such a constitutional referendum in the meantime. Therefore, the bill provides for the abolition of all the wards in the Shellharbour local government area and the number of councillors to be amended to seven, including a mayor elected by the councillors.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.38 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Opposition's amendments. This is the second part of the method used by Labor to reinstate these two-member wards to reinstate a Labor gerrymander in Shellharbour, which is deeply undemocratic. It is remarkable that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis presented it to this Committee as some attempt at a compromise to reinstate democracy in Shellharbour when it will put in place the most undemocratic way of electing councillors anywhere in New South Wales. It is astounding that Labor cannot wean itself off two-member wards. It cannot wean itself off this gerrymander, even when it got the shellacking that it did in March, partly because of its failure to recognise the need for democratic responsibility. There is nothing in particular about Shellharbour that compels wards. Unlike Wollongong, it does not have those three natural areas that divide sensibly into wards. There has not been a broad-ranging insurrection in Shellharbour calling for wards. What it has been calling for, which is something Labor did not give it, was a return to democracy.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I will put the question on Opposition amendment No. 3 and deal with amendment No. 5 at the appropriate time.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 3 [C2011-017] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 3 [C2011-017] negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Sophie Cotsis has already moved an amendment to clause 6 but before dealing with that the Committee will consider an amendment of The Greens that relates also to clause 6.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.40 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2011-011:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 6 (1), line 7. Omit "7". Insert instead "9".

The effect of this amendment is to increase the number of councillors elected across Shellharbour City Council from seven to nine. As I said before, and I will not labour the point, if this amendment were successful it would increase the degree of local democracy in Shellharbour. By increasing the number of councillors from seven to nine there would be an adequate number of councillors to represent the interests of Shellharbour. Let us think about what will happen in September. In September we will have local government elections. That is good, but those councillors will be elected for a five-year term. That is asking seven members of the local community to serve for five years as part-time councillors—because that is what we have in New South Wales—to undertake all the committee work and all the council work necessary to ensure there is good governance and an adequate level of democratic representation in Shellharbour for five long years.

It is quite an ask of any representative to stand up and to do part-time work as a councillor in any local council area for four years, but for The Greens it is an undemocratic approach to ask such a limited number of councillors, only seven councillors, to amongst them spread all the work required for a local government area the size of Shellharbour for five years. It will lead to an excessive workload for those seven councillors. There is simply no valid argument that reducing the number of councillors to seven somehow will reduce disputation on council. It is far more likely that with nine councillors sharing the load, working together cooperatively, there will be far better local government outcomes in Shellharbour. Also, the number nine is consistent with the recommendation from Commissioner Colley, who recommended nine councillors.

The Government has not explained why it is rejecting the recommendation that came from the commissioner, who sat down and reviewed the operations in Shellharbour. When the inquiry examined the local government area, it made a clear recommendation for nine councillors, yet that seems to have been thrown out by the Government in radically reducing the numbers to seven. In Shellharbour we will effectively go from 13 local representatives down to a mere seven. In Shellharbour there will be one councillor for every 10,000 residents, whereas just across the border in Kiama there will be only one councillor for every 2,300 residents. The Greens amendments will go a significant way towards ensuring there are enough councillors to share the load. It will go a significant way towards ensuring the council can be a functioning council over the next five years, and it will go a significant way towards having a greater breadth of democratic representation in Shellharbour. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.44 p.m.]: As always, Mr David Shoebridge has been eloquent in his argument but, with the greatest respect, he has not given us any logical reason for going with nine councillors rather than seven. Our approach was that in this situation we had a massive failure of the council previously because of the dysfunctional nature of the council and the impacts that had on staff. We looked at the best approach to try to have a conciliatory, sensible opportunity for a new council to function well.

We looked around to establish what happens in other councils and we found that quite a number of councils have seven or fewer councillors. They range from small city areas such as Hunters Hill and Burwood to Botany Bay, which is much more industrial, to country locations such as Tumut Shire Council, Tweed Shire Council and Harden Shire Council, which have broad geographic areas, and Bellingen and Murrumbidgee. Indeed, Murrumbidgee has only six councillors. We took the view that, given the healing function that is to occur, seven was a good number. As it was consistent with many other councils around the State, that was the decision the Government made.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [5.46 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes The Greens amendment and accepts the number of councillors proposed by the Government. Our proposal came from the recommendations in the Colley report. The recommendation was that the local government area be divided into three wards.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.46 p.m.]: I have not yet heard a rational reason from Opposition members for not supporting the amendment other than it seems to me they do not want to have a broader amount of democracy in Shellharbour. From what I can tell, the argument from the Government is that there is some magic healing in having seven councillors as opposed to having nine councillors.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: It's a nice number.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Marie Ficarra. It is not just a nice number; just a nice number is not an adequate response when we have a clear report from Commissioner Colley recommending nine councillors. He recommends nine councillors. There is no independent voice for reducing the number of councillors to seven. What Commissioner Colley did not recommend, and indeed was clear not to recommend, was what Labor is proposing, that is, retaining the two-member council wards. When one reads the report there is a real critique about how that may have been part of the cause for the problems in Shellharbour. The recommendation of Commissioner Colley was nine councillors. For all the reasons I put forward nine councillors would give a better outcome and a better operation for local democracy in Shellharbour, yet both major parties seem to be joining together as one to defeat this amendment to ensure that there is less local democracy in Shellharbour.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.48 p.m.]: I support my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, the shadow Minister for Local Government, in opposing the amendment. The Greens have complained about the Government throwing out some of the recommendations of the Colley report but not other recommendations. They support having nine councillors and claim it is because of the wisdom in the Colley report, but they reject having wards within Shellharbour which obviously they think is not part of the wisdom of the Colley report. It is typically inconsistent. The complaint about the wards being a so-called gerrymander is nothing but absolute—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Reality.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: No, it is nothing but absolute rubbish. What would nine councillors mean to The Greens in Shellharbour? The smaller the quota the more likely The Greens will get more people elected. That is all that it is. They are not taking any high moral ground on this issue on this issue at all. It is a pure machine politician's view to these sorts of issues.

We will not support The Greens' call to increase the number of councillors on Shellharbour council to nine. The fact that a council has more councillors does not necessarily give it greater democracy. No cogent argument has been put forward to the effect that it does. It is simply the case that The Greens pick and choose what they want out of the Colley report as it suits their own political agenda. The fact that The Greens have completely ignored other issues in relation to council elections—for example, they have not mentioned Port Macquarie-Hastings council—simply goes to show that they have no regard for democracy in local government overall in New South Wales. The Greens simply want to cherrypick little bits and pieces that might suit their political agenda. I support my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. As much as it pains me to say I agree with the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Minister for the Illawarra, I will not support The Greens amendment.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I will put the question on Opposition amendment No. 4 first and then put the question on amendment No. 1 of The Greens.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 4 [C2011-017] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 4 [C2011-017] negatived.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-011] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Colless Ms Cotsis Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio Ms Ficarra

Mr Foley Mr Gallacher Mr Green Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell

Mr Moselmane Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Primrose Ms Sharpe Mr Veitch Tellers, Dr Phelps Ms Voltz

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-011] negatived.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I will now put the question on Opposition amendment No. 5.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 5 [C2011-017] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 5 [C2011-017] negatived

Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Government Business Orders of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Constitution Amendment (Prorogation of Parliament) Bill 2011 to prevent Parliament from being prorogued too early before an election. As members know, prorogation ends a session of Parliament. It puts an end to every pending proceeding in the House of Parliament prorogued and vacates all orders of that House which have not been fully executed. Usually the decision to prorogue Parliament is a decision of the Governor, made on the advice of the Executive Council.

Section 10 of the Constitution Act 1902 gives the Governor discretion to prorogue the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly whenever the Governor deems it expedient. Members will recall, however, that the previous Government prorogued Parliament more than three months before the State election. This was heavily criticised by the public of New South Wales as an attempt to stymie the work of a parliamentary committee inquiring into the previous Government's electricity transactions. This Government is taking action—it said it would before the election and it is doing it now—to ensure that prorogation cannot be abused in the future by a government seeking to avoid proper scrutiny by the Parliament before an election.

The bill will amend the Constitution Act 1902 to restrict the discretion of the Governor, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, to prorogue Parliament in the six months prior to a fixed-term election except on or after Australia Day. Specifically, it will prevent the Premier and the Executive Council from advising the Governor to prorogue Parliament at any time after the fourth Saturday in September and before 26 January prior to a fixed-term election. Effectively, this means that in the future a government will be able to prorogue Parliament before a general State election only from Australia Day. Parliamentary business, such as responses to questions on notice and Parliamentary committee inquiries, can be completed before Parliament is prorogued for the final time before a general State election.

The bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving the accountability of executive government. It restores to Parliament enhanced capability to perform its proper role of oversighting executive government and will not affect any reserve powers of the Governor to prorogue Parliament without advice. The bill is about restoring confidence in accountability and transparency in both Houses of Parliament. Over the coming months and years a completely different approach will be seen by this Government, which is focused on accountability and transparency, to that of the former Government, which had secrecy as its number one objective.

In some ways the former Government's handling of the prorogation issue was indicative of its approach to government across the board—for example, in its portfolios, its approach to estimates or to the running of government business in either House. In every instance the public was an optional extra. It was more about expediency for the former Government. It was more about covering its tracks to ensure little opportunity for anyone to fully analysis the decisions it had made. That was its undoing.

More than any other issue prior to the last election—the allegations of corruption and ineptitude, the mishandling of every portfolio in New South Wales—it was the prorogation of Parliament that crystallised in the minds of the public that this was a Government beyond any help of saving. It was incapable of understanding the needs of the people of New South Wales for government transparency and to assure the people that every opportunity was given for debate to take place on matters before Parliament. I remind the House of the events during debate on the electricity sale.

The previous Government locked the doors of Parliament and stopped members coming onto the floor of this Chamber. That was the entree to the main course. The entree was when the Government realised that it could get away with it, using inadequacies in the Constitution and in the standing procedures of this House. The main course was prorogation. This legislation is the sweet dessert for members of the public who are concerned about parliamentary democracy. Premier Barry O'Farrell is committed to open government and to transparency. The commitments he gave prior to the election have now moved to accountability. He gave the commitment and we are fulfilling it. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.11 p.m.]: On Saturday afternoon I was delighted to be invited to open the new headquarters of Nambucca Marine Rescue on the beautiful Nambucca River. It was a proud moment to be involved in such a community milestone, which is the product of an enormous amount of blood, sweat and tears from the local community. I was representing my New South Wales Nationals leader, and member for Oxley, Andrew Stoner, who had commitments in another part of the electorate that day. The expansive new facility, which can house three rescue boats as well as new training facilities and a radio room, has come a long way since the dilapidated old boatshed, which could not store a boat and which the volunteers shared with rodents, white ants and the elements.

Marine Rescue on the North Coast of New South Wales is not new to the people of Nambucca Heads. In fact, it has been rescuing people and vessels for many years. It became a formal operation in about 1996 when the mayor of Nambucca shire, Councillor Max Graham, called for the formation of the Marine Rescue organisation through the Volunteer Rescue Association [VRA] after the tragic loss of a young boy. The group was formed by locals and was affiliated with the New South Wales Volunteer Rescue Association. That meant volunteers had insurance coverage for the first time. They also managed to secure a lease on the old NSW Fisheries shed, which was built over the river on Wellington Drive, Nambucca Heads, and is now the site of the new headquarters.

The humble beginnings of what we now know as the Nambucca Marine Rescue VRA is a credit to the likes of the late John Ward. With his beautiful wife, Joyce, the current president, I performed the official duties and unveiled the plaque. John and Joyce joined the organisation with no maritime knowledge but brought with them an enormous amount of enthusiasm and dedication. Their son and daughter-in-law are now instrumental in the success of the organisation. John and Joyce formed a committee and set about raising funds for a serious rescue craft and equipment. Every spare moment was spent selling raffle tickets. John even took out a personal loan to buy a New Zealand-designed Stabi craft, which could fit six people and finally replace the rubber dinghy, which started taking on water with more than two occupants. Individuals such as Grahame and Sandra Horne, Paul MacKay, Jim and Muriel Keel, Helen Rushton and Bill Carr joined the organisation. It soon became an accredited squad, with training occurring twice a month.

Fifteen years ago an application for construction of a new shed was submitted to council. It is interesting that that was about the time that Labor came to office in New South Wales. It has taken that long for the approval process for the shed to be completed. During that time rescue operations became more frequent and dangerous. The stretch of coastline between South West Rocks and Coffs Harbour was serviced by the volunteers. They have provided marine rescue of people caught in the outgoing tide, retrieving bodies from the ocean and river and navigating treacherous seas to rescue swimmers and retrieve bodies. They searched the river system for three days when the Chinese tug beached itself at Scotts Head. More than $300,000 has been raised by the 30-plus volunteer members through endless raffles, cake stalls and boat shows. Much of the credit should go to the late Ruth Fletcher, who spent hours devising new schemes to raise more funds and keep supporters like Lois, Murial, Jim, Hilda, Joy, Margaret, Marion and Tony very busy.

The new facility, with a final price tag of $430,000, is a credit to Captain Owen Rushton, as well to a private benefactor. I applaud the member of the Nambucca community who put up $100,000 of their own money in complete privacy to bring about the construction of this shed. I also applaud the commitment and drive of past and present members, local businesses and every citizen who took the time to buy a raffle ticket or to make a donation. To be able to launch a rescue boat and crew into the water within 10 minutes or, if necessary, load one onto a trailer for transport to Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour is why the community of Nambucca Heads has worked tirelessly to fulfil their dream—one that will leave a lasting legacy not only for the people of the Nambucca Valley but for all who live and use this stretch of coastline for recreation and pleasure.

All of us who live in the beautiful patch of the mid North Coast appreciate the treacherousness of the bar at Nambucca, with its significant tidal movements and unpredictable wave surges. The completion of this professional facility is a testament to all those who worked on it, including the builder, who received rave reviews. During the opening I made the point that, whilst it cost Nambucca Marine Rescue VRA in the vicinity of $430,000, it would have cost the Government about $1.4 million. It has done an incredible job.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.16 p.m.]: It is my sad duty tonight to speak about two life members of the Australian Labor Party who recently passed away. Terry Diamantis was born in Alexandria, Egypt, on 1 November 1924. Typical of many Greek nationals living in Egypt at the time of the 1952 revolution, Terry and his wife, Pelagia, migrated to Australia in 1953. A marine engineer, Terry was employed at Garden Island working on the Royal Australian Navy fleet until retirement. Terry's long history of community advocacy commenced very soon after arriving in Australia during the post-war migration boom. Being highly proficient in seven languages, Terry often assisted many of his fellow migrants who were less educated and less fortunate than he was in their dealings with government and government agencies. Terry continued in this voluntary role until poor health slowed him down in 2009.

Terry's passion for social justice led to his joining the Australian Labor Party in 1966 as a member of Gough Whitlam's Cabramatta branch. After moving his family to Kogarah in 1976, Terry joined the Monterey branch, where he made an enormous contribution. He was appointed to the Technical College Advisory Board and the Prisoner Early Release Board by the Wran Government in the late 1970s. Terry was elected to Rockdale City Council in 1980. In 1981 he founded the Greek Labor Party committee, later renamed the Greek Labor Consultative Committee, and remained president of the committee until 2008. In recognition of his lifelong community service, Terry received numerous awards from local, State and Federal governments. But there is no doubt that he was most proud of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party life membership that he and his wife received in 2003. Terry is survived by his wife of 63 years, Pelagia, and three children, Mary, Tiffany and George.

I also sadly report the death of one of the Country Labor stalwarts in the Wagga Wagga area. We should always remember that it is much harder to be a Labor activist in the country than it is in the rest of New South Wales. It is easy in the metropolitan area, in Wollongong or in Newcastle but it is very difficult for a person living in a place such as Wagga Wagga. Pat Brassil, AM, was a life member of the party and he passed away on 27 April aged 79 years. As a former Wagga Wagga mayor, chairman of Riverina Water County Council, a school teacher, a supporter of the arts, the head of numerous regional development and local government organisations, and a political activist, he was often referred to as Mr Wagga Wagga.

Pat arrived in Wagga Wagga in 1967 and promptly joined the local Australian Labor Party. His membership was continuous and active from that date. A school teacher and member of the teachers federation since 1954, he remained an active unionist even as a retired member of his union. He held many Australian Labor Party positions in his local branch and electorate councils, and was notably the longstanding Wagga Wagga branch president during the 1970s and 1980s, representing the party as the 1975 Federal candidate for Farrer and then again as the Federal candidate for Riverina in 1993.

Such was the community respect that he enjoyed Pat went on to lead a remarkable local government career for a country Australian Labor Party activist in a fairly safe conservative area. He was the longest serving elected representative ever to sit on Wagga Wagga City Council, serving from 1974 to 2004, and was deputy mayor five times and mayor seven times. In 2007 he was only the second Labor person and eighth in total to receive the esteemed honour of Freedom of the City of Wagga Wagga—an honour in recognition of more than 30 years service to his local community. Pat was also one of the most active Australian Labor Party members involved with the New South Wales Local Government Association and the Country Mayors Association, and he served as a mentor to many Australian Labor Party members in local government.

Pat was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1997 for distinguished service to local government, particularly in regional development and decentralisation, and the party conferred life membership on Pat in 2008. As his son Michael concluded in his eulogy for his father, "He was a leader, a real champion of the people, a marvellous husband and father." Country Labor and the party has lost one of the real giants from its membership with Pat's passing, and last Friday the administrative committee expressed its sympathies to his wife Anne and to his family, as well as to the family of Terry Diamantis. These men were both life members of the Australian Labor Party. A person has to be a continuous member of the Labor Party for 40 years to be eligible for life membership—it is not something that is thrown around easily. A person has to be outstanding to get that award and both of these men were.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.21 p.m.]: I speak about the March election and the record vote for the Shooters and Fishers Party in the new Legislative Council. From the outset I congratulate the Coalition on its comprehensive win, which ended 16 years of occupying the Opposition benches. Many in the new Government may say it was a victory that should have happened a poll or two ago, but the new Government should realise that for winning the election it gets a prize—and that prize is called government, which requires it to govern. The people have shown extraordinary confidence in the new Government's ability to measure up to that task of governing.

For the Shooters and Fishers Party the election result confirmed the fact that the party is here to stay, with at least two members. We were, however, a little unlucky not to have had our number two candidate elected this time. A number of forces were against us, but we will be back again in 2015. The Shooters and Fishers Party primary vote at the March election was an increase of 41.5 per cent on the poll of 2007. Even more importantly for the future of the party is the fact that the increase in March was virtually a 100 per cent increase on 2003; to be precise, it was 98 per cent up. That hardly shows a party that was, as some apparently thought just before polling day, "on life support".

I thank all the volunteers who worked so hard throughout the campaign and on polling day. As a small party we probably rely more than the major parties on our teams of volunteers in the various electorates who help us run the campaign and make sure that on polling day the booths are manned. I am proud to say that the Shooters and Fishers Party has a solid core of volunteers who turn out each election to ensure the protection and promotion of their legitimate lawful pursuits. I sincerely thank each and every one of them, particularly as it is not the most glamorous task or the best way to occupy a sunny Saturday in March, when perhaps they could be on the range, in the bush or even out on the water. The effort is greatly appreciated by both me and my Shooters and Fishers Party colleague in this Chamber, the Hon. Robert Borsak. The Shooters and Fishers Party result was even more remarkable because of the effort that was put in against us. For example, the Outdoor Recreation Party—now under the control of another political party—targeted many of our constituents—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: The Greens?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: No, the Liberal Democratic Party, or something like that. They managed to confuse the issue a little bit, but in the end they polled only about 30,000 votes. Then of course there was the perennial Fishing Party, which stands every election and never wins a seat but again splits the available vote. Interestingly, in the week before the nomination Monday, the Fishing Party was not standing because it had no funds. I know that because I had spoken to Bob Smith a couple of weeks before then.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: So where did the money come from?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Well you may ask. Somehow over the weekend it became available. No-one knows who it was who backed the Fishing Party—a mystery to be solved in the fullness of time. I am glad the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox interjected because we got a dirty letter from The Nationals State director when the Hon. Robert Borsak made some comments on the matter. And then we had Pauline Hanson, who was also pitching for some of our constituents, and that further impacted on the votes that were available. So one can see that the Shooters and Fishers Party result was remarkable—and I was very grateful to be re-elected—given that we did it all on our own, not as a parasitic life form hanging off the left flank of a larger party.

In concluding I pay tribute to Mr David Shoebridge for his efforts in publicising the Shooters and Fishers Party during the election campaign. It was truly marvellous to see his daily media releases getting stuck into us for one reason or another—mostly poorly researched comments about gun laws or hunting issues. It was good publicity for the Shooters and Fishers Party, at no cost to us. I do not know just how much credit he should have for our markedly increased vote, but it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge his efforts on our behalf. His predecessor, Ms Rhiannon, was a good advocate for us: every time she opened her mouth our votes went up by a thousand. But I believe Mr Shoebridge is even better. Although he is not in the House tonight, I congratulate him on his election in March and I wish him many terms.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.26 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to the late Terrence Richard "Tom" Hannan, who passed away on 14 April aged 73 years. The Riverstone Meatworks were an institution in western Sydney, operating from 1878 until finally closing in 1994. Tom Hannan started work at the Riverstone Meatworks in 1953 at the age of 14 years and 10 months. He began as a slaughter-floor labourer. Tom was conscripted into national service with the army when he was 18. At the completion of his service he went back to work at the meatworks at Riverstone. Tom became active in the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. That union has a proud tradition of intense local activism, and Tom became a union delegate at the age of 20. He was the mutton-floor delegate and the assistant plant secretary. Tom worked at Riverstone until he was elected an organiser of the union's New South Wales Branch in 1973.

In the decades that followed he progressed through the union's ranks, being elected by his fellow meat workers to the offices of assistant State secretary, State secretary, Federal president and ultimately Federal secretary. Tom became Federal secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in 1990. It was his fate to lead the meatworkers union following major shifts in employer strategy and practice in the industry. The Mudginberri Abattoir dispute of 1985 pioneered New Right attacks on wages and conditions across the industry. Australian Meat Holdings, which came to dominate the beef export sector, chose to initiate and sustain open industrial conflict with its workforces. Tom Hannan always stood his ground and always fought for the rights and dignity of meat industry workers, however hostile the attacks.

In 2003 I began work at Sussex Street as Assistant General Secretary of the Labor Party. Tom's office was in the same building and he was a friend and a counsellor to me. I recall a dispute I had with the then General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party in my early months in the role. I successfully appealed to the National Executive of the party to overturn a particularly egregious rort. I approached the national secretaries of a number of affiliated unions to sponsor the appeal. When I went to see Tom Hannan, he simply said, "Where do I sign?" I asked him whether he wanted me to explain the details. He cut me off, saying, "Mate, if you're in a blue, I'm on your side." That summed up Tom. He always knew what side he was on, industrially and politically.

In 2004 when Tom retired as Federal Secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union a small lunch was held in the President's dining room to pay tribute to him. In attendance were his colleagues from the meatworkers union and all the occupants of the position of Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party from the establishment of proportional representation in 1971: Bruce Childs, John Faulkner, Anthony Albanese, Damian O'Connor and me. Tom had supported all of us. Tom was old Labor. I cannot pay him a greater compliment. All he ever sought to do was to represent his fellow meatworkers. He did it with courage and principle. I was honoured to join Tom's family and friends at the Castle Hill RSL Club on 29 April to celebrate his life and many years of dedicated service to working people. Tom Hannan was highly respected throughout the meat industry in this country. His contribution to the industry, and particularly to its workers, will not be forgotten.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.31 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to thank members for electing me as Deputy-President and Chair of Committees in this place. I look forward to working with all members in the fifty-fifth Parliament. I also take this opportunity, Mr President, to congratulate you on your election to that office and look forward to working with you in our respective roles. I draw the attention of the House to the huge backlog of hospital capital works that have been left for the incoming Liberal-Nationals Government to address after 16 years of Labor government. I refer in particular to regional New South Wales. The Dubbo electorate has now been reclaimed by The Nationals with the election of Mr Troy Grant.

The incoming Government is faced with having to upgrade and redevelop three hospitals in his electorate. I cannot think of another electorate that has required such a large amount of health services work to be done because of years of neglect. The Liberal-Nationals Government has committed to undertake the work required on the Dubbo Base Hospital, the Forbes Hospital and the new hospital at Parkes. Clinicians at the Dubbo Base Hospital have suffered low morale for some time partly because of the poor physical condition of their facility. It is wonderful that Troy Grant will be able to deliver the Dubbo, Forbes and Parkes hospital projects over the next few years.

The Nationals have also reclaimed the seat of Port Macquarie. Once again, health and hospital services have been a big issue in that area for a long time. The fourth pod has been much needed at Port Macquarie Base Hospital for some time because of population growth in Hastings. Leslie Williams, the new member for Port Macquarie, was a nurse at the local hospital and is therefore very knowledgeable about the health resources required in the area. She is also a passionate advocate for the expansion of Port Macquarie Base Hospital. It will be fantastic to see that project delivered, particularly the fourth pod.

Health services were a major issue in another electorate reclaimed by The Nationals. The electorate of Tamworth needs a new hospital. With the exception of one section, the existing hospital at Tamworth is very run down. Of course, that affects staff morale and the efficacy of the institution. It is fantastic that a few days ago the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, and the member for Tamworth, Kevin Anderson, joined the Federal Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, when she committed funds on behalf of the Federal Government to ensure that a new hospital is built within the first term of the O'Farrell-Stoner Government.

I visited the Braidwood Multipurpose Health Service a couple of times and was told that the facility needed to be expanded to provide a more dementia friendly service. I visited the service again recently with the new Nationals member for Monaro, Mr John Barilaro, to confirm the announcement that the incoming Coalition Government will commit to the project and provide funding to supplement the efforts of the Doug Smith Braidwood MPS Fundraising Appeal and others. I commend Mary Mathias and her committee for their work. It was a thrill to see people literally dancing in the streets of Braidwood when we announced our commitment to the project with a grant of $280,000. I also have great pleasure in referring to the Lismore Base Hospital project. The final stage of that hospital upgrade will now be completed, and I look forward to providing more information about that project in the future.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [6.36 p.m.]: I commend the Premier for his $7.5 million pre-election pledge to upgrade animal shelters in this State. It is a tragic fact that each year thousands of cats and dogs, kittens and puppies are abandoned, and too often we hear about the old, rundown, leaking facilities in which those animals are housed. Shelter staff, who are mainly volunteers, do a great job caring for and rehousing as many animals as they possibly can. I applaud their work. However, I am seriously concerned about how the Government funding will be administered. Many animal shelters are run by the RSPCA. Indeed, I am aware that since about 2008 the RSPCA's New South Wales branch has been lobbying the State Government for funding to help repair its Sydney shelter so that it can keep the doors open. However, this same organisation that cries poor and says that it cannot fund upgrades to crucial infrastructure can fund anti-hunting campaigns to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even though RSPCA volunteers do some great things for animal welfare, I believe they have been betrayed by their so-called leaders.

I will provide just one example of that betrayal. Earlier this year the RSPCA took out a full-page, full-colour metropolitan newspaper advertisement demanding that duck hunting be banned in Victoria. Why is the New South Wales branch of the RSPCA getting involved in cross-border politics? We all know that advertisements like that cost more than $20,000. Would that type of money buy a lot of food and other supplies for unwanted cats and dogs? Of course it would. However, it seems that those animals' needs no longer matter to ideologically driven officials. Unfortunately, those same officials are the ones who ultimately hold the purse strings and decide where money should go.

I also refer members to the RSPCA's campaign to disrupt the Game Council trial using dogs to hunt feral pigs. I understand the trial in three State forests in the New England area last month was very successful. It involved experienced, licensed hunters holding a New South Wales restricted game hunting licence endorsed for dogs. The RSPCA says it accepts the need to control introduced animals such as feral pigs but then takes a stand against the Game Council for doing just that. Let us be fair dinkum here. The RSPCA tends to back most stands taken by The Greens, who—surprise, surprise—also came out against the trial. My memo to the RSPCA is: The Greens do not have a mortgage on good ideas and are not in charge of everything. Just because they oppose something does not make it wrong. The RSPCA should take the blinkers off and look at the real world.

The Shooters and Fishers Party supports the excellent work being done by animal welfare volunteers within shelters throughout New South Wales. However, we do not support taxpayers' money being redirected from needy shelters and core activities to fanatical anti-hunting and animal rights campaigns. Those campaigns are being funded at the expense of animals that are in need of food, bedding and modern, safe shelters. In announcing his funding commitment in March the Premier said the money would allow the RSPCA to build a state-of-the-art veterinary hospital, an education centre, a community pet friendly park, animal shelter and rehabilitation facility with housing for 800 dogs and cats, pocket pets, rabbits and livestock, and a processing and holding facility for animals involved in inspector cases. I call on the Government to guarantee that there will be careful monitoring of how the $7.5 million is spent. Indeed, I trust that the Premier, who is a patron of the RSPCA, will ensure every cent of that funding goes to animal shelters and to animals in need, as he outlined in his pre-election announcement, and not to the activities I have just outlined.

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

Motion agreed to.