27 March 2025 - Legislative Council

Australia / New South Wales / Hansard

Source

PDF

Legislative Council

2025-03-27

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 2

(5) This House recognises that:

(a) Islamophobia is a serious issue and has a detrimental impact on many Australian Muslims; and

(b) there is a need to take active steps to address Islamophobia.

Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY ALLEGATIONS BY THE HON. FRANCA ARENA

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (10:03): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on 17 September 1997 the Hon. Franca Arena delivered a speech in the House in which she alleged that the then

Premier and commissioner of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, amongst others,

had been involved in a "cover-up" of high-profile paedophiles;

(b) on 21 October 1997 the House resolved:

(i) to grant Mrs Franca Arena leave to table documents in the House relating to her allegations;

(ii) that the documents tabled were not to be considered public documents, were to be retained in the custody

of the Clerk, who was to grant access only to a special commission of inquiry established to investigate

the allegations and to the Commissioner of Police, and were not otherwise to be published or copied

without an order of the House;

(iii) that the Commissioner of Police was to make an assessment of the documents and report to the House,

with the House then to reconsider whether it was necessary or desirable to continue the restriction on access

to the documents;

documents relating to the alleged "cover-up" of high-profile paedophiles:

(i) Volumes 1 and 2—General information provided to Mrs Arena detailing allegations of paedophilia and

child sexual assaults, including statutory declarations, and other documentation;

(ii) Volume 3—Information and documents provided by W26 and other related information concerning

allegations of paedophilia;

(iii) Volume 4—

Part A – Material relating to allegations against lawyer X;

Part B – Material concerning allegations of a paedophile house network; and

Part C – Documents relating to claims made by Mrs Arena on 17 September 1997.

(d) in accordance with the resolution, the documents were subsequently released by the Clerk to the special commission

of inquiry and the Commissioner of Police;

(e) on 11 November 1997, the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into allegations made in Parliament by the

Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, dated 7 November 1997, was tabled in the House, together with a confidential

supplement containing an assessment of the documents tabled by Mrs Arena on 21 October 1997 so far as was

relevant to the inquiry of the special commission;

(f) on 12 November 1997, the House resolved that the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics

inquire into and report on the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, and authorised the Clerk to permit members

of that committee to inspect the documents tabled by Mrs Arena on 21 October 1997;

(g) in its report entitled Inquiry into the conduct of the Honourable Franca Arena MLC, dated June 1998, the Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics stated that:

(i) "The Confidential Supplement to the report analysed the documents tabled by Mrs Arena and concluded

that none of those documents supported the statements made by Mrs Arena on 17 September."; and

(iii) "The Commissioner of Police lodged his report on the documents tabled by Mrs Arena and the other

material referred by the House on 27 November 1997. … The Report concluded that some of the material

examined is worthy of further investigation and that a strike force would be established to investigate such

matters. However, it also stated that the Commissioner had discovered nothing in the documents which is

contrary to the findings of the Special Commission of Inquiry.".

(h) the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics made no further recommendations in relation to

access to the documents and the House did not revisit the matter, as a result of which the documents remain

confidential, not to be published or copied without an order of the House.

(2) That, further to the resolution of the House of 21 October 1997:

(a) the documents tabled by Mrs Arena on 21 October 1997 be made available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk

by members of the Legislative Council only; and

(b) the documents continue to be retained in the custody of the Clerk and not be published or copied without an order

of the House.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 3

Motion agreed to.

KEEPING WOMEN OUT OF PRISON PARLIAMENTARY BREAKFAST

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (10:04): I move:

(1) That this House notes that on 19 March 2025 Keeping Women Out of Prison [KWOOP] held its ninth annual parliamentary

breakfast.

(2) That this House acknowledges the vital work of KWOOP, a coalition of service providers, philanthropic organisations,

not-for-profits, universities and women with lived experience of the criminal legal system.

(3) That this House further notes that:

(a) 2,400 women cycle through New South Wales prisons annually, a 40 per cent increase since 2014;

(b) Aboriginal women make up 40 to 45 per cent of the female prison population and are imprisoned at 22 times the

rate of non-Aboriginal women; and

(4) That this House recognises the launch of KWOOP's Community of Practice at the parliamentary breakfast, a significant

initiative aimed at fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing, and driving systemic change in the criminal justice system.

(5) That this House commends KWOOP's ongoing advocacy, including its fundraising initiatives through the KWOOP Sub

Fund of Sydney Community Foundation, which support evidence-based approaches to reducing incarceration rates and

improve outcomes for women, families and communities across New South Wales.

(6) That this House commends the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt, AC, who was honoured for her lifetime of advocacy with the inaugural

KWOOP Award in appreciation of her dedicated service to women and families affected by the justice system.

(7) That this House notes that:

(a) the Keeping Women Out of Prison Parliamentary Breakfast was co-hosted by the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones,

MLC, shadow Minister for Families and Communities, shadow Minister for Disability Inclusion, shadow Minister

for Homelessness, shadow Minister for Youth, shadow Minister for Women, and shadow Minister for Prevention

of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and the Hon. Jodie Harrison, MP, Minister for Women, and Minister for

the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and

(b) the event was also attended by:

(i) the Hon. Rose Jackson, MLC;

(ii) the Hon. Kate Washington, MP;

(iii) the Hon. David Harris, MP;

(iv) the Hon. Nichole Overall, MLC;

(v) Dr Joe McGirr, MP;

(vi) Mr Michael Regan, MP;

(vii) Ms Tanya Thompson, MP;

(viii) Ms Trish Doyle, MP;

(ix) Ms Sue Higginson, MLC; and

(x) Ms Abigail Boyd, MLC.

Motion agreed to.

WORLD LYMPHOEDEMA AWARENESS MONTH

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (10:04): I move:

(1) That this House notes that March is World Lymphoedema Awareness Month.

(2) That this House acknowledges that:

(a) lymphoedema is a chronic and permanent swelling of one or more body parts, and can be debilitating and

disfiguring, affecting people both emotionally and psychologically;

(b) lymphoedema is the accumulation of excess amounts of protein-rich fluid that results in the swelling of one or more

regions of the body;

persistent and, if untreated, often extreme swelling of the limbs and other areas of the body; and

(d) approximately one in every 6,000 people will develop primary lymphoedema at birth.

(3) That this House recognises the importance of raising awareness about lymphoedema, promoting early diagnosis and

treatment and supporting research and education to improve the lives of those affected by this condition.

Motion agreed to.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 4

Documents

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE SECTOR

Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (10:05): I move:

(1) That, in view of the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter entitled Disputed Claim of Privilege—Early childhood education

and care sector, dated Thursday 20 March 2025, this House orders that the Cabinet Office produce within seven days of the

passing of this resolution, documents received on Wednesday 11 December 2024 from the Cabinet Office, considered not

to be privileged by the Independent Legal Arbiter, subject to the redaction only of privileged and personal information as

detailed in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter.

(2) That, on receipt, the redacted documents are authorised to be published.

(3) That this House notes that on Tuesday 18 March 2025 this House censured the Leader of the Government, as the

representative of the Government in this House, for the Government's failure to comply with the order of the House regarding

the early childhood education and care sector of 13 November 2024, and further ordered the production of documents not

yet returned.

(4) That this House orders that, where documents are returned to the orders of the House of Wednesday 13 November 2024 or

Tuesday 18 March 2025 regarding the early childhood education and care sector, subject to claims of privilege considered

and not upheld in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter entitled Disputed Claim of Privilege—Early childhood

education and care sector, dated Thursday 20 March 2025, versions of the documents also be returned for publication,

subject to the redaction only of privileged and personal information as detailed in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter

or as provided for under Standing Order 52 (7) (e).

Motion agreed to.

Motions

TRIBUTE TO BRIAN SEIDLER, AM

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (10:05): On behalf of the Hon. Scott Farlow: I move:

(1) That this House honours the life and contributions of Mr Brian Seidler, AM, the Executive Director of the Master Builders

Association of New South Wales, who passed away on 1 March 2025.

(2) That this House notes that Mr Seidler:

(a) joined the Master Builders Association of NSW in 1984 as a trainee industrial officer and rose to become the longest

serving executive director for a tenure of 25 years;

(b) became a member of the Order of Australia in 2019 "for his significant service to the building and construction

industry through professional organisation";

in New South Wales;

(d) had a deep commitment to supporting builders and workers whilst ensuring industry standards were strengthened

to produce high-quality projects; and

(e) had a strong relationship with government, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic to keep the building and

construction industry open.

(3) That this House extends its sincere condolences to Mr Seidler's wife, Donna, his children Amelia, Mila and Marcus, his

family, many friends and the staff of the Master Builders Association of NSW, and acknowledges his significant contribution

to the building and construction industry in New South Wales.

Motion agreed to.

WORLD STRAY ANIMAL DAY

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (10:06): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) 4 April is World Stray Animal Day; and

(b) it is a day to remember that pets should not end up on the streets, lost and all alone.

(2) That this House encourages responsible pet ownership and encourages everyone with a pet to ensure that the pet is

microchipped and to regularly check and update the details of the microchip.

(3) That, with this House's indulgence, we celebrate the adoption of my cat, Hamish, who was originally a stray that was rescued

by a shelter.

Motion agreed to.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 5

WORLD FROG DAY

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (10:06): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) each year 20 March is World Frog Day;

(b) this is a day to particularly celebrate the importance of frogs in maintaining healthy ecosystems; and

(2) That this House recognises and reminds members that the State frog of New South Wales is the Peron's tree frog.

Motion agreed to.

CHINDERAH COMMUNITY HUB INC

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (10:06): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) Chinderah Community Hub Inc. is a charity based in the Tweed shire that provides continued flood recovery and

support services, advocacy and food support since the major flood events of 2022 and supported the community

through the recent ex-tropical Cyclone Alfred;

(b) as part of the services they provide, they assist the permanent residential park occupants who face recurring home

inundation and make up an aging population who struggle to access affordable housing, many of which are

vulnerable people in the community who have been forgotten by a lack of long-term government solutions; and

who are still rebuilding their lives after the major flood event.

(2) That this House acknowledges the outstanding contributions Chinderah Community Hub Inc. has made to the region,

including:

(a) during the 2022 major floods in the Northern Rivers, ran an entirely volunteer staffed hub offering a range of

donated goods such as household items, toiletries, food and frozen meals, referrals to support agencies and a place

for anyone who needed help to seek assistance;

(b) facilitated and distributed in excess of $200,000 in financial support through grants of $500 to $2,000, grocery

vouchers, fuel vouchers, whitegoods and furniture vouchers, et cetera, through agencies such as Lions, Rotary,

church groups, private donors and GIVIT;

clothing items;

(d) during the recent extreme weather event caused by Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, they assisted the community by

providing free and low-cost groceries, sharing information, and connecting affected individuals with local agencies

and emergency services;

(e) regularly hosting events such as lunch ladies and breakfast brothers that provide connections, friendship, support

and belonging in times of crisis; and

(f) assisted approximately 2,500 residents from Chinderah, Kingscliff and Fingal communities in their flood recovery,

and over 1,500 from the wider community and flood affected regions such as Lismore and Casino.

(3) That this House commends the tireless work of the volunteers who run the Chinderah Community Hub Inc. who provide an

invaluable service to the region in times of emergency and throughout the year.

(4) That this House extends its sincere gratitude for the tireless work of Kay Redmond and Sandy Gilbert who have been running

the hub since March 2022.

Motion agreed to.

MULLUMBIMBY AND DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (10:07): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre is a community-based organisation that delivers a diverse

range of services to the community across the Byron shire;

(b) during the recent extreme weather event caused by Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, they assisted to community by

providing free and low-cost groceries, assistance in applying for disaster recovery grants, frozen meals, hot showers,

counselling, access to State and Federal organisations, and other essential services; and

food, information, legal and financial support, safety, IT upskilling and general support.

(2) That this House further notes the valuable contribution that the Mullumbimby and District Neighbourhood Centre provides

to the Byron shire community, especially during times of extreme weather events such as Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 6

(3) That this House commends the work of all of those who make the delivery of these services possible, and recognise them as

champions of their community.

Motion agreed to.

MEASLES VACCINE

Dr AMANDA COHN (10:07): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) measles is an extremely contagious and potentially fatal viral infection;

(b) in 2014, the World Health Organization declared that Australia had eliminated endemic measles;

(d) the measles-mumps-rubella [MMR] vaccine is funded by the Federal Government and free for people born during

or after 1966 without documented immunity.

(2) That this House notes with concern that:

(a) 29 measles cases have been reported in Australia in 2025 to 25 March 2025;

(b) public health experts and frontline health workers have highlighted recent declines in childhood vaccination

coverage in Australia;

95 per cent threshold needed for population immunity; and

(d) the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, research from immunisation experts at the University of

New South Wales School of Population Health and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute say that vaccine

access, rather than vaccine hesitancy, is a major and preventable barrier for many people.

(3) That this House calls on the Government to identify communities with low vaccination rates and support unvaccinated

children and adults to receive MMR vaccination.

Motion agreed to.

Documents

IVAN MILAT EMPLOYMENT RECORDS

Production of Documents: Order

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (10:08): I seek leave to amend private member's business item

No. 1776 by deleting all words after "that" and replacing them with:

under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House, within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution, the

Transport for NSW employment records relating to Ivan Robert Marko Milat and any legal or other advice regarding the scope of

validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of this House.

Leave granted.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (10:08): Accordingly, I move:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House, within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution, the

Transport for NSW employment records relating to Ivan Robert Marko Milat and any legal or other advice regarding the scope of

validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of this House.

Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Statement

TRIBUTE TO NICKOLA LALICH, FORMER MEMBER FOR CABRAMATTA

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (10:34): This week Nick Lalich, former member for Cabramatta and

a member of the other place from 2008 to 2023, passed away at the Northern Beaches Hospital. Nick was a dear

friend to many. He was also one of the most popular members of the other place during the time he served. Nick

Lalich became a member of Fairfield council in 1987 and was elected as mayor in 1993. He continued to serve as

Mayor of Fairfield until 2012, having been elected with 62 per cent of the vote. While mayor, he was asked to

contest the seat of Cabramatta in the Legislative Assembly, where he continued his public service and served with

distinction. Anyone who visited Cabramatta with Nick Lalich was amazed by his popularity and public profile.

People would run out of their shops to shake his hand, such was his recognition and the affection in which he was

held.

Nick was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2018, but he still fought and was successful at the 2019 election.

However, the ravages of treatment affected his throat, vocal cords and tongue, and his ability to speak deteriorated.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 7

Many who witnessed his valedictory speech in November 2022 left the Chamber with a tear in their eye. Nick has

an incredible life story. It is a background that he rarely spoke of and that very few people knew about. His parents

fled the Nazis from Serbia and travelled through Italy to a refugee camp in Egypt, where Nick was born in 1945

just outside Cairo. His family lived in makeshift tents. All of his elder siblings passed away from disease in that

refugee camp. Nick and his surviving siblings struggled under those conditions until his parents migrated to

Australia in 1948 under Chifley's immigration policy.

They arrived in Melbourne, where his father obtained a job with a water authority. They eventually moved

to Bonnyrigg, where Nick's parents purchased an 11-acre farm. It was not enough to sustain the family, so his

father worked for the Postmaster-General's Department as a cleaner. As soon as Nick could leave school, he

became an apprentice electrical fitter. He described to the member for Heffron, Mr Ron Hoenig, how he had to

travel from Bonnyrigg to his place of employment in the city. It took him two hours to get to work and back every

day. His family struggled to make ends meet. Nick joined the Labor Party in 1971. He was mentored by his then

Federal member, Gough Whitlam, and was ultimately elected to the council. In his inaugural speech after he was

elected in 2008, Nick said:

Australia is truly a country of hope and opportunity. It has afforded a refugee the chance through commitment, resilience and ambition

to have the honour of representing his community ... I could never have fathomed in my wildest dreams the prospect of becoming

mayor of a city and a member of Parliament.

He is a major loss to the people of New South Wales. He is a major loss to the community that he served so

attentively and diligently for many years. He is a loss to the Parliament and to the Labor Party. Today we

acknowledge and thank Nickola Lalich for his service. Vale, Nick Lalich.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (10:37): On behalf of the Opposition, I associate myself with the

remarks of the Leader of the Government. I express the Opposition's heartfelt condolences to Nick's family, friends

and loved ones. I am the only member in this place to have served with Nick in the other place. He was there

before me and was there after I left. Nick used to refer to us as the "two old blokes of the LA". He had quite a few

years on me, so I cannot say that I enjoyed being lumped into an additional age bracket with him. I echo the words

of the Premier, who said that Nick's was a fine example of the great Australian story—from an Egyptian refugee

camp to the Parliament of New South Wales. As the Leader of the Government mentioned, Nick said in his

inaugural speech, "Australia is truly a country of hope and opportunity". He truly embodied that. Nick was an

icon of Western Sydney, the Labor Party and the New South Wales Parliament. Vale, Nick Lalich.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (10:38): By leave: It has been 46 years since I first met Nick Lalich in

Frank's Gym in Maryvale Avenue, Liverpool. For anyone who has watched the Rocky movies, it was the

equivalent of Mickey's gym. It was very much down to earth and intense. We all had one eye on the mirror and

one eye on our competitor athletes and fitness aspirants. The leader of the gang was Nick Lalich, who, when he

was young, was incredibly fit, energetic, enthusiastic, always full of life and a wonderful mentor to us young

blokes. For the last four or five years Nick, I and the three fittest Green brothers—Tony, Brad and Geoff—have

had a reunion. We have always regaled ourselves with the stories of our time together in Frank's gym. I suppose

all of us were from the wrong side of the tracks but none as humble as Nick, from those refugee origins out of

Egypt. One of the favourite stories was about a sign in Frank's gym. It read, "What do you do with your gym togs?

You throw them against the wall. If they fall off, wear them again. If they stick to the wall, wash them. If they

crawl up the wall, burn them." It was that sort of place, and Nick was that sort of fellow. He very much was a

mentor to us.

Coincidentally, we were both elected to local government at the same time, in 1987, he to the Fairfield

council, I to the Liverpool council. When I met him in 1979, I had just joined the Green Valley branch of the

Labor Party. He was in different Federal and State electorates, but we had Labor Party stories to tell. He was very

much part of the Ted Grace machine, if we could call it that. Nicko was very loyal to Gracey, as he would call

him. He was also a very good judge of character. Nick was always down to earth but good at assessing people.

I think that judge of character is an underestimated skill in politics. To his credit, Nick stood up to John Newman,

who was very much a standover merchant in the local district—Fists of Fury, as Shane Easson dubbed him. Nick

ultimately took Newman's seat as the member for Cabramatta.

Nick had many loves in his life. He loved his country. He loved the Labor Party. He loved his local

community. And, of course, he loved the ladies, being so fit and athletic in every respect. As Gough Whitlam

would have said, "He was prolific, comrade—prolific." That was part of his life and energy. I think these things

need to be stated in tribute to someone. If I was a woman, I would have fancied him. Nick was the fittest man in

the gym, and it was a tribute to him. Perhaps in our shape today we do not admire the physical state as much as

we used to, but he was an incredibly fit and dedicated person. He was a good judge of character and an enthusiast.

He was always enthusiastic about everything, and that spilled into his service to the Labor Party, local government

and State Government. I just hope that people in this building, where he was much loved and admired, will always

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 8

remember him for that energy and enthusiasm and full life, not so much for the consequences of the cancer that

ravaged him, diminished him and took him, as inevitably it would. He was a man of tremendous energy, love, life

and enthusiasm, and I very much miss him.

Bills

CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2025

First Reading

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion by the Hon. John Graham.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: According to standing order, I table a statement of public interest.

Statement of public interest tabled.

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (10:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The New South Wales Government is pleased to introduce the Cultural Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill

2025. The bill seeks to ensure that creative and cultural leaders of the next generation are represented and have

seats at the table on the various boards, councils and trusts that steward our cultural institutions in this State. We

intend to enable the voices of young people to contribute to shaping the future of these cultural institutions and to

ensure the institutions remain relevant, innovative and accessible for future generations. The bill presents

amendments to the legislation establishing each of the New South Wales cultural institutions, increasing the

membership of each board, council or trust to include at least one person aged 18 to 28 at the time of appointment.

The cultural institutions proposed to be subject to these amendments are the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the

Australian Museum, the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences—the Powerhouse Museum—Museums of

History NSW, the State Library of New South Wales and the Sydney Opera House.

In December 2023 the New South Wales Government released Creative Communities, the first

whole-of-government policy for arts, culture and creative industries for the State. Creative Communities grew out

of extensive consultation and engagement. The policy aims to ensure that, over the next decade, everyone in

New South Wales has access to creativity. Over time it aims to correct some of the past inequities of access to arts

and culture. Under this framework, young people will have more opportunities and access to experiences and jobs

in the cultural and creative industries in our State. Finding ways to ensure that young people participate in

experiencing and contributing to creativity is not only an investment in their future but also an investment in the

future of the State. As Creative Communities notes, the evidence is overwhelming. Young children participating

in cultural and creative activities are much more likely to do well at school, find connections and thrive in later

life. The policy recognises the need to support sustainable careers in the arts and culture sector. It also notes that

engaging young people as audience members and in career development can lead to lifelong engagement,

bolstering future audience numbers and cultivating a more culturally aware and appreciative society.

In late 2023 the New South Wales Government held a youth round table to hear directly about challenges

facing youth representation in the sectors. A key message was that there is a need to include young people in

decision-making in the arts, culture and creative industries. The policy responds to these needs and recognises the

importance of arts and culture as essential for the mental health, wellbeing and futures of young people. It includes

a commitment to take a first step in ensuring that cultural leaders of the next generation are at the decision-making

table, through the establishment of an advisory network of young people. The commitment was fulfilled in

February 2025, when the Creative Youth Network first met. It has been established to advise key government

Ministers directly on issues impacting young people engaged in the arts, culture and creative industries. I thank

my colleague the Hon. Rose Jackson for being there alongside me at the first meeting of the Creative Youth

Network.

By ensuring that young people are represented on the boards of all New South Wales cultural institutions,

this bill takes the Government's commitment one step further, affirming our dedication to the next generation of

creatives and creating pathways to more meaningful engagement. The key is that we intend to have young people

structurally engaged with the Government, at the decision-making table, and this bill represents a step towards

that. It is not enough to simply have them engaged or to ask their opinion. They deserve a seat at the table.

The six New South Wales State cultural institutions play a key role in preserving, promoting and providing

access to arts, culture, heritage and knowledge. Their contribution to the State's cultural enrichment, tourism and

public education is immense. They provide the artistic and cultural backbone of the State, overseeing together a

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 9

significant collection of objects and welcoming in excess of 16 million visitors among them each year. Enabling

the cultural institutions to actively involve the voices of young people will ensure they remain relevant, innovative

and accessible for future generations. Each of these institutions is governed by separate legislation, and existing

composition requirements vary across the institutions. The proposed legislation will create some consistency

across the governance of these organisations, allowing the voice of the next generation of New South Wales to

help guide the sector.

The bill is one of a number of actions the Government is progressing to support the next generation of

creatives in this State. I have already mentioned the establishment of the Creative Youth Network. We also

referred arts and music education to the Parliament for inquiry, to assess its adequacy and to ensure that young

people who want to pursue these fields have access to appropriate education, training and mentoring. I thank the

House and its committees for the work done during that inquiry. The Government's response to the committee's

findings, tabled on 12 March 2025, outlines some of our next steps in reforming education and training to better

equip young people for sustainable careers within the creative sector.

The New South Wales Government has also delivered on its Creative Communities policy commitment

with the Generations Western Sydney Music Fellowship, investing $500,000 over five years to support early

career Western Sydney musicians to undertake professional development. The fellowship is delivered via a

partnership between Create NSW, Powerhouse Parramatta, Blacktown Arts and Vyva Entertainment and will

strengthen and amplify the arts and creative industries in Western Sydney.

I am also pleased to announce that we will be partnering with the Advocate for Children and Young People

on a grant program to develop governance skills and capabilities in relation to the duties and responsibilities of

boards and directors so that young aspiring creative leaders, following their selection process, are fully prepared

for their roles ahead of joining the respective board, council or trust. The bill before the House builds on and

complements all of that work. It seeks to draw on the breadth of our cultural institutions' audiences and the

vibrancy that young people offer to ensure that those organisations remain relevant for future generations.

I turn briefly to the detail of the bill. The bill seeks to amend legislation establishing certain New South

Wales cultural institutions to provide that the board, council or trust must include at least one young person. The

legislation to be amended by the bill includes: the Art Gallery of New South Wales Act 1980, the Australian

Museum Trust Act 1975, the Library Act 1939, the Museums of Applied Arts and Sciences Act 1945, the

Museums of History NSW Act 2022 and the Sydney Opera House Trust Act 1961. A young person is defined

within the bill as a person who is at least 18 years of age and not more than 28 years of age at the time of

appointment. The bill also includes consequential amendments to provisions related to quorum, to maintain the

intent and effect of quorum constituting a majority of members. I am pleased to introduce this legislation. It is a

step forward in actively putting young creatives around the decision-making table for the State's creative future.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Visitors

VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I take the opportunity to formally welcome to the Parliament the Advocate for

Children and Young People in New South Wales, Zoë Robinson. She is very welcome.

Bills

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT SECTOR GIG WORKERS AND

OTHERS) BILL 2025

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (10:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today the Minns Labor Government delivers on its election commitment to modernise chapter 6 of the Industrial

Relations Act and extend its coverage to the gig transport economy. Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act is a

longstanding piece of industrial relations legislation that has stood the test of time. In fact, the antecedent chapter

was established in 1979 by the Wran Government, as supported by the then opposition industrial relations

spokesperson, Jim Cameron, otherwise known as the father of former Federal member Ross Cameron. I would

happily talk more about that history. Chapter 6 at present applies to owner-drivers and taxis and provides for the

making of enforceable instruments that set their pay and conditions. As a result, numerous chapter 6 instruments

are in force throughout the New South Wales transport industry today and will be in the future.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 10

Chapter 6 has been saved from numerous attempts to override or reduce it. Following a Transport Workers'

Union campaign, including a convoy to Canberra, the Howard Government was forced to preserve chapter 6 even

though other aspects of State industrial relations laws dealing with independent contractors were overridden

following the enactment of the Independent Contractors Act 2006. I confess that I helped organise those convoys.

In fact, the very first truck blockade I ever helped to organise was on the Anzac Bridge and, dare I say, the M4 as

part of that campaign to save chapter 6. I was 23 or 24 years old. That was my very first campaign, so today I am

honoured to stand in this place to move this legislation in partnership with my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis,

who has done an amazing job to modernise the Act and make sure it remains on the cusp of worldwide innovation

to respond to the rise of the gig economy.

I remind members that in 2011 the O'Farrell State Government attempted to incorporate the New South

Wales industrial relations commission into a super tribunal. That could have had the effect of significantly

reducing the scope of chapter 6. Once more, a union-led campaign by the Transport Workers' Union led to

chapter 6 being preserved in its pre-existing form. In moving that legislation, protection of goodwill was being

risked, which, for transport workers, is a big deal, particularly for small businesses. In fact, the modern incarnation

of chapter 6 was set in 1995 by Kerry Chikarovski, who was responding to the end of goodwill that was taking

place in the concrete industry at the time and that was otherwise starting to devastate.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: It was also Norman Ross drivers.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: Yes, the shadow Treasurer is absolutely correct. The current form of

the legislation was built to protect people when they are transacting contracts for work, which is inherently a risky

proposition, especially when they are mortgaging their house to buy a truck or a concrete transport device or a car

carrier device. To have all of that goodwill destroyed and disrupted would absolutely devastate the transport

industry and also devastate many small businesses, which is why we have, broadly speaking, a bipartisan

consensus to protect chapter 6. The legislation today will ensure that chapter 6 maintains its relevance as a modern

piece of industrial relations legislation.

Last year the Federal Government acted to provide gig workers with access to the Fair Work Commission,

including by giving the Fair Work Commission the ability to make minimum standard orders for gig workers as

well as providing workers access to unfair deactivation remedies. The bill does not seek to replace the new Federal

jurisdiction or duplicate the important work that has taken place federally. Rather, the bill creates a mechanism

that allows gig transport workers to access the protections of chapter 6 if the transport industry decides that some

sectors of the transport gig economy are better left to regulate at State levels. To remove duplication, the bill

provides direction to the Industrial Relations Commission about how it must deal with any application made with

respect to a cohort of workers who are the subject of a Federal application for minimum standards. The bill also

acknowledges the operation of the Federal deactivation scheme, as I will explain later.

In addition to providing a mechanism for transport gig workers to access chapter 6, the bill also updates

the provisions of chapter 6 so that they are fit for purpose in a modern transport industry. The bill expands who is

covered by chapter 6 by removing outdated exemptions and giving the commission the power to examine

contractual chains that exist in modern supply chains. It also improves transmission of business provisions,

clarifies how agreements are terminated and updates dispute resolution and bargaining under the chapter. In

making that point, I acknowledge the advocacy of the member for Campbelltown, Mr Greg Warren, who, in the

dark days of opposition, moved bills on this matter in the other place as well. Greg Warren has a lot of transport

workers in his electorate and he is a former transport worker. He brings a great degree of passion, particularly

towards ensuring that bread, which was exempted from this law for 40-odd years, is brought in—and milk as well.

Milk transport is another part.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: You still get milk delivered, do you?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I confess my short-lived career as a milk deliverer did not last. But,

had it lasted, I would have been thrilled that this protection existed should I have found myself operating a

transport business that was undertaking the business of milk delivery. In the 30 seconds before question time,

I will begin to outline the contents of the bill. Schedule 1 [1] proposes to insert new objects in chapter 6 of the

Industrial Relations Act to outline the underlying purposes of the chapter. Schedule 1 [2] to the bill permits the

New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission [IRC], constituted by a presidential member of the

commission, to declare a particular contract or class of contracts to be contracts of carriage.

When making a declaration, the IRC must be satisfied that the contract is for the transportation of persons

or goods and that it is appropriate for the IRC to do so, having regard to the factors listed in new section 3B (b).

They include that a person has low bargaining power in relation to the particular contract or that it makes terms

that would be unfair or operate unfairly in relation to the person. That could include the declaration of contracts

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 11

of carriage beyond the circumstances now prescribed in schedule 1 [5] if the IRC considers it appropriate, having

regard to all matters.

The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions.

Questions Without Notice

LOCAL SMALL COMMITMENTS ALLOCATION

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11:00): My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. In

evidence given to the Public Accountability and Works Committee, a staffer from the Premier's office revealed

that in late 2023 the member for Sydney was consulted in relation to the nominated projects list for his electorate

on the master list of election commitments given by the Premier's office to the Local Small Commitments

Allocation [LSCA] project office, resulting in some projects having offers of funding withdrawn or reduced and

others being given more funding. Which other non-government sitting members were invited to have input into

the varying LSCA project funding apart from the parks and playgrounds projects?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (11:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the

question. This is a matter that the Parliament is inquiring into and I will be turning up to the inquiry tomorrow to

give evidence on this and other matters. As I have at estimates hearings or in the House, I will happily answer

questions members have about it. In making decisions about these projects, it is a requirement that they are election

commitments for them to meet the criteria in the grants. That is clear in the paperwork. All the paperwork has

been released—or is on the way to being released; there have been some subsequent decisions recently. Members

have had access to it. They can examine for themselves the basis on which the decisions were made. They are

election commitments. If there has been any query about that, I have made sure and clarified and that has been

the case across the board.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: I accept the context that the Minister is speaking to, but the

question is specific: Which other members were invited to have input into the various other Local Small

Commitments Allocation project fundings apart from parks and playgrounds?

The PRESIDENT: I am satisfied at the moment that the Minister is being directly relevant, but I am

conscious of the scope of the question.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: As I said, all the paperwork is visible. It is public. It is available to members

of the Opposition. It is available to members of either House and the public. Wherever anyone was consulted by

me and that had an influence on the decision, I am required to record that in the paperwork. Members can inspect

for themselves who has been consulted in the course of making a decision. Otherwise, the decisions, as I have

made them, have been based on the paperwork.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (11:03): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mental

Health. Will the Minister update the House on what the Minns Labor Government is doing to provide free and

confidential mental health information, services and support for people in New South Wales?

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Youth) (11:04): I am pleased to update the House about further

collaboration between the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government to ensure that more mental

health support is available. One of the things that we have been really leaning into is a new model of care that is

epitomised by the Safe Havens that the New South Wales Government funds and the Medicare Mental Health

Hubs that we jointly fund with the Commonwealth, where people can access free care without a referral simply

by walking in.

I am pleased to let the House know that we recently announced yet another of those Medicare Mental

Health Hubs, in Tweed in the Northern Rivers. Th =at community, as the member who asked the question would

know, has had some significant challenges over recent years, including multiple flood events. There have also

been bushfires in that part of New South Wales. That community rightfully has been crying out for more mental

health support. The kind of support provided through the hubs really meets the needs of the community. I was

incredibly pleased that the New South Wales Government was able to co-fund another one of those facilities in

Tweed.

Medicare Mental Health Hubs provide free support to anyone who walks in the front door, with no referral

needed. They are staffed by social workers, nurses and peer workers. There are psychologists and psychiatrists on

call. The full spread of mental health support is available. That kind of support, available to people when they

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 12

need it, without a referral and for free, steps into solving people's problems as opposed to requiring them to see a

GP and make an appointment. Occasionally, there is also payment required for those kinds of supports. The hubs

are a new model and we are rolling them out across the State. Currently, 61 Medicare Mental Health Hubs are

being rolled out, including 22 in New South Wales. On top of that, the Commonwealth has recently committed to

another 35 Medicare Mental Health Hubs opening across the country, including 13 additional locations in

New South Wales.

We are really pleased to be doing that work with the Commonwealth. We want to make mental health

support more readily available. We know we need all different levels of government to work together. It is not

something that the State or the Commonwealth are going to be able to solve by themselves, and the hubs are really

good practical examples of what that kind of support looks like. In honour of some of the more unconventional

traditions of this House and in honour of the Clerk, who has just joined us in the Chamber, and Celine Dion, I note

this: Mental health support is near, far, wherever you are after the rollout of our Medicare Mental Health Hubs.

My heart could go on and on about how much support is available in New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, I take the opportunity to formally welcome the

Clerk of the Parliaments, David Blunt, AM, to his final question time in a long and distinguished career.

DUBBO REGIONAL SPORTS HUB

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (11:07): My question is directed to the Minister for Regional New South

Wales. In a letter to the Minister dated 18 December 2024, the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, the Labor duty MLC for

Dubbo and the Special Envoy for Opal Mining, stated that the Minns Labor Government "now bears absolute

responsibility" for the fate of the Dubbo sports hub project and that to "withdraw the funding and axe the project

would be a terrible breach of trust with the people of western New South Wales". On 20 December the Minister

announced that she had axed the project. Why did the Minister breach trust with the people of Dubbo and western

New South Wales?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:08): I thank the member for the question. As I have indicated,

I am happy to answer questions about the project that never existed. I will deal with the specifics of this question.

As I have had cause to refer to this week, it is a distraction from the member for Dubbo, who was the one who

failed to deliver this project.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order—

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: The death threats are still on his Facebook page. There are new ones.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order has been taken.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: On Tuesday in question time I took a point of order regarding this

Minister's use of props. For her to do so again today is to flout the ruling made by the President at the time. For

her to reflect on a member in the other place deserves a call to order.

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are also disorderly and yet they continue to happen. Nonetheless,

I uphold the point of order. Props are disorderly and may not be used. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I acknowledge your ruling, Mr President. The Facebook comment says,

"Shoot the cunt dead."

The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: The member is not being directly relevant to the question. I ask that

she be drawn back to the leave of the question.

The Hon. Courtney Houssos: To the point of order: The Minister barely uttered two words before the

member took a point of order. The Minister should be given the opportunity to say a few sentences before a

member takes a point of order. It is ridiculous to suggest that every single word a Minister utters must be directly

relevant to a question.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: I take the same point of order that I took on a previous

occasion. The Minister quoted from a potential comment on the Facebook page of a member in the other place in

an attempt to imply that that member endorses the comment. That is a reflection on a member in the other place,

which the Minister can only do by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: To the point of order: The question that was asked of the Minister contained

the words "did the Minister breach trust". In rejecting the proposition that the Minister did breach trust, she has

latitude to provide her reasons, and that includes contrasting what other people have said in this House and in this

debate. I well and truly accept that the Opposition asked a question, but the manner in which it was asked provided

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 13

the Minister with licence to set out her reasons for asserting that the proposition was wrong. The Minister clearly

made that point.

The PRESIDENT: Members have taken two points of order. The point of order taken by the Hon. Wes

Fang was that the Minister's answer was not relevant to the question. The scope of the question was quite broad

and the Minister was directly relevant. The point of order taken by the Hon. Damien Tudehope was more

interesting, but I do not accept that the Minister implied that the member for Dubbo endorsed the comment on his

Facebook page. If the Minister did that, that would be inappropriate. I am alive to that point of order. The Minister

has the call.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I drew attention to the comment because the post is about the project,

so it is directly relevant to the question. The member for Dubbo boosted, highlighted and exacerbated the issue

since I raised it in Parliament. The member should delete the comment. It was referred to the police. The matter

must be taken seriously. Members on the other side of the Chamber should condemn the comment. I am not

interested in receiving death threats because of government decisions. The content should be removed.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: It has been removed.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: No, it hasn't. It is there right now. It says, "Shoot the cunt dead." I am

not interested in copping that. The member should delete the comment and be more responsible if he would like

to be the Deputy Premier of this State. In relation to the question—

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: I renew my point of order. The Minister has sought to assert

that the member for Dubbo, in failing to remove or by associating himself with that post, is endorsing it.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: The Minister raised a very serious matter about death

threats that were made using absolutely appalling language. That was well canvassed in question time on Tuesday.

The Minister said the post should be removed. It is within her rights to answer the question in a directly relevant

manner. She has done that. Every member in this place should be concerned about any member who experiences

online harassment. Opposition members have taken semantic points of order, but the bottom line is that the

Minister was directly relevant in her answer. Members must pause to reflect on the issue the Minister raised and

the nature of the threats made to her. All members should condemn those threats.

Ms Abigail Boyd: I seek to take a new point of order.

The PRESIDENT: I will hear from the Hon. Damien Tudehope on this point of order and then Ms Abigail

Boyd may take a new point of order.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Further to the point of order: I accept the arguments made by the Leader

of the Government in this place, but that material should be contained in a substantive motion. That is the proper

manner for dealing with this subject and referencing members in the other place, for exactly the reasons articulated

by the Leader of the Government.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Further to the point of order: The Minister was directly relevant to the question

that was asked of her about a very specific project. The Minister argued that a Facebook post made by a member

in the other place has drawn a lot of extremely inappropriate, violent and unwelcome comments. Opposition

members invited this debate by asking another question about it. The Minister was directly relevant in her answer.

She does not need to move a substantive motion attacking the member for Dubbo. The Minister is responding

directly to the question and outlining the context she finds herself in as a result of the actions of others.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: To the point of order: It is important to put on record my concerns about the

information provided by the Minister. The posts were removed by the member for Dubbo and his office after the

matter was raised in question time on Tuesday, and they continue to try to find and remove other abusive

comments. It is disingenuous for the Minister to imply that the member for Dubbo has not done anything about

those posts when he has deleted posts since the matter was raised on Tuesday.

The PRESIDENT: The point of order is interesting but not clear-cut. Imputations of improper motives

are considered disorderly and should be dealt with by way of substantive motion, and the Minister came close to

that line. But I do not believe that on this occasion the Minister imputed an improper motive to the member for

Dubbo. She drew attention to posts that were certainly visible at some point. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition

said the posts are no longer on Facebook, but I cannot check that in real time. I remind members that these are

very serious issues. The threats that were made to the Minister are very serious, but the suggestion that the member

for Dubbo might support those threats is also serious. Members must be mindful of these matters and treat them

with the respect they deserve.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 14

Ms Abigail Boyd: Point of order: My point of order relates to the stopping of the clock. Although

I understand it is well intentioned, it results in question time becoming a back-and-forth debate where members

can use points of order for discussions. This is delaying question time. Only three questions were asked by

crossbench members yesterday.

The PRESIDENT: That is a very good point of order. The member might recall that at the beginning of

my term I was focused on the use of what I felt were spurious and vexatious points of order. Members have settled

down since then, but yesterday—and indeed today—it has built up again. I do not think it has been a deliberate

tactic on this occasion, but I will watch it. I am mindful of it and appreciate the member raising it. The Minister

has the call.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: I was mid-sentence before those points of order were taken. In relation

to the specifics of this question, I refer to what I have already put on record. I understand that the member referred

to is interested in this issue. He was on the council when the council withdrew from this project. In this case, the

council was a proponent to deal with this project. It signed a funding agreement, it was working with the

Government on it and it withdrew. This is all in the documents returned by the call for papers under Standing

Order 52. The council committed $4 million and paid a million dollars. When it withdrew from the project in

2020, that money was refunded to the council. The council withdrew from this project.

The member for Dubbo failed to deliver the project. I understand that there is lots of advocacy for a new

project, which I have said repeatedly that anyone is allowed to campaign for. In any community, people are entitled

to campaign for whatever issues they feel passionate about. If they are lobbying for projects in their local

community, that is appropriate and it is their job to do so. But the history of this non-existent project is relevant

to the House. The project did not exist; there is plenty of paperwork to prove that. The community of Dubbo

should have a look at its local representation at every level and ask questions about the misleading of the

community in relation to this project. Members of that community have been misled for many years. As I have

said repeatedly, people are entitled to campaign for issues. If an organisation is interested in receiving support

from the Government, it is welcome to apply. [Time expired.]

LOCAL LAND SERVICES ANTI-CORRUPTION TRAINING

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (11:22): My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture.

Anti-corruption training is critical for staff and board members in Local Land Services to uphold ethical standards,

ensure transparency and maintain public trust. Given the potential for local conflicts of interest, particularly in

rural and community-based settings, and particularly in relation to lucrative helicopter aerial shooting contracts,

such training helps prevent misuse of power or resources. It is important to understand how Local Land Services

addresses these risks. What anti-corruption training programs are provided to Local Land Services staff, managers,

executives and board members in New South Wales?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:22): I thank the honourable member for his question. I know

he has a significant interest in this particular area of government. I am advised that training is provided, but the

honourable member is right to raise that it is really important that everyone deals with things with integrity—

including everyone in this place and government departments—and that proper processes are in place to limit

risks of corruption or any other concerns. There is training in place. If there are any particular issues, the member

is very welcome to raise them and we will deal with it. But it is really important that we do have the correct

processes in place to limit any risk. Again, if something has occurred, I am happy to hear about it.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (11:23): I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that

answer. How is the anti-corruption training actually tailored to meet the needs of different levels of staff within

Local Land Services, from frontline employees to board members?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:24): I thank the member for another important question about

good governance. As I understand it, there is specific training for people who are employed in the department.

But also, as members would be aware, there are elected and appointed board members for Local Land Services

organisations in different parts of the State. I am advised that there is training that is tailored to them. I am happy

to provide further information about the specifics of any difference between what is provided to department

officials compared with elected and appointed board members. But that training is available, as it should be.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (11:24): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate

her answer in response to my colleague's first question? The Minister said training is in place. How frequently is

anti-corruption training provided to staff members, managers, executives and board members? Are there regular

updates to the training?

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 15

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:25): I thank the member for the excellent second

supplementary question in relation to how often training is provided. I do not have that information off the top of

my head, but I am very happy to seek further information about the specifics of how often training is provided to

officials inside the department and how and when it is provided to board members around the State.

SEA TURTLE PROTECTION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (11:25): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the

Environment. Will the Minister provide an update on the steps the New South Wales Government has taken to

protect sea turtles in response to ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:26): This is a very important issue and some good news, which

I think we all need. Ahead of the destructive force of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, the dedicated team at NSW

TurtleWatch, together with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, worked tirelessly to rescue hundreds

of turtle eggs from nine beaches on the North Coast. With cyclonic waves threatening to wash these nests away,

the team carefully relocated nine nests, ensuring that these future teenage mutant ninja turtles had a fighting

chance. The eggs were placed in incubators until it was time to release the world's most fearsome fighting team.

When the evil Alfred attacked, these turtle boys did not cut him any slack. Leonardo led the way, with Donatello

not far behind. Raphael and Michelangelo were too cool and surfed the waves. I think all members can agree that

they really are heroes in a half shell. This was turtle power in action.

The rescue mission was no small feat. It was a massive collaboration between government agencies,

volunteers and wildlife rehabilitators. The dedication of these volunteers cannot be overstated. This season alone

they have monitored over 2,700 kilometres of coastline, logged an astonishing 825 hours of volunteering,

conducted 739 beach patrols and even removed 141 kilograms of rubbish from our shores. Their commitment is

making a real difference. This summer, New South Wales recorded 18 confirmed sea turtle nests, an increase from

13 last year.

While we celebrate the success, we also recognise the ongoing challenges. In the wake of the cyclone,

numerous turtles and other wildlife have needed urgent care. I thank organisations such as For Australian Wildlife

Needing Aid, WIRES, Northern Rivers Wildlife Carers, Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers, Australian Seabird and

Turtle Rescue, Byron Bay Wildlife Hospital, Coffs Coast Wildlife Sanctuary and the Northern Rivers Wildlife

Hospital for all the work they have done during this difficult period. Their efforts are not only saving turtles today

but also ensuring that future generations can see these turtles return to our shores. We want to continue to protect

and preserve the wildlife that makes New South Wales so unique and extraordinary, and we want to see more

lovely mutant ninja turtles returning to nest into the future.

ENERGY PRICES

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (11:28): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Climate Change,

and Minister for Energy. My very first question to the new Labor Government in May 2023 was to ask the Minister

about the national energy price regulation default market offer [DMO]. The Minister said it was a very good

question and sought advice from the department in relation to our options. Almost two years later, New South

Wales households are still paying higher power prices than our counterparts. Under DMO 7, New South Wales

households will face a greater increase than their Victorian counterparts because of the permitted inputs—

including inflated profit margins, advertising costs and transmission cost recovery—under the national energy

price regulation, to which New South Wales is a party. Will the Minister commit to follow the lead of the Victorian

Government and boycott the price regulation to enable New South Wales to set its own lower charges in order to

provide urgent energy bill relief?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:29): I thank the member for her question. How we regulate and

deal with prices is a serious matter. The member should be aware that Victoria has a separate system to the rest

of the National Energy Market in relation to the default market offer [DMO]. The short answer to the member's

question is, yes, I am concerned about it. Yes, during this draft period we will be asking the Australian Energy

Regulator [AER] to reflect on the draft determination and to see whether we can get a lower outcome, which is

what we did when we first came to government, and we expect that.

As for whether we are moving out of the system to set up our own system in New South Wales, no, we are

not. I understand where the member is going, but there is a bit of swings and roundabouts with this. Victoria has

gone above the DMO in previous times. The long and the short of it is that the default market offer is supposed to

set market prices for competition in the market. I am concerned that the rise is significant and that it will have an

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 16

impact. I obviously welcome the Federal Government's work on rebates, and I again remind the member that we

have over $350 million worth of rebates for energy bills.

She is right about the challenges in the market. I will fix this up if it is incorrect, but I believe that around

10 to 15 per cent of people are on the direct market offer. People have the ability to shop around, and we encourage

them to do so. There is a good website called Energy Made Easy. If people take the time, they could literally cut

20 per cent off their electricity bill straightaway by just changing providers. Having said that, I know that that is

not easy and not necessarily something that everyone will be committed to doing, but I encourage them to do so.

We also provide a range of other support for people in difficulties with their bills. The long and the short of it is,

no, we will not move to a different arrangement, but we will continue to engage with the AER and the way in

which it determines the DMO.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (11:32): I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her response. Will

the Minister elucidate the part of her answer where she talked about being concerned about the cost of energy

prices? Under the energy infrastructure road map and as identified in the Government's Electricity Supply and

Reliability Check Up, current arrangements do not impose costs on customers who are connected to the

transmission grid, particularly large electricity users. Will the Government at least adopt that recommendation

and shift transmission cost recovery from households to big businesses, to lower costs?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:32): I would argue that is a different question. However,

I acknowledge that this House is serious about trying to deal with energy prices, especially as we roll out the road

map. I will take the detail of the supplementary question on notice and provide an answer to the member. I will

try to get a response before the end of question time.

PARRAMATTA LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (11:33): My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. On

6 January 2023, the Premier, as the then Opposition leader, said regarding Parramatta Light Rail stage two, "Major

construction works will begin in the first term of a Labor government." At budget estimates hearings, senior

transport executives confirmed that the New South Wales Government was seeking additional funding from the

Commonwealth Government for this project. Without Federal funding, will major construction works begin prior

to the 2027 election, as promised by Premier Minns?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (11:33): I thank the shadow Minister for her question

and for her interest in the Parramatta Light Rail project.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: How many times did you announce it?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I acknowledge the interjection from the Treasurer referring, I think, to

stage one.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: No, stage two.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: Stage two, yes. The answer to the Treasurer's question is 15 times. There

may have been more.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Like the North West Rail Link that Labor announced 10 times.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: Point of order: Mr President, I understand that it is Thursday, but this is in no

way even close to being relevant to the question. If the Treasurer would like come back to the Opposition benches

and ask questions, he is most welcome.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Natalie Ward is quite correct. The Minister has

the call.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I apologise, Mr President, for being distracted by the excellent interjection

from the Treasurer. The answer is that the Premier is entirely correct. If the Premier said so, we will work to make

that the case.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (11:34): I ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Did you put the money aside for this?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Damien Tudehope is not asking the supplementary question. The

Hon. Natalie Ward has the call.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 17

The Hon. NATALIE WARD: I thank the Minister for his answer. To make that work, will the Minister

elaborate on how the Premier will ensure those major construction works even without that Federal funding? How

does the Minister reconcile the two?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (11:35): I thank the shadow Minister for the

supplementary question. Part of the issue is the distinction between what the Premier is saying, what our election

commitments were and the way that the Opposition characterises what is going on. That is where the gap is, not

between what the Premier said or what we committed to at the election and what we will do. We have made

commitments, and we will deliver on them.

BAPS SWAMINARAYAN HINDU MANDIR AND CULTURAL PRECINCT

The Hon. BOB NANVA (11:35): My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the

Treasurer update the House about the recent completion of the BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu Mandir and Cultural

Precinct at Kemps Creek?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:36): I thank the member for his question. Before

I update the House on the BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu Mandir and Cultural Precinct in Kemps Creek and

acknowledge the incredible honour of welcoming to New South Wales His Holiness Mahant Swami Maharaj—

otherwise known as the Holy Father of that congregation—I should acknowledge in the gallery today an important

but not particularly holy father: my father-in-law. Professor Lloyd is one of the world's experts in Indigenous

economies, with a particular Marxist historiographical bent, which also makes him thrilled to have me as a

son-in-law, I have to say.

To return to the question, I recently had the opportunity to welcome His Holiness Mahant Swami Maharaj

to New South Wales and into the new mandir in Kemps Creek. I was pleased to join the BAPS community to

celebrate the opening of their magnificent new cultural precinct, which will be the Southern Hemisphere's biggest

Hindu cultural precinct. This is more than a place of worship; it is a centre of learning and a home for all who

seek spiritual growth. It was, of course, a privilege to welcome His Holiness. I also had the honour of returning

again last Saturday with the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Federal energy Minister and other parliamentary

colleagues for the foundational stone laying and ceremony.

The BAPS community has long been a pillar of service and unity across the world, and certainly in Western

Sydney. Through education, social initiatives and humanitarian work, they continue to show us that the practice

of faith is not just about belief; it is about action, lifting others up and strengthening the bonds of family and

community. The theme of the event earlier this month was celebrating peace, and the new mandir is bringing

together communities and providing a place for gathering to understand compassion and kindness. It has been

built by its volunteers, and it has been built by the BAPS movement worldwide, which predominantly comes out

of Gujarat in India but has been spread worldwide. It is very welcoming to see the new mandir in Western Sydney,

somewhere so many people from that community now calls home.

I acknowledge all the volunteers of the BAPS movement and the spirit of their volunteerism. As a member

of Parliament of Indian heritage, I see what this means for the broader Hindu community in Australia. I have made

no secret of the fact that my family helped set up Australia's first Hindu mandir in Auburn, and to see the growth

of the community is quite amazing. It has made me think of this place and how it is also a place where we worship

democracy, where people are connected through the act of public service.

Today we are farewelling one of our most committed worshippers of democracy in our public service,

David Blunt, and it feels almost like we are losing our religion:

I thought that I heard you laughing

I thought that I heard you sing

I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream

That was just a dream

SEXUAL ABUSE COMPENSATION

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (11:40): My question without notice is directed to the Minister

for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales,

representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, and Minister for the Hunter. On 13 February 2025,

the New South Wales police news website stated, "Detectives from the Financial Crimes Squad have charged

seven people following the discovery of fraudulent sexual abuse compensation claims in a scheme which has paid

out over $1 billion in claims to date." Minister, where was the figure of $1 billion obtained from? If it was a

calculation, how was the figure of $1 billion calculated?

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 18

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: This matter is the subject of debate on a bill about claims

farming that will be debated later today. As such, I would suggest that the question is out of order.

The Hon. Rod Roberts: To the point of order: Members may recall that I have raised this particular

matter in the Chamber once before, and I have a question to the Attorney General on the notice paper. What we

will be debating today, the Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill, is not related to the question that the

Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has asked. I have looked at the bill and have prepared my contribution to the debate on

the bill for today. I will be critical of the Government for leaving out the area of sexual assault reporting option

that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is referring to. Although they are both looking at compensation claims, they

are two completely different matters.

The PRESIDENT: Could I please have a copy of the question? Members are making the Clerk earn his

money today.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Further to the point of order: The Hon. Rod Roberts upheld my point that

he will, in fact, be addressing this matter in his contribution to the debate on the bill later this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the long title of the bill that specifically goes to the detail of the

question that was asked. It may have some relevance, but we do not know, and we are not going to know until the

bill is discussed. I do not uphold the point of order.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:43): I thank the member for his question and acknowledge

his significant ongoing interest in this area. It has been asked of me in my capacity representing the Minister for

Police and Counter-terrorism. I do not have access to that information at hand. I will take the question on notice

and come back to the member and the House with the details.

WASTE DISPOSAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. NICHOLE OVERALL (11:43): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for

Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage. In 2018, when

Minister Sharpe was the shadow environment Minister, in response to a proposal for a waste incinerator in

Western Sydney she stated, "This project shouldn't be going ahead and the Government should stop it now." In

budget estimates, when questioned on the matter, the Minister stated, "I was glad that they didn't proceed in terms

of the Western Sydney program." Does the Minister have the same concerns about the negative impacts of waste

incineration in regional New South Wales as she does for Western Sydney?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:44): I thank the member for the question. I remind her that the

policy for energy from waste was developed under the Hon. John Barilaro. The policy dealt with the opportunities,

the challenges and the issues that need to be considered in relation to energy from waste. It was established by the

previous Government. I remind the member that it stated that energy from waste facilities could be useful in some

areas. There were four designated areas in the State where they could be considered. The first one was in Goulburn

near Tarago. The second one was in Parkes. Currently, a proposal is being discussed in the community with the

Parkes Special Activation Precinct. Again, previously, that was heavily championed by The Nationals. There is

one out in the Richmond, Tenterfield way. The other one is near Lithgow, with the former Deputy Leader of the

Government and the member for Bathurst, Paul Toole.

The policy that was put in place continues to exist. As I said, it was set out by the previous Government.

It was wholeheartedly adopted by The Nationals. The point that I would make is that there is a lot of community

concern about energy from waste. I understand that there are people who campaign against a variety of those

facilities, although the only one that is currently going through the planning system, as identified by the member,

is the one outside Tarago. Currently, the Environment Protection Authority has a consultation paper out on

whether the settings are correct or whether changes should be made. I will not pre-empt that community

consultation, other than to say that it is coming.

The second point I make is that I have also asked for advice from the Office of the Chief Scientist and

Engineer on whether the regulations for those types of facilities are fit for purpose or are best practice. I believe

and understand that even before that advice, New South Wales has the most stringent regulations for those

facilities. As I said, they currently do not exist within our State. I am getting updated information around that. The

other point I make—and we need to be honest about this—is that I have been talking about the challenges that we

have with waste. I have been talking about the challenges with landfill. The communication about whether projects

are able to operate will continue. We are not ruling them out. We need to continue to deal with what is a very

difficult challenge that has been ignored for too long. We are literally getting to the point where we will not be

able to deal with our waste across Greater Sydney and many areas in regional New South Wales.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 19

SYDNEY TRAINS RAIL FIRE AND EMERGENCY UNIT

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS RETIREMENT

The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (11:47): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for

Transport. Will the Minister inform the House about the 130th anniversary of the establishment of the Rail Fire

and Emergency Unit?

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (11:46): Last Friday, it was a great honour to mark the

130th anniversary of the Rail Fire and Emergency Unit, which has an incredible history. It started as a volunteer

fire brigade, led by Captain Kneeshaw and a group of passionate railway staff. Today, 130 years on, it is still

Australia's only dedicated fire department for a rail network. If I walk up Pitt Street towards Central Station, with

the sandstone railway arches on my left, I might not even notice that behind the glass doors is one of Australia's

most elite firefighting units, ready to spring into action at any moment. Over the decades, they were there for the

Glenbrook and Waterfall rail disasters, the Lindt Cafe siege and the Surry Hills warehouse fire in 2023. Today,

I recognise those hardworking firefighters.

I also recognise another important milestone: the Clerk's last question time. Not only has Mr Blunt

performed his duties with great professionalism, but also, I commend his passion for music, his history as a bass

player and his U2 superfan status. These matters have all been noted by the House, as has his appreciation for our

Thursday musical tradition.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: We might call it a shame, but I just have to observe the fact

that the Clerk has had a haircut for the occasion. The Minister vastly underplays the significance of David Blunt's

retirement. David Blunt has given the best years of his life to this Chamber and, with his retirement, we will lose

over 30 years of experience. So I say to David:

You gave it all but I want more

Without you, this Chamber will be like a bed of nails on which we wait, and without your knowledge, wisdom

and humour:

I can't live with or without you

With or without you.

…

I can't live with or without you

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order on the following grounds:

I can't believe the news today

Oh, I can't close my eyes and make it go away

The Minister has the call.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his unusually emotional

contribution. David, we want to thank you for your unrivalled knowledge of the laws, procedure and culture of

this House. In fact, when it comes to your knowledge of the Legislative Council, one might say:

What you don't have you don't need it now

What you don't know you can feel it somehow

We wish you well, David, and, on behalf of all of us, I say:

It's a beautiful day

Don't let it get away

It's a beautiful day

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Dr AMANDA COHN (11:50): My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health. I know that the

Minister is aware there was a nation-leading service in New South Wales providing specialised in-patient mental

health care for survivors of complex and chronic trauma, particularly for survivors of family and domestic violence

and survivors of sexual assault. That service was in Thirroul. It was run by Dr Karen Williams through Ramsay

Health Care, and it included one funded public bed. I understand that this service is no longer providing specialised

trauma care and has reverted to a general women's mental health facility. What work has the Minister done to

sustain or to replace this specialised trauma care?

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Youth) (11:51): I thank the member for her question. She is

correct that I am familiar with the facility that she is referring to. I met with Dr Williams when she was running

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 20

that facility to talk about the very special care that she was offering women who have experienced some of the

most traumatic events and about the real success of that type of very specialised trauma-informed care for those

women. I am also aware that the nature of that clinic has changed in the way that the member has described.

I am aware that the member knows this but, just to be clear, it is a privately run facility. So that was not a

decision made by NSW Health. It is not a decision that we have taken in relation to the changes in the way that

care is being provided. But I have been informed of that change. I am aware of concerns in relation to that. I have

received correspondence and representations in relation to not just the fact of that very specialised care not being

available for those women anymore, which does concern me, but also some broader issues relating to the change

that has occurred there.

In answer to the member's specific question about what I am doing about it, those concerns were brought

to my attention relatively recently, and I am following up with NSW Health in relation to some of those specific

concerns. One of the best things that we can do as public health providers is try to ensure that when people,

particularly women who are victim-survivors of family and domestic violence and sexual assaults, are receiving

mental health care in our public facilities it is done in a trauma-informed way.

A comprehensive rollout of training is occurring, and will continue to occur, to ensure that the care that

women who are victim-survivors of family and domestic violence and sexual assault receive in public mental

health facilities is appropriate and trauma informed. I am not pretending that that training would replace the level

of specialised care that was available at that service. That is plainly not the case. But we do want to ensure that

anyone who receives support in a public health facility is cared for in the most appropriate and trauma-informed

way. I am following up and will be happy to keep the member informed about specific concerns that were raised

with me about the facility to which she referred.

HAZARD REDUCTION BURNING

The Hon. WES FANG (11:54): My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. On

18 March 2025, after being given two days notice of a hazard reduction burn, David Lorentz of Cherry Tree Hill

winery urgently requested the Minister to delay the burn to enable his crop to be harvested to prevent it being

affected by smoke taint. How did she respond to that urgent request to protect those important economic

resources?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (11:54): I thank the member for his question. Firstly, it might be a

shock for the Hon. Wes Fang to learn that, as the Minister, I do not actually get involved in operational decisions

around hazard reduction burnings. In relation to the burn that the member has identified, it was completed on

19 and 20 March over an area of approximately 1,600 hectares. I am aware of the concerns raised in relation to

smoke impacts on the crop.

The hazard reduction burn was identified as a high priority by the Southern Highlands district bushfire

management committee, which is made up of a range of stakeholders, including the NSW Rural Fire Service. The

burn had been postponed twice due to conditions. I make the point that hazard reduction burning is important to

managing bushfire risk. It has also been very challenging over the past few years to find windows of opportunity

when the burn can be done. A range of logistical issues exist but, more often than not, it is also about the weather

conditions at the time being right.

This particular burn was important for the protection of landholders around the Southern Highlands,

including Mittagong, Welby and Berrima. Consultation was undertaken with grapegrowers via a representative

from GROW Southern Highlands NSW Association Inc. on the bushfire management committee. That

consultation started months before the planned burn and continued with the meeting held on the Friday the burn

commenced. No issues were raised. I think there has been a breakdown in communication on this. That is our

challenge in making sure that as much hazard reduction burning can be done in the windows that exist.

My understanding and advice is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has said it spoke to the person

the member referred to in his question before and after the burn to explain the priority of operation, to ensure the

safety of all neighbouring communities and to provide reassurance about the wind and smoke forecast modelling

relevant for the grower. National Parks and Wildlife Service is committed to consulting with neighbours and

stakeholders, as it must, in relation to these matters, but the burning operations that were undertaken needed to be

done at the time that it was there. I understand that there is ongoing discussion between National Parks and

Wildlife Service and this local grapegrower about the outcome and how burns can be managed better in the future.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 21

TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (11:57): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister

for Agriculture. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is supporting

farmers in central and southern New South Wales to get internet connectivity?

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,

and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:58): Farmers and families across the State's Central West

and the south will benefit from major upgrades with 17 new telecommunication towers set to be built across the

region by the end of 2025. The New South Wales and Australian governments have provided up to $6.1 million

to improve rural connectivity for around 1,500 premises across Weddin shire, Burcher, Burra, Glen Davis,

Talbingo in the Central West and other areas in southern New South Wales.

As members know, primary producers and agricultural businesses are increasingly relying on the internet.

Modern farming technologies such as livestock monitoring, smart irrigation systems and wireless drone

inspections for land surveying are now being used alongside ag tech in tractors, headers and centre pivot watering

systems. Farmers are investing in that technology. The New South Wales Government and the Federal

Government, with the fantastic Federal Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland—who is doing a great

job and understands the need for investment in regional communities—are jointly investing in the towers and

better connectivity, particularly across the Central West, in this round.

That investment will allow farmers in the Weddin shire and Monaro to fully harness modern farming

technology through improved coverage. Currently, machinery programmed to sow seeds in a designated area

across Weddin shire farmland can only be configured using farm-office-based computers with wired internet

connections, as there are no reliable wireless options on the farm. That is regularly raised with me by farmers and

people across the agriculture sector who want to embrace technology to make it easier for them to produce crops

and forecast weather in a better way. In order for them to do that, there needs to be improvement in connectivity

across regions where it has been a significant problem.

In the Weddin agricultural precinct, connected farms will deliver a network providing mobile services and

high-speed fixed wireless broadband to more than 200 premises. It will be a game changer for those communities

and the people living in them, particularly for farmers who are doing business and will rely on upgraded services.

In addition to unlocking modern ag tech methods, locals and visitors alike will have improved access to emergency

services during disasters and unexpected events, which is another important reason to improve connectivity across

that region and all of regional New South Wales.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: It is the last question time for the fortnight and, of course, the last question

time for the Clerk. I thank him for his many years of service, for his wise advice and for his patience in dealing

with an occasionally excitable group of members. There have been some good songs. We look forward to

tomorrow's debrief of this sitting week.

The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

ENERGY PRICES

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (12:01): I provide an update to the answer that I gave to Ms Abigail

Boyd. I was wrong about the default market offer [DMO]. Only 8 per cent of residential customers and 18 per cent

of small business customers are on the DMO. I thought it was 15 per cent. In response to the supplementary

question asked by Ms Abigail Boyd, the Electricity Supply and Reliability Check Up made two recommendations

regarding the cost recovery arrangements for the road map. One was to work with the distribution businesses on

a common pricing methodology, and the other was to review the exemptions framework.

The Government has accepted both of those recommendations and will investigate the issues. It is not

simple. Anyone who has tangled with the Australian electricity rules and laws would find that they are not simple.

They are complex, technical pieces of work that affect a range of stakeholders. My department continues to

undertake analysis and consult with stakeholders, including consumer advocates. That work is ongoing. The

department will make recommendations of changes for consideration in due course.

Supplementary Questions for Written Answers

LOCAL SMALL COMMITMENTS ALLOCATION

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:03): My supplementary question for written answer is directed to

the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in relation to all papers being available and

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 22

inform us of whether the brief for tranche 7 has been made public? If so, what is its uniform resource locator or

index number in the returns to order index?

DUBBO REGIONAL SPORTS HUB

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (12:03): My supplementary question for written answer is directed to the

Minister for Agriculture, consequent to my excellent supplementary question yesterday outlining the

73 government grants given to the Dubbo electorate in the last term of Parliament. Has the Minister reviewed

those grants and found any unallocated money that can be redirected to help the people of Dubbo build their sports

centre from pork?

Questions Without Notice: Take Note

TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move:

That the House take note of answers to questions.

SYDNEY TRAINS RAIL FIRE AND EMERGENCY UNIT

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS RETIREMENT

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:04): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Transport

to the question about Captain Kneeshaw's 130-year-old Rail Fire and Emergency Unit. I join the Minister in

congratulating the hardworking firefighters who work across our rail, metro and light rail networks to keep us

safe. As members of this place know, I am a great supporter of our firies. The Minister also made reference to our

beloved Clerk, who is leaving us today. He is:

Gonna go where the bright lights

And the big city meet

With a red guitar … on fire

What will we do without his calm, unflappable, considered and erudite advice?

He's my protection

Yeah he's the promise

In the year of election.

Oh David

I can't let you go

When President after President has sat in the chair, charged with deciding on obscure, perplexing points of order,

thumbing through previous Presidents' rulings and muttering, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for," David

has quietly turned the pages, pointed to the relevant quote and whispered to the President the words that he can

pronounce, with Solomon-like wisdom. In some of the all-night sittings that the Clerk has helped steer us through,

occasionally a member whose point of order has been dismissed may later be asked by David:

Did I disappoint you?

Or leave a bad taste in your mouth?

You act like you never had love

And you want me to go without

Well, it's too late tonight

Alas, now the Clerk is leaving us, so I note that it:

Takes a second to say goodbye

Say goodbye, oh, oh, oh

Say bye-bye

Where you going to now?

I am told that the Clerk of the Parliaments is off to:

Climb the highest mountain

Run through the fields

We wish him well.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Dr AMANDA COHN (12:06): I am sorry that I do not have a song. On a much more serious matter,

I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Mental Health to my question about the need for

trauma-sensitive care in New South Wales, and particularly the change that has been made to the clinic in Thirroul

which means that we now do not have a specialist inpatient trauma service for survivors of family violence and

sexual assault in this State. That is an urgent, ongoing need. One of the most important components of

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 23

trauma-sensitive or trauma-informed mental health care is continuity of care. It is reliability, predictability and a

long-term relationship so that people do not have fragmented care and do not have to tell their story over and over

again to a different person. Survivors need to be able to build a long-term, trusting relationship with their care

provider.

The Minister said in her answer that wherever someone receives mental health care in New South Wales,

it should be done in a trauma-informed way. I agree with that sentiment, but that is not happening in New South

Wales. Both before and after the mass resignation of our staff specialist psychiatrists, mental health care in this

State has become more fragmented. People have to contact different triage lines and see many different medical

professionals, getting handed over between them. That is retraumatising for people who have experienced chronic

and complex trauma. It is not the quality of care that we should be aspiring to, particularly in the Illawarra. We

are talking about the clinic in Thirroul. I am advised that because of the shortage of staff specialist psychiatrists

in that local community public mental health centre, psychiatrists are not seeing patients directly anymore. They

are only taking secondary consultation from other members of staff and providing advice. It is a rationing of that

expertise. It means that the most vulnerable patients—those who need specialised care the most and need a

relationship with a consultant psychiatrist—are now not able to receive that care.

Members will know that the inquiry into community and outpatient mental health care that Portfolio

Committee No. 2 – Health conducted last year made a recommendation about the need for a centre of excellence

for trauma-informed care in New South Wales. There is such important work to do to improve the quality of care

throughout the State. Given that it is an emerging area of mental health care and also an enormous unmet need,

there is a huge opportunity for a centre of excellence to be established in New South Wales to provide research

and the best quality care, and to support the rollout of better care across the State. I again urge the Minister to do

that work.

WASTE DISPOSAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. NICHOLE OVERALL (12:09): In honour of Mr Blunt and my relatively short but impactful

tenure with him, I come well armed. I take note of the Minister for the Environment's answer to my question about

the proposed Goulburn Mulwaree waste incinerator and the community's continuing concerns. I note the history

lesson from the Minister, and I will get to that. I note also a previous comment of the Treasurer, and I know that

it did not feature in today's answer, so there is no need for any member to take a point of order, but it did refer to

Labor apparently not flip-flopping on its positions. That ties into what the Minister had to say in response to my

question today and whether flip-flopping on positions also includes Labor's previous position on waste

incineration, which was to say no to it. In fact, Labor's Country Conference moved a motion calling for the

Government to ban waste incineration.

There is much talk about the strict regulations, which were again referred to today, but nothing on concerns

that they do not address all issues and all concerns raised in the communities, such as the fly-ash residue produced

by waste incineration processes and other potentially harmful effects of water and air pollution, impacts on

farmland and hazardous by-products and waste mismanagement—let alone the damage of trucking

ever-increasing amounts of waste along our regional roads. So the question to be asked is whether Labor

recognises that it is about a lack of social licence. This situation and the escalating comments are most certainly

not new, and the Minister directly referred to that as well. I am very aware of the history of the situation. In fact,

when I was the member for Monaro, member for Goulburn Wendy Tuckerman and I were advocating for the

position of the community.

Western Sydney, as the Minister has alluded to, was in the mix, but it seems to be no longer. If Western

Sydney is not suitable because such facilities need to be away from high-density areas, does that suggest that some

populations and their health and safety are more important than others, more important than those in the regions?

That is certainly the question being asked more broadly, and I ask the Minister whether she is willing to address

it to the satisfaction of that impacted community. I note that she continues to state that the planning system will

deal with it, but is this an attempt at deflection by Labor, to make out that the situation of Goulburn Mulwaree

and the Southern Tablelands continuing to be Sydney's waste dumping ground is not to be laid at the feet of Labor?

I ask otherwise.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (12:12): I take note of the questions and answers about mental health

services, in particular the Hon. Rose Jackson's answer about urgent mental health care. I also generally recognise

the seriousness of the issues associated with the treatment of mental illness, which formed a key part of question

time today due to Dr Amanda Cohn as well. I appreciate that the Minister takes those issues seriously. I take the

opportunity, while we are on that topic, to draw attention to the fact that there are particular cohorts of mental

health patients for whom these kinds of services are incredibly important. I draw particular attention to those

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 24

suffering from bipolar disorder. World Bipolar Day is 30 March, the birthday of Vincent van Gogh, who is widely

believed to have suffered from bipolar disorder.

Bipolar can be a serious condition. It affects just under 3 per cent of Australians aged 16 and over. That is

568,000 people. There are a number of versions of bipolar. Some members might remember that I spoke about it

this time last year. The purpose of raising it again today is to acknowledge that it is one of the conditions we need

to take seriously through our mental health system, to make sure that we are raising awareness of this condition

and also to ask for the sensitivity that is displayed here every time we talk about mental health. We need to be

reducing stigma and acknowledging the impact of bipolar disorder on sufferers and their families and friends, who

love them. It takes about eight years after the first episode of depression or mania for people to be diagnosed.

Many myths about bipolar still prevail. Importantly and disturbingly, suicide risk for people with bipolar is

between 10 and 30 times higher than for the general population. I raise this today because we are talking about

mental health. World Bipolar Day is on the weekend. Many of us care for people with bipolar, and I appreciate

that this House continue to focus on the needs of those suffering from mental health conditions and on figuring

out how best we can support them through State Government services.

COUNCILLOR CONDUCT FRAMEWORK

TRIBUTE TO NICK LALICH, FORMER MEMBER FOR CABRAMATTA

The Hon. TANIA MIHAILUK (12:15): I take note of my question to the Minister for Local Government

about the updated Councillor Conduct Framework, which I am waiting for this Government to release. I have

asked him now on two occasions, and I have received some non-answers. On both occasions I have asked the

Minister about overseas pecuniary interests. There needs to be a change made to the regulations, to enable and

require councillors to list their overseas pecuniary interests. The Minister has said to me that he will do this, so

I am not suggesting he will not do it. He agrees that the change needs to occur, but we are still waiting for the

framework to be finalised. The Minister has the power to use regulation. I have raised this matter with him in

budget estimates, in addition to questions on notice. A bill was passed in this House and is currently sitting on the

list in the Legislative Assembly. I am just asking the Minister to do what he can to swiftly make these changes,

because we have already had a local government election since this commitment was made, close to two years

ago now. Still to this date councillors are not declaring all of their interests, when they certainly should be.

I was not in the Chamber for the ministerial statement this morning. I acknowledge and pass on my

condolences about an amazing stalwart of local government and, indeed, of this Parliament, Nick Lalich. I knew

him well because we were neighbouring mayors for many years, me being the mayor of Bankstown, him the

mayor of Fairfield. We had neighbouring electorates. Along with Guy Zangari, the member for Fairfield at the

time, we worked on many projects, attended many events and supported different communities. So I am very

saddened to hear of his passing.

I acknowledge the wonderful work he did in the Orthodox community. His background was Serbian

Orthodox, which is important to acknowledge. I know that the Serbian community was very proud of him. I think

he may have been the first elected official of Serbian heritage in Australia. He was also someone who worked

closely with the Russian community in Cabramatta. After contacting the priest there, I know that that community

has passed on its condolences and is praying for Nick, as, no doubt, the Serbian community will be too. He

supported the churches and many communities in south-western Sydney and will be dearly missed. I acknowledge

Del Bennett and Nick's two children and his grandchildren, and I thank him for his tremendous service, both to

the State Parliament and to the community of south-western Sydney.

SEA TURTLE PROTECTION

TROPICAL CYCLONE ALFRED RECOVERY

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT (12:18): I take note of the Minister for the Environment's answer about

some of the government support provided after Tropical Cyclone Alfred. In particular, the Minister spoke about

efforts to support turtles after the cyclone. On the surface, that seems like a pretty good program, but I would need

to look a bit deeper, perhaps into the sewer, to see the real benefits. I congratulate those involved and also the

Minister for her April O'Neil impression during her contribution.

Significant damage from Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred is still being felt and will be for many years,

including the impact on turtles and other marine life. Heartbreaking fish kills have occurred in that area. Prawns,

eels and mud crabs have all been affected, and that will have a serious impact on our fishing industry. Horticulture

has been particularly affected. Pecans, vegetables, flowers, bananas, blueberries, soya beans and sugarcane are

just some of the damaged crops. Waterlogged pastures continue to be chewed up by cattle as they walk across

them and dairy farms have had to tip out thousands of litres of milk. More support is needed for those affected

producers. On their behalf, the Opposition is calling for the quick installation of category C funding for the area.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 25

We need to get some money—$75,000 grants or even $25,000 grants—into the pockets of the men and women

who are running small businesses in the Northern Rivers.

The Minister for Agriculture has had a couple of opportunities to tell us what has been done for the

producers in that area. We have learnt that, in more than two weeks, they have had a visit from the Minister, they

have been given a phone number, they have been provided some emergency fodder and they have an emergency

centre in Orange. We also heard that people have been asked to fill out a survey to explain their damage to their

properties. We need more than that, and we need it quickly.

I understand that a lot of the funding models for additional grants rely on joint funding between the State

and Federal governments. With the Federal Government election looming, this issue must be addressed

immediately before the election takes all the oxygen out of our ability to act. The Minister must make phone calls,

together with her Federal counterpart, and make the decision to declare category C disaster recovery funding

arrangements and, ultimately, make it available to the affected producers so they can get on with their recovery.

If information is needed, let us get some boots on the ground. Surely staff from the Department of Primary

Industries and Local Land Services would be capable of going to the area and doing assessments so that we can

pull the trigger. More needs to be done. Producers in the area are going through a tough time. They experienced

a different weather event only a couple of years ago. They deserve a speedy response from the Government.

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS RETIREMENT

DUBBO REGIONAL SPORTS HUB

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (12:21): I take note of almost every answer that paid tribute to the

outgoing Clerk, David Blunt. I consider it to be a real privilege to have had a short crossover with him at this

institution. I knew almost as soon as I met him that he is an institution himself. I have appreciated his wisdom,

calmness and willingness to always assist. I am confident that I can say on behalf of all the new members of this

place—the class of 2023—that he has been of great assistance to us. I suspect that he will go on to do all sorts of

things, and I wish him all the best in what is next for him.

I also take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional New South Wales about the Dubbo

sports hub. It is a real shame that this issue has descended into such a political mess. I am pretty close to it because

I live in Dubbo and, as the Minister was at pains to point out, I was on the council involved in the early stages of

the process. The project has changed a lot since those days. That was a point in defence raised by the Minister. At

the point when Dubbo Regional Council withdrew from the proposal, it was a completely different proposal with

different stakeholders and different organisations playing roles. A lot has changed since then, not least substantial

injections in capital under the previous Government.

What happened next was that the Minns Labor Government recommitted to the project and allocated

money for it in its first budget. When it was ultimately tendered out, which is not unusual these days, it came back

substantially over that funding amount. The point that I made in the letter that was quoted in the question was that

it would be a breach of trust between the people of western New South Wales and the State government, generally.

My memory of that letter is that I highlighted that, from the point of view of the community, there is not a Labor

government, a Liberal-Nationals government, a Minns Government or a Perrottet government; there is the

government, which, for six years, promised the project. That was the context in which I recall that I suggested a

breach of trust, not to zero in on a particular decision that was about to be made or things that have happened

before but the general issue of not breaching what is said to the community for such an extended period of time.

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS RETIREMENT

ENERGY PRICES

The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (12:25): I take note of the answer regarding the Clerk, David Blunt, AM—

he received his Order of Australia in 2023. David has been in the Parliament for pretty much as long as I have

been in this world, which seems like a long time to me. My first interaction with him was with the introduction of

the Fifty-Eighth Parliament. We came in as a cohort to learn about the procedures of Parliament and we were

shown a grainy video during a presentation teaching us about the rules and procedures of the House. It was David

in a snowstorm in Nepal, welcoming us into Parliament.

David has given a sense of adventure and fun to this Parliament, and certainly to me, about the joy of being

engaged in the parliamentary process. It is not quite as people might expect it to be—just poring over books.

Although it is that, it is also about having fun and enjoying the history and the convention of this place to run

smoothly and facilitate all of our wacky ideas—and, hopefully, not so wacky ideas—and making sure that

everyone has a voice and that voice is heard. I am grateful to David for facilitating that for us, for me, for this

place and for the people of New South Wales for such a long time.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 26

I also take note of the answer regarding the default market offer. The Australian Energy Regulator just

released its draft determination and the formal determination will follow, I believe, in May. That is usually the

convention. The paper specifically calls out coal-fired power station outages as a reason for increased prices. Last

year, nationally, 23 unplanned outages were caused by coal-fired power stations. Those outages caused prices to

spike to over $5,000 per megawatt hour. That is a key driver of unaffordability in our market system. The

Government must address that by swiftly investing more into batteries and transmission to reduce the time that

coal-fired power stations like Eraring and Vales Point have to operate. This Government is responsible for

extending the contracts of those power stations and that is causing significant market volatility, which is a big

problem for consumers in New South Wales.

ENERGY PRICES

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (12:28): It is great to listen to the Hon. Jacqui Munro's extemporaneous

speeches in this Chamber but, to get back to the facts, why are there coal-fired power station outages? Because it

is government policy—both Labor and Liberal—under the banner of climate change to say, "You will close down.

You have no future. You will not survive beyond your obvious life span." And how have the commercial

companies that own those stations because of the privatisation of the Liberal Party responded? They are saying,

"Well, if we're closing down and if it is a dead asset made dead by so-called climate change actions, we won't put

money into the maintenance of them." What commercial company would gold-plate the maintenance of those

stations knowing that they are closing within the next couple of years?

If Opposition members want to look at why the prices are rising for electricity—if caused by coal-fired

power station outages—they should have a look in the mirror at what the Liberal Party has done. And other

members complaining about it should have voted with me and the Hon. Rod Roberts on that long night to try to

stop the electricity road map. That is the obvious thing that has happened on one front. The second front is that,

if you read the Australian Energy Regulator report and actually attend to the facts, you will see that it says, "Yes,

there are outages at coal-fired power stations"—I have explained why and who the guilty party is—"and there are

also wind droughts accompanied by days that have heavy cloud or rain, hence no renewable generation." Again,

members should have a good look in the mirror.

Then there is the third element, which is The Greens intervening in the debate—the economic fairies at the

bottom of the garden saying, "Oh, maybe it's transmission cost. Make the companies peg their profit margins on

transmission rather than passing it on to consumers." Where are the transmission costs coming from? Wiring up

solar farms and wind farms at the back of Bourke. The lack of awareness of those people is dumbfounding. It is

so striking. The price rises are a direct consequence of the renewables obsession and the renewables cult. The

price rises as recorded and reported on independently by the Australian Energy Regulator have three factors:

closing the coal-fired power stations, the cost of transmission to the back of Bourke for those solar farms, and

wind droughts accompanied by cloudy days. There was an alternative: Instead of joining the renewables cult over

10 years, do it over 30 years, phase it in logically and systematically, and only turn off the old system when you

have a workable new system.

The Hon. Jacqui Munro: See—

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: The interjections are not working for the Hon. Jacqui Munro. They are not

working for her because the facts are against her. We should have a balanced energy grid and a mix of nuclear,

coal, gas and renewables. There is a place for renewables but not to the mad Matt Kean extent of 100 per cent.

TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,

Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Youth) (12:31): In light of the time, I will just thank members

for their contributions to the debate.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question is that the motion be agreed

to.

Motion agreed to.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I shall now leave the chair. The House

will resume at 2.00 p.m.

Business of the House

CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS: I move:

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 27

That the business of the House be interrupted to allow a motion to be moved without notice relating to the vote of thanks for the

service of Mr David Blunt, AM.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS RETIREMENT

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the gallery Lynne Wainwright, the wife and better half of the Clerk of

the Parliaments, David Blunt, AM. It is wonderful to see Lynne in the Parliament.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (14:02): I move:

(1) That this House thanks Mr David Blunt, AM, for his exceptional service as Clerk of the Parliaments since 2011.

(2) That this House acknowledges the remarkable professionalism, hard work and commitment of Mr Blunt in facilitating the

legislative process and guiding members of Parliament.

(3) That this House recognises the outstanding contributions of Mr Blunt to the New South Wales Legislative Council, which

will be positively felt for years to come; his dedication to ensuring the integrity, efficiency and transparency of parliamentary

procedures; and the high esteem in which he is held by parliamentary staff.

(4) That this House commends Mr Blunt for his unwavering commitment to furthering the principles of parliamentary

democracy and good governance, both in New South Wales and on the international stage.

(5) That this House notes that Mr Blunt's last day of service in the Parliament of New South Wales will be Friday 28 March

2025.

(6) That this House wishes Mr Blunt every success in his retirement.

Before I proceed, I want the record to clearly indicate that, although I move this motion in my name, I do not do

so as a member of the Legislative Council; rather, I do so in my privileged position as Deputy President. I move

this motion on behalf of all members of this Chamber. In that regard, I thank the Leader of the Government for

giving up valuable Government time this afternoon so that we can afford this important motion the time it

deserves. That must be acknowledged.

Mr Blunt, being the astute student of parliamentary process that he is, would recognise the significance of

the motion. For members' information, the moving of a motion by a member without notice is extremely rare, and

in this modern Legislative Council it has become even rarer, which Mr Blunt would acknowledge. It is good to

know that the Legislative Council continues its fine tradition of forging ahead and setting new precedents. I am

aware that quite a few people are watching the live stream. With the indulgence of the House, I acknowledge one

person in particular, Ms Kate Cadell. We messaged each other yesterday; Kate will be watching with great interest.

For those who are not familiar with Kate Cadell, she was a dedicated and integral part of the David Blunt machine.

I acknowledge her. Hello to Kate, if she is watching.

Mr President, I often sit in your chair as Deputy President, and while we insist at all times that all

contributions in any debate must be directed through the chair, I hope you turn a blind eye to that and allow me

latitude to address the Clerk himself during my contribution. I move this motion to mark a bittersweet moment in

the history of the Parliament of New South Wales. It is a moment to celebrate the contributions of a highly

distinguished individual, thank him for the profound impact he has had on this institution and wish him the very

best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life. Of course, the individual I refer to is no other than Mr David

Blunt, AM, our longstanding and valued Clerk, who is retiring from the Parliament of New South Wales.

Mr Blunt's retirement marks the end of a long and admirable career in this place. It began in 1990, over

35 years ago, when a young Mr Blunt started working as an officer in the Legislative Assembly—before quickly

realising that was a huge mistake and escaping lest it suck the soul out of his living being. Of course, he then

joined the Department of the Legislative Council. Over that time, Mr Blunt has held key roles in the department,

including project officer on the ICAC committee, senior project officer on the Public Accounts Committee,

Director of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Director of Legislative Council - Committees, Clerk

Assistant - Committees, director of research in the Office of the Clerk, director of procedure and, of course, Usher

of the Black Rod.

As impressive as that service and dedication to the institution of Parliament is, it only scratches the surface

of Mr Blunt's contribution. In 2007 Mr Blunt became Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Council, where he bore

responsibility for a range of corporate services across the Parliament, before ultimately being appointed Clerk of

the Parliaments on 8 October 2011. The Clerk is not as loud and as visible as elected members; he prefers to work

diligently behind the scenes. He has been fundamental to ensuring our legislative processes and procedures run

smoothly, fairly and in line with established laws and conventions. Throughout his tenure as Clerk, he has shown

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 28

not only a remarkable understanding of parliamentary rules, regulations and procedures but also a deep

commitment to ensuring the Parliament operates with transparency and integrity.

He has also been, without question, a model of impartiality and the steady hand that ensures the processes

of this place are followed with precision and care. No matter how difficult or complex a problem might be,

Mr Blunt has always provided expert advice and wise counsel to all members of Parliament, irrespective of their

political persuasions. What has truly set Mr Blunt apart, however, is his profound respect for the underlying values

that shape this institution, as well as his genuine desire to advance them. He is a parliamentary innovator in every

sense of the word, and he has been at the very forefront of shaping what is required in a twenty-first century,

Westminster-based Parliament. A simple illustration of this, of course, that we will all remember were the

procedural changes that occurred during the Fifty-Seventh Parliament. Mr Blunt led the work to build a coherent

set of sessional orders designed to give effect to the requirements of members while maintaining the orderly

conduct of the House. The impact this had on the legislative and scrutiny roles of the Legislative Council cannot

be underestimated, with those previous sessional orders now incorporated into the new standing orders adopted

by this House.

It is also worth noting that Mr Blunt edited and drove to completion the publication of the first edition of

the Annotated Standing Orders of the New South Wales Legislative Council, a compendium of almost 200 years

of decisions of this House and a substantive and lasting contribution to parliamentary scholarship. He also

co-edited the second edition of the Council's bible, New South Wales Legislative Council Practice, which is a

comprehensive account of Legislative Council precedents, practices and procedures that has proven itself to be an

invaluable resource in my office as Deputy President.

Moving beyond the walls of this Parliament, I also mention that Mr Blunt has been a fantastic contributor

on the international stage. Throughout his storied career he has worked very closely with other parliaments and

legislatures across the Commonwealth to not only share his expertise but also gain insights into best practice for

democratic governance. It should be no wonder, then, why Mr Blunt has served as the Honorary

Secretary/Treasurer of the New South Wales branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In that

role he has not only supported the attendance and participation of members in CPA conferences and various

courses but also proved instrumental in enabling New South Wales to host the sixty-seventh Commonwealth

Parliamentary Conference in 2024. It was the first time that the conference had been hosted by a sub-national

legislature, which is a testament to the outstanding reputation of Mr Blunt.

Furthermore, since the concept of twinning was adopted by this Parliament back in 2007, Mr Blunt has

been instrumental in building and maintaining our twinned relationships with jurisdictions in Bougainville and

the Solomon Islands. He is a particularly great supporter of promoting democracy in our part of the world through

deepening parliamentary ties, exchanging information and openly learning from each other. On this front, I have

been extremely fortunate to accompany Mr Blunt on a number of parliamentary delegations overseas and also

helped him to receive those that visit us here in New South Wales. An especially fond memory of mine, by way

of example, is visiting the Solomon Islands with Mr Blunt in 2023 for the fifty-second Presiding Officers and

Clerks Conference, and again in 2024, when we went back to launch their National Parliament members guide,

an important document prepared with close editing and assistance from our Parliament and no doubt inspired, sir,

by some of your best work here.

Ultimately, Mr Blunt has been responsible for a range of initiatives that have made a lasting difference to

not only New South Wales but also parliamentary democracy across the region more broadly. As we reflect on

his remarkable career, we should do so with a deep sense of gratitude and admiration. His service has been defined

by unwavering dedication, professionalism and a strong commitment to the principles that underpin our

democratic system. I have no doubt in my mind that he will leave behind an immense legacy that will be positively

felt for years to come. After all, the true mark of a public servant is not just the position held or the number of

years served but also the impact made on the institution and the people it serves. With that in mind, I confidently

say that we have seen the very best of public service in David Blunt—a tireless commitment to advancing the

democratic values that make our State, and indeed our nation, strong.

As for the Legislative Council and its effective administration, Mr Blunt has instilled an exceptional

workplace culture that is centred on expertise and rigorous procedural discipline. The greatest asset of this place,

however, is the people that work here. From those tasked with supporting the House to those focused on various

standing and select committees, the quality of the people is truly outstanding and, sir, a reflection upon you. I am

sure they have all looked up to Mr Blunt, who has risen through the ranks through hard work and dedication and

led this Parliament by shining example. To that end, I have been in touch with some of the officers of the

Legislative Council and asked if they would like me to share any words on their behalf for the Hansard. They

have provided me with the following words, which were kindly written on behalf of all officers in the Legislative

Council and all employees of the Parliament:

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 29

David, thank you for your strong and inspirational leadership of the Council over the past 13 years, and for your dedicated service to

the Parliament as a whole for 35 years. You embody the best traditions of this place, continuing the long line of esteemed Clerks of

this Chamber who have served this House, the Parliament and responsible and democratic government with humility, selflessness

and distinction.

As a colleague, you have always been approachable, erudite, scholarly and, above all, kind. You have shared your skills and

knowledge generously with all, and you have challenged the officers of this House and the Parliament to set new standards of support

for the House, its committees, the office holders and members.

You embody the values of the Legislative Council—integrity, excellence, respect, tradition, innovation and democratic governance.

And you do so with a genuine sense of humour and fun!

You leave a legacy which will not readily be forgotten, and which will guide the work of the Department and the Parliament for

decades to come.

Those are beautiful words. David, as you embark upon the next chapter of your life, you can rest assured that the

contributions you made here will continue to resonate in the workings of this institution and many others like it

across the globe. The career you have had is truly inspirational. On behalf of all who have had the privilege to

work alongside you over the years, I offer my heartfelt thanks and deepest respect. I wish you all the best in your

retirement. As you walk off into the sunset, hand in hand with Lynne, know that you are leaving behind a

Parliament that is stronger, more transparent and more efficient because of your tireless service. Thank you.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (14:16): I thank the Deputy President for moving this motion. Again,

we have done something not usually within the practice of this House, but that is absolutely fitting in relation to

this particular matter. I thank particularly the Deputy President for organising all of this and for bringing us all

here so that we can embarrass the Clerk and say very nice things about him that are very, very well deserved. On

behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to the extraordinary parliamentary career of David Blunt. David began his

parliamentary career when he joined the staff of the Legislative Assembly in 1990. He worked for the joint

Committee on the ICAC and, later, the Public Accounts Committee. In 1995, though, he clearly saw the light and

moved to the staff of the Legislative Council. It is a moment in history that we should all be very, very grateful

for.

In addition to his time as Clerk, he has also held significant roles such as Deputy Clerk, Usher of the Black

Rod and director of procedure. David moved steadily through the ranks of our esteemed parliamentary staff as his

personal and professional abilities became widely recognised. During the time before he became the Clerk, David

was known as a safe pair of hands. It was a quality that had its downside: When a situation arose that required

delicate and diplomatic handling, it was increasingly referred to David to fix. In October 2011 he rose, of course,

to the clerkship as a result of that diplomatic handling.

David became Clerk at a particularly significant time. This was after the Egan cases. The Legislative

Council was starting to flex its muscles as a guardian of parliamentary democracy. David oversaw this expansion

in a sensible and balanced way, asserting the rights of the House but respecting the mandate of the Government.

We thought that was radical then, but let us just look at what we have done in more recent times. The Legislative

Council has pushed hard on the powers of the House and there have been some very stressful times for an impartial

Clerk. David, however, has of course taken on those challenges carefully and honestly. We have all benefited

from his calm dealing with what are sometimes our less calm approaches to these matters.

David's regard for the history of the Council should be recognised, culminating in the recent large and

important volume Parliamentary Democracy at Work: Essays on the New South Wales Legislative Council,

co-edited by his sometimes partner in crime David Clune, whom I thank also for contributing to this speech today.

As Clerk, David has displayed commitment, inflexible integrity, impressive knowledge of the practices and

procedures of the House, and unshakeable impartiality. Those are easy words to say but, actually, in practice very

challenging. I think most people in the normal world outside of this place really do not understand what it is that

we do. They do not understand that we are elected by and on behalf of the people of New South Wales with a

great duty to represent the things that they think are important. But we have to operate within the rules of this

House, which are under the guardianship of our parliamentary staff, particularly the Clerk. They not only guard

our democracy but also guide the way in which we deal with conflict. They guide our way so that we can ensure

that the voice of every person in New South Wales can be heard in this place, and that is done through the very

carefully worded and thought-through standing orders, policies and practices of this place.

I accept that it is niche. For some of us, we love it. We love living in the niche. But most people do not

really understand it, and so it is important with this motion today to again thank David and the whole team—

because he would also say that he is part of a team. It comes from the top, and David has led with the idea that we

are all equals in this place, that we are all here because the people of New South Wales have put trust in us, and

that we should show each other decorum and respect. We have rules that are robust enough to deal with the

challenges when it gets really hard. The easy stuff is fine. But when it is really hard—and we have had some pretty

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 30

big blues over the years, over a whole range of matters—our rules stand the test of time, enabling us to navigate

through those challenges and work through some of the hairier times. I cannot emphasise enough how important

the Clerk is in that process.

We should never underestimate how important and fundamental the rules, standing orders, policies and

practices of this place are. They are the foundation for how we represent the people of New South Wales and try

to improve the lot of everyone in this State, even though we might not always agree on the way in which we get

there. That is important. I also note that those who have disagreed with David in his professional role always

respected him. We have had a few disagreements over time, but I have always respected that he is giving me the

best advice that protects the democratic institution, as opposed to what might be on my mind as a political leader

at the time. As a person, David is noted for his humility, honesty, personal decency and consideration for his

colleagues. No matter how tough the going got—and sometimes it has been tough—David always kept his sense

of humour, which is well needed in this place, as we know.

I am sure all present would agree that one of the greatest challenges of parliamentary life is the work-life

balance—and some of the hours that we have worked have not helped that. I am sorry, Lynne. As well as

succeeding as Clerk, David has succeeded in that sphere as well, as his partner, Lynne, will testify. I am told that,

on retiring, you will be setting off and climbing the Himalayas with your son, which is very good to hear. I know

that you will also, hopefully, enjoy spending more time picking up a guitar, as we have heard a lot today, whether

it is listening to more U2 or getting the band back together—all of those things that we should highly encourage

you to do.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate Steven Reynolds on his swearing in as the new Clerk. He has

big shoes to fill, but he is well known and trusted by all of us in this place. We look forward to you helping us

wrangle each other in future. David has consistently worked in the defence of the rights and interests of the

Legislature of New South Wales and its members. You should be so proud of the legacy that you leave. The

New South Wales Parliament will be poorer for your absence, and we thank you so much for your exceptional

service. David Blunt, you leave this House with the respect, admiration and gratitude of us all.

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (14:23): I start by saying that I also support the motion brought to the

House by the Deputy President today. I also offer this word of warning, David: David Clune might have

contributed to the writing of the Leader of the Government's speech, but Sam Tedeschi has contributed to the

writing of this speech. That is the fear and trepidation you ought to associate with that opening! Thank you, David,

for 35 years of service to the Parliament, to the Legislative Council and to the people of New South Wales. For

many of us here, David is the only Clerk we have ever known, and it is hard to imagine this place without him.

With no offence intended to our incoming Clerk, Steven Reynolds, David, you are irreplaceable. He is dedicated,

dependable and undeniably brilliant.

David has been nothing but a pleasure to work with here in my time. He is the consummate public servant.

While his contribution is often behind the scenes, the people of New South Wales are undoubtedly better off due

to his interventions—in my experience, often saving the Parliament or the Government from itself. His wisdom

is never to be challenged, although sometimes ignored at our own peril. I know David takes great delight in being

given difficult tasks to solve. My staff have frequently taken joy in putting forward to him the unusual and

obscure—thank you, Sam—and I can assure the House that he can always find an answer. His creativity knows

no bounds.

One of David's great qualities is that he has the patience of a saint. Imagine sitting in this place, day after

day, and listening to contributions. Members have two advantages that are not available to the Clerk. In our offices,

we have the mute button, and in this place we have the far more cathartic option of rowdy interjections—which

are, of course, disorderly at all times. Imagine if the Clerk could interject. He does not have that form of vocal

therapy that we avail ourselves of. It should be noted, however, how David treats the staff of the Legislative

Council. Every time it came to sitting late, sitting early or sitting through the night, David's primary concern was

for his staff and their wellbeing. He knew that he could not overcome the will of the House to keep sitting, so,

instead, he sought as workable arrangements as possible to protect the staff in this place. I know that this courtesy

and consideration was extended to political staff and public servants alike.

Over the years, the Clerk became a fan of the Thursday Dixer special. I am told by my staff that he would

often send notes to them, attempting to predict which songs or bands that I would reference in those speeches.

The majority of times I think Richard Egan got the better of him. The honesty and earnestness of David was on

display during one of those musical interludes I have been prone to indulge in. He approached my staff after a

particularly amusing speech on a music festival bill to ask if I had really attended Woodstock, would you believe!

The Hon. John Graham: What was the answer?

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 31

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Sadly, he was disappointed to be informed of my liberal use of artistic

licence. During my last one in 2022, I paid tribute to the Clerk and his response to the ever-growing Mookhey

library. He was heard to say, "I want to run, I want to hide, I want to tear down the walls that hold me inside".

Sadly, the time has come for David to escape this place, although I get the feeling that he may well tune in to see

if the Hon. John Graham and I are still trading lyrics across the Chamber. I had considered a more elaborate plan

to commemorate your leaving us that might bring back some memories—possibly traumatic memories. I was

going to propose that the President resign just to see David's worst nightmare come true and he be forced to take

the chair again. Last time that happened, he was stuck in that role for over a month, and I know it was against his

will and without any enjoyment.

I even made him paranoid. David believed that the then Government was conspiring against him and had

organised to lock him inside the Botanic Gardens overnight. I cannot confirm or deny any of these rumours. But,

in any case, what a way for him to retire as the Chair of this illustrious Chamber—Mr President, you can still do

it!

I did think better of it, however. It is probably in everyone's best interest not to reopen those old wounds

or cover some of the other more traumatic moments. I would like to pay tribute to the Clerk's love of comity

between the Houses, which is a topic of some controversy right now. David has always been a passionate defender

of our place. I remember asking the Clerk why he has the title of the Clerk of the Parliaments. He gave me a

history lesson on when the title was requested from and granted by the British Home Office. That was in line with

the House of Commons practice, where the Clerk of the House of Lords is called the Clerk of the Parliaments and

the Clerk of the House of Commons is called the Under Clerk of the Parliaments. I think we should insist on that

title in the other place to demonstrate the primacy of our Chamber. I am told that the Clerk still has a copy of that

letter from the Home Secretary and that there is a tradition of adjusting the height at which it is displayed on the

wall to ensure that it is always at the eye level of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. I hope that our new Clerk

will continue that wonderful tradition. Steven, you have big shoes to fill. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish you

all the best as you take on your new role.

I will conclude with the comments that I have given to the media team regarding our beloved Clerk:

Having worked with David over many years as both the Leader of the Government and Leader of the Opposition, I can comfortably

say that he is one of the finest public servants in NSW. I will always be grateful for his sage advice, practical wisdom, and quiet

humour. David has been an adornment to the Legislative Council and the entire Parliament of NSW is better off for his service

David, you have left an indelible legacy in this place, and we owe you a profound debt of gratitude. We thank you

for all that you have done and wish you a happy retirement.

The PRESIDENT: To that end, I do have an announcement to make: I call on the Leader of the National

Party, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (14:31): I make a contribution to debate on the motion moved by the

Deputy President. On behalf of The Nationals team, I concur with all of the remarks of the members who have

contributed to the debate so far and wish you, David, all the very best on your retirement. My thanks comes from

not only the current members of The Nationals but also our colleagues over the years who you have also worked

closely with. They send their best wishes to you and to Lynne and wish you all the best for what is to come.

I entered the Parliament in 2011, the year that David became the Clerk. I was reflecting on that this morning when

I was thinking about the contribution I would make today.

When the class of 2011 first came in—there are a couple of members present who were part of that group—

Lynn Lovelock was still the Clerk, but not long after we were elected, David, who was then the Deputy Clerk,

stepped up into the role. I was thinking about one of my first interactions with David. I remember getting a phone

call from the Clerk's office that I needed to speak to someone there about an interesting development. It turned

out that someone was trying to serve me a subpoena because the election result had been challenged by Pauline

Hanson. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham was also part of that court case. It was very bizarre. I was a brand new

member of Parliament. I had never even had a speeding fine, and then I was getting calls from the Clerk's office

about a subpoena. It turns out—fun fact—that you cannot be served a subpoena in the parliamentary precinct. It

did not happen.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Or arrested!

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: Or arrested—Jeremy would remember! I remember talking to David

about the issue at the time. He said to me, "It is a little unusual, Mrs Mitchell." Now it does not seem like that big

a deal, but I remember thinking, "Gosh, if David Blunt is saying it is a bit unusual—and he has seen a lot—it

really is a bit of an odd thing to happen." I remember getting sage advice from David and the team in the Clerk's

office. That advice has continued through all of the years that I have been here. As the Hon. Damien Tudehope

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 32

said, I do not really remember serving in this place without having David here. It is going to be very strange to

see him walk out that door.

I will say that since that moment, I have had a bit of anxiety every time the Clerk's office calls me. I think,

"What's coming up next?" I remember one time, not long after I came back to Parliament after having my first

daughter, Annabelle, Kate Cadell reached out and said, "David would like to see you in his office." I was thinking,

"Oh, what's this?" As it turned out, he had very proudly put on display the thank you card that I had sent all of the

Legislative Council staff for the wonderful gift they gave me on the birth of my daughter. We had a cup of tea.

That was a good reason to get a phone call, and that has certainly been the case for the rest of the time that I have

been here and working with you, David. I feel like sometimes when we come into your office you are part Clerk

and part therapist. You sit on the couch, you are in a safe space, and you can have very honest and frank

discussions. David, you have this art of being completely professional and discreet at all times. Yet we always

understand exactly the message that you are trying to get through to us about the information that we need. It is a

very particular skillset that we have all benefitted from.

On behalf of the Hon. Wes Fang, the Hon. Scott Barrett and the Hon. Nichole Overall, who have all entered

this place through casual vacancies, the expertise and guidance of you and your team has been very much

appreciated. On behalf of those members, I put on record that appreciation of your wisdom, your assistance and

your professionalism. It has meant a lot to us as Nats. We certainly respect you for everything you have done for

us. I also acknowledge your staff. Many of them are here in the galleries today. You can tell a lot about a person

by what their staff say about them and how they see them as a leader. There were not many dry eyes when the

Hon. Rod Roberts read out his message from your team. That tells you everything you need to know about how

highly people working for you and with you respect you—what a wonderful legacy to leave. The same goes for

the staff in all of the members' offices. All Legislative Council staff members know that they can call on you. It

is a really wonderful asset that we have had and we are very grateful for it.

Thank you for putting up with us members. As the Hon. Damien Tudehope said, I do not know how you

listen to us some days. I really do not. I do worry that the constant quoting of U2 lyrics may diminish your love

of the band. I hope it has not and that it has not taken the joy away from you. We wish you the very best. You

have been an absolutely incredible public servant. We all feel very privileged to have been able to work with you.

We hope you enjoy your retirement and the extra time with Lynne and your family. Every politician who leaves

this place tends to look a decade younger overnight. I am sure that will happen for you too. You will be back with

a tan from all the mountain climbing, with a guitar slung over your shoulder. We will not even recognise you.

Don't be a stranger. Thank you for everything. Thank you for your incredible public service over so many decades.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:36): I contribute to debate on the motion and put on record my respect and

admiration for David Blunt. I thank him for everything that he has done for this Parliament. For people outside of

this Parliament, the importance of David's work might not be readily understood. "What even is a Clerk and why

is it spelt that way?" is what most people ask me. But the position of the Clerk is, as we know, a vital part of the

democratic functioning of this Parliament. He is the expert when it comes to questions of parliamentary law,

practice and procedure. In addition, the Clerk is functionally the big boss of the Department of the Legislative

Council and is responsible for a large part of the management and administration of the Parliament. But not all

Clerks are created equal. It is hard to imagine any other Clerk in any other parliament who is not only as esteemed

and trusted as ours is, but also, frankly, as loved. In all my time here I have never—honestly, not even once—

heard a bad word said about David. There has never been even a slight murmur of disagreement.

David, you are the oracle. What you say is taken as being correct, not because you have said it, but because

it is correct. That trust, esteem and respect for your expertise is second to none. David is also a thoroughly nice

guy. In addition to sage advice, he is also the person in this place that many of us look to for pastoral care. Members

of Parliament are not employees. Many of us do not have anyone approaching what we would call a boss. We

work instead for the people of New South Wales, of course. So it is David that many of us turn to when we are

dealing with the vexed issues that arise in our roles. When it comes to vexed issues, I do not think any of us have

had as vexed an experience as David had in his role as Clerk when he found himself in a Legislative Council

without a President for that protracted period in 2021. The sitting day of 24 March was the longest sitting day

I have ever encountered. It went all the way to 4 May. David was the de facto President of this House and this

Parliament. In my view, it has never been in better hands.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: I am not sure that David was sad for that period to come to an end. I must say,

David's demeanour was a little frazzled during that time. We all felt very sorry for you. David, you will be missed.

You will be remembered. You go leaving such an incredible legacy behind you. I wish you well in everything

that you do. Play lots of guitar, go for lovely walks in far-flung places, enjoy yourself and spend time with those

you love—you have really earnt it. Thank you.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 33

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (14:39): What a joy it is to pay tribute to this treasurer of

our democracy as he leaves us here today: the always honourable David Blunt. One of the advantages of coming

from a polytheistic faith tradition is that we have a god for everything—except parliamentary democracy. I am

sure that the Hindu tradition is happy to welcome David as a figure to be worshipped for his superior knowledge

of parliamentary law; I am so glad that he has filled that gap in my faith tradition. I say that quite deliberately.

The way I would describe the role of the Clerk, particularly of this Clerk—and I've seen David do the job

for 10 years in this Chamber—is omniscient. He literally knows everything. He is all-seeing when it comes to

parliamentary procedure. He is always five moves ahead of the rest of us when it comes to the epic battles that we

have in this place. In fact, I've often found, as I've seen David simultaneously distribute loqs to both sides, that in

fact what we are witnessing is David playing chess against himself all the time. For those of us who then become

fascinated by the art of parliamentary procedure, not only are we witnessing him play chess; we are also witnessing

a grand master in action. There is nothing about the Parliament that this person does not know.

Very early in this place, as I was nerding out with the Odgers practice book that was updated by some of

our other wonderful parliamentary staff, I recall having the opportunity to sit and talk to David about the battle

between the House of Lords and the House of Commons in 1909 to 1911, from which most of our parliamentary

laws in this place certainly come. I thought that I was a nerd when it came to ancient parliamentary history. I say

to David: I cede the crown to you, overwhelmingly, on that point. I make that point because David has always

approached the job as a vocation. He has never approached it as an occupation. He understands not just how

important parliamentary democracy and procedure is to this place and to its participants but also to the people at

large.

Our legitimacy as an institution turns on whether we follow the law. Our capacity to discharge our

democratic mandate, as a government to implement change or as an opposition to fight ferociously, comes from

the fact that we do so in accordance with the law. David has at various points made the point privately to others

that this is not small stakes. We have literally fought civil wars over these very principles, and we have literally

seen countries go to war over how these questions should be resolved. On David's retirement, I cannot help but

feel that we are indebted to him because he brings that much wider perspective.

We should take pride that as a House we have added to the parliamentary canon and parliamentary law

through the course of the Fifty-Sixth Parliament and the Fifty-Seventh Parliament. Members have talked about

the epic struggle over who should be the President of this place, which played out with some high stakes, but

I also point out that we have troubled the Clerk with factors far more mundane than that. I, for one, very much

appreciated David's advice as to how we would get the Usher of the Black Rod to literally arrest people and drag

them before parliamentary committees—sorry to the Liberal Party for that one. As a frequent offender against

many parliamentary laws, I apologise for some of the antics that we got up to. It turns out that David may have

had the makings of a point when he said, "Rocking up to committees with Cabinet documents might not be as

wise as you think." But I simply say in reply that the idea seemed a lot better in opposition than it did in

government.

They are the things that we have seen. But each member of this House knows that you do not just go to

David for the public battles; it is actually the battles we avoid that David really helps with. When I say "battles

we avoid", I mean, frankly, lawsuits that we, as individual members, avoid. I have frequently asked at various

points, in very polite ways, "David, do you think this will get me sued? Should I do this?" I was never that explicit,

but he always picked up on the point that, generally, that was the risk we were running. How far our parliamentary

privilege really extends and whether we should risk it were questions often asked by members privately of the

Clerk. As a result of the advice we get back, we tend to avoid the consequences of our own actions: namely,

bankruptcy. There are many of us who are indebted to you, morally, spiritually and—it turns out—financially for

much of your advice that has kept us out of a lot of those troubles.

That is the point about the Clerk and the Clerk's office, and this particular Clerk: You can trust not just the

impartiality of the advice but also the confidentiality with which it is given. The office cannot function if members

lose trust in that. That never happened under David. And it will never happen under any of the Clerks or, I believe,

under Steven, when he takes over. We appreciate what a treasured asset it is. In the vocation that we practise,

often those things are not considered as important in our interpersonal dealings. But having an expert providing

advice about not just House procedure but also, more importantly, how we conduct our business—formally and

otherwise—is so important for our democracy. Sadly for us, you are going, David. But, as a newly ensconced

member of the Hindu faith, if you had not performed the job in this life, I guarantee you would be performing it

in your next.

The Hon. EMMA HURST (14:45): On behalf of the Animal Justice Party, I express my sincere thanks

to Mr David Blunt, AM, for his 35 years of service to the Parliament of New South Wales. I apologise in advance

that my contribution is not in rhyme. In the six years that I have been a member of this place, I have greatly valued

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 34

the advice and support that you have provided as the Clerk. As a member of the crossbench, without the

institutional support that comes with a major party, I have frequently relied on you for advice, particularly in the

first year or two after I was elected while my team and I were still learning the ropes. All of that is greatly

appreciated. Despite some of the wild questions and challenges to the standing orders that my team and I sent

your way for your thoughts, we always appreciated your very professional responses, which always started with,

"Your team always come up with the most interesting questions." That is something for Steven to look forward

to. My team has always appreciated the very informative and often humorous procedural debriefings as well. And,

of course, we are all appreciate being introduced to the word "clerkly".

I always appreciated that, no matter how busy you were, you were always willing to sit down and meet

and give a procedural issue the time and attention it deserved. Of course, the advice you gave was always excellent.

After the tumultuous past few years in Parliament—from the unprecedented challenge of sittings during a global

pandemic to a whole new set of standing orders to the Mookhey wing taking over the Clerk's office and a brief

coup for the role of President—I do not blame you for wanting to move on to a slightly quieter life. However,

now that I am hearing about all of your mountain climbing, maybe that will not be the case.

I know I speak for everyone here when I say that you will be greatly missed. I have always greatly

respected your professionalism, your dedication to your role and your reverence for this Parliament. It is an

enormous sadness to see you go, and a massive loss for this place. I also take a moment to congratulate our

incoming Clerk, Mr Steven Reynolds. His, of course, is a very well-deserved appointment, and I know everyone

in this place looks forward to continuing to work with Steven and the excellent team that surrounds him. Thank

you, David, for everything that you have done for this Parliament. We wish you all the best for whatever adventure

you have planned next.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (14:48): I would like to associate myself with all the previous speakers.

I find it very hard to top the compliments that David well deserves, so I might take a different approach. I was

sworn into this place in September 2010. It seems like a lifetime ago. All the help and advice that you have given

to me personally, and to my party, has got us largely into this place and functioning in a proper fashion. I can also

think of a time, in about 2012, when I really had no idea about what was going on in this place. I had to follow

Robert Brown around the place, which may not have been such a good idea, from time to time. You came knocking

on the door to my office. You came in with a very dour look on your face. I thought, "What the hell have I done

now? I haven't been here long. I haven't done much. I intend to improve on that in the future." You came into the

office and said, "Do you mind if I close the door?" I was looking around thinking, "What have I done?" You said,

"Mr Borsak, do you realise that you have been overpaid?" I said, "No." Who understands that nature of that pay

slip?

The Hon. Taylor Martin: You are an accountant.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: I acknowledge that. I am an accountant—or was an accountant.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: That makes me feel better.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: You are not the only one. At that stage, I had been the chair of a standing

committee. The gist of it was that instead of being paid as chair for the period of the standing committee, I had

been paid for about 18 months. That was pretty good from my point of view, but I did nothing about it. The Clerk

said, "We need you to pay it back." I said, "Do you?" I have had conversations like that with employees and other

people over the years. At the end of the day, you have to try to get the money back. I said, "How are we going to

do that?" He said, "We could come into a payment arrangement." I felt like a bad debtor.

We worked out an arrangement where I had to pay the money back over the next 12 to 18 months. In an

advisory fashion, he said, "You can claim that back by getting your 2012 tax return reassessed." I said, "Yes,

I know. I am a tax agent." I thought, "I will go through that process. I will make an application to the tax office."

The Clerk has not heard this story yet. I lodged a new tax return. As a tax agent, I did it in my own name. That

was the biggest mistake I have ever made in my life. They ended up reassessing me for an extra $65,000 worth of

tax for the 2012 year because they decided to go through me like a pack of Epsom salts. There was nothing wrong

with that, other than the fact that I not only had to pay that but, over 12 to 18 months, I also had to pay the excess

money back.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Thanks.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: Thank you. I had not told the Clerk that story before. I know the

Parliament is unforgiving. There is another circumstance I could mention. I cannot remember the exact year, but

it was some years later. I got a phone call from the Clerk. He said, "Mr Borsak," and I thought, "Here we go

again." He said, "There is a man down here saying that he wants to come up and see you about the fact that you

ran into his car on the way in to Parliament House." I said, "Whatever he says, I deny." You said something along

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 35

the lines of, "I told him that he cannot come into the precinct and up to your office unless you are prepared to see

him." I said, "Tell him I am not prepared to see him." To this day, I do not know whether I hit him or not, but

I managed to get through the gate downstairs quickly. I am sure I could think of some other things from over the

years. I can say what I like here because they cannot do anything to me.

Seriously, you have been a fount of knowledge and a wise head, quite often talking us and our party back

from the brink. We appreciate you. We are going to miss you. Thank you very much for everything you have done

for us and for me personally. I look forward to dealing with Steve Reynolds, although hopefully not on the same

basis, and hopefully it will not cost me as much, as my initial association with David. Thank you for your service.

We will hopefully see you at dinner tomorrow night.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (14:54): I thank Mr David Blunt for his service and wise counsel.

I wish him and his family all the best into the future. He has been a jewel in this place for the entire time that

I have been here. I would not be here if it was not for his wise counsel on so many matters. As the Hon. Sarah

Mitchell said, we were in trouble from the get-go. I was underprepared and winging it. Clearly, that is how I intend

to continue. I was guided so magnificently by the Clerk and his staff. I associate myself with the comments made

by Ms Abigail Boyd. David had the nickname The Oracle in my office. Max Phillips would always ring me up

and say, "David Blunt has called." We would say, "Oh my God. It's The Oracle." I would ring him and the first

thing he would say is, "You are not in trouble," most of the time, or he would say, "You are in a lot of trouble.

You have to come down and see me." I would sit on the leather lounge with David and Steven. They would raise

a matter. I would speak, and David's head would slowly get lower and lower. He would then finish with some

words of wisdom that were invaluable and guided me magnificently.

Over my entire political career, there have been three important people: Bob Brown, the former leader of

The Greens; Michael Balderstone, the leader of the Legalise Cannabis Party; and David Blunt. They have been

fantastic people. They are all patient, wise, full of good humour and boulder heads. I have one anecdote that must

be shared with the House. People would not know that David Blunt is very quick and brave. I remember playing

rugby union with David and the Hon. Niall Blair—again, the baldies—against the Balmain thirds.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: And Scott.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: And Scott. We played against the Balmain Wombats and got

absolutely smashed up. It was unbelievable to see how fast and good David was on the rugby field. He was

courageous. I remember seeing him getting smashed by front rowers—this pencil of a man getting absolutely

pummelled. It was a great bonding experience. Another part of David is his humanity and good nature. I remember

when I was not a member of this place, he wrote me a letter and said, "Look after yourself." He said some very

kind things at a difficult time for me. I thank him for that. Good luck, David, with everything that comes.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (14:58): I make a few comments and give my sincere thanks to a wonderful

human being who has otherworldly characteristics. I realised that when I attended an event in Lismore as part of

the Legislative Council roadshow. I was trying to explain to the attendees a bit about the Legislative Council

behind the scenes. I came to trying to explain the Clerk of the Parliaments, his work and how he does it. After a

few descriptive sentences, it occurred to me and I blurted out, "You know who he is like, who he reminds me of?

Tolkien's Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings." It was a moment of truth. The Clerk is a wizard. He is not just any

wizard; he is the head of the order of wizards, the greatest spirit and the wisest of wizards. He is a wizard of great

power and knowledge, one who works mostly by encouraging and persuading.

Tolkien described Gandalf thus and could have described the Clerk in the same way: "Warm and eager is

his spirit, for he is the enemy of evil, opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles, and

succours in wanhope and distress; but his joy and his swift wrath are veiled so that only those that know him well

glimpse the flame that is within. Merry he can be, and kindly to the young and simple, yet quick at times to sharp

speech and the rebuking of folly; but he is not proud, and seeks neither power nor praise. Mostly he journeys

tirelessly on foot, and he will at times work wonders, loving especially the beauty of fire; and yet such marvels

he works mostly for mirth and delight, and desires not that any should hold him in awe or take his counsels out of

fear." It is true that David Blunt, the Clerk of the Parliaments, is much like Tolkien's Gandalf.

I joined the Legislative Council to fill a casual vacancy, like many others did. It was the final year of a

12-year government and a difficult and chaotic time to jump in and start something at the end of something and

when everyone around me was finishing something. David, you were so steady, professional, warm, kind and

welcoming. You made me feel that I belonged here, that I was rightfully here and I will never forget that. Ever

since, you have always provided to me, as you have to all, the sagest advice and counsel, and you have always

done it in the kindest, most professional and most appropriate way. Your wisdom, like the wisdom of nature, is a

profound gift to all.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 36

David, this place and all of New South Wales has benefitted profoundly from your long experience and

deep knowledge of parliamentary procedure and your unwavering commitment to our democracy. It is not often

one gets to meet a person like you. We are all so fortunate. I wish you all the very best. It is now time for you to

take some different strides on this wondrous, beautiful, big, blue-green, dancing planet. I know you will make the

very best of every minute of every day, especially those you have in nature and among the big, old trees and the

choruses of birds. As Tolkien's Gandalf is at least thought to have said, the greatest adventure is what lies ahead;

there are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind. Steven, so be said the same for you.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD (15:02): I associate myself with the motion of the Hon. Rod Roberts and

thank him for bringing it. It is difficult to give this speech for someone universally loved in this place. David,

I thank you not for leaving—you are breaking my heart—but for giving us the opportunity to come together, as

we do on occasions, so beautifully in this place and for giving us the chance to be grateful for you.

My initial thought about speaking about David Blunt was that, when you go to see him, you feel a bit like

you are going to the principal's office. You are a little bit scared and nervous. You know he is lovely, but you are

not quite sure of what you have done or whether you look silly. Then you get there, and the team is so welcoming

and kind, and that comes from him. Then you go in to see him, and he is so kind, considerate and smart. But he is

a bit like a counsellor. David, I think you have heard that from so many people. You are also somewhat of a

conciliator, ensuring that some of the battles do not come to this place and that we do not look silly. But we do

come sometimes looking very smart, thanks to you. I am so deeply grateful for all you do for all of us and also

for all of the people we represent and perhaps for sometimes saving the people from us.

You are exceptionally kind. Mark Twain may have said that kindness is the language the deaf can hear and

the blind can see and to be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. We have many battles in this

place, but in all of that, in the sea of battles and chaos and fatigue at times, you are so calm, respectful and kind.

You teach us courtesy and decency in our travels. We talk a lot, in this place, about leadership. But true leadership

is demonstrated. And you have demonstrated to this House, to all of us and to the team you have brought through

over many years how to lead and what leadership means. You have also lifted others and their standards, and you

continue to do that, and your office does that, and I know that will continue through you, Steven.

It is nerdy, which I love, as well, that you love the intricacies of the rules, and you teach us the respect for

the standing orders, the conventions and the practices that have guided us for 200 years in this place and that we

must be respectful of that. But we do not really understand them, even though we stand here and pretend that we

do. You are the guru, the oracle and the one who makes everybody look good. This place ultimately works because

of you. I started here as a staffer in 2005, which feels like a thousand years ago, the last time we were in opposition,

and I feel like I have grown up in this place alongside you and some other people who have gone on to do better

things. I filled a casual vacancy in 2017, and I feel like part of my growing up in this place has been guided by

you. I am so very grateful.

Some things that are not known about David Blunt or about Mr Clerk, as I like to say, is that he loves,

alongside U2, the Kid Laroi. I found that out secretly one day, and I am pleased that he has love for this century's

music as well as for U2. He loves also his sport, his rugby, and there have been times when we have agreed to just

not talk about the Wallabies and to move on. But he loves his running, and he is known to sneak out at lunchtime

and hit the track. He loves his music, of course. I say this about bass guitarists: The bass guitarist, as my brother

says, is always the quiet one at the back, who makes the rest of the band look good. You have the front man, out

there with the big personality, and the guitarist on the side, but the quiet one is actually the coolest one in the band.

And, of course, no-one knows who they are. In U2 it is Adam Clayton; in the Rolling Stones, Darryl Jones. No-one

has heard of them; we know only Bono and Mick. But, in this place, we know you, and we thank you, David

Blunt, for being the quiet bass guitarist.

You engender trust in everybody you deal with. You engender all of the good qualities. In dealing with the

people in this place, there are all sorts of personalities and approaches. And yet you deal with all of them. You

save us from ourselves. You show that there are no dumb questions when we come to see you. I have often

thought, when you sit there and contemplate, with those thought bubbles above your head, if only we could read

what those thought bubbles said. All the things you do not say could be very interesting. I think you have the best

poker face of anyone in this place. I would hate to play against you. You never roll your eyes when someone asks

you a question. I once got called to order by the Hon. Trevor Khan for rolling my eyes. When I went to object, he

was going to throw me out for quibbling with his ruling. I said that I did not say anything, and he said, "You rolled

your eyes." I am sure that, at times, as we drone on, you would have liked to roll your eyes, but you did not.

Who says that the Legislative Council is the boring House? It is not. We have coups, subpoenas, lawsuits,

public hearings and estimates. We have drama to rival The Bold and the Beautiful as we review and scrutinise and

jostle to amend legislation. And yet, under your guidance, we are the gentile Chamber, the better Chamber.

I particularly thank you and want to show my enormous gratitude for all you have done for me personally and for

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 37

all of us over generations. It is a decent innings, 35 years not out. And you have chosen to step away from the

crease. Thank you for putting up with all of us. Lynne, thank you for sharing him with us. We are so very grateful.

David, if you cannot sleep at night, with all this rest you will get with early nights, you can always tune in to us.

We will help. You will be joining Peter Phelps and others, and those who are lost on the internet. Mr Blunt, thank

you for your service. You are going straight to heaven.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (15:09): I cannot put it any better than U2, so I will not

try to use the lyrics. But I pick up on a couple of things that other members have drawn attention to. The description

that has been used to describe your wisdom and humour, Mr Clerk, are particularly relevant. You have to listen a

lot, read a lot and work closely with your colleagues a lot to be as wise as you. The humour that you have infused

in this institution is greatly to your credit. It takes a long time to set organisational cultures and you have done

that. We are all the better for the humour you have brought to the institution.

I was intrigued by the Leader of the Opposition's description of you. He used a great word—creativity.

I regard you as a very small slice of the State's creative industries. I love them all, but particularly this one: the

creative legislators of the State and their ancillary industries. You are a pioneer and a leader amongst them.

Creativity in legislating, and that ability to weave a way through to find a new solution, is important in

parliamentary life. You have been a leader in that respect and we value that immensely. The culture of this place

has been shaped immensely by your role. This is a place of conflict, and the conflict is real. It is often ideological;

it has occasionally been physical. But your conciliatory role in this place has been immense and the institution is

much stronger as a result.

A number of members have described you as a remarkable public servant and I regard that as very high

praise. I am the son of two public servants. There are very few things you could say that I would regard as higher

praise. But I apply a single piece of higher praise from my political tradition. I have referred to it once before in

the House. It is a phrase used by Graham Freudenberg at the 2005 Australian Labor Party conference at the Sydney

Town Hall. He was delivering the life members address, which was delivered on behalf of all life members.

Freudenberg was describing his role as a speech writer to leaders of the Labor Party, since Arthur Calwell—that

was the length of time he worked. He credited Johno Johnson, a former President of this place, for putting the

phrase in his mind, but it is a phrase used by popes to describe their role in the church: The servant of the servants.

That phrase perfectly describes Freudenberg's role. To me, I always associate it with Johno Johnson and the role

he played. And to me, David, it applies to the role you have played in the Parliament.

We are all public servants and we are all drawn to public service for good reason. The role you have played

as the servant of the servants has been immense. I apply that term as one of the highest forms of praise from my

political party, the Labor Party, the oldest party in the country and one of the oldest labour parties in the world.

I do not apply it in any partisan way. Your role has always been nonpartisan. You have been very strict about that,

as you should be. But it captures the humility and sense of public service that you have brought to the role, and

we are all the richer for it. The Chamber is richer and most members have indicated that the Parliament is richer.

That is absolutely true, but the State is also richer as a result of what you have done.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (15:13): Sorry, David, this will be over soon, I am sure. It is just so obvious

the pain that he is in. He hates this so much. Let us rub it all in as much as we can.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Let's keep going.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: Yes, I think every member has to speak. I also pay tribute to our much-loved

Clerk of the Legislative Council, David Blunt. He has served this Chamber with distinction, dignity and such

incredible dedication. I was first elected to this place when I filled a casual vacancy in September 2010. I came in

when Lynn Lovelock was the Clerk. Of course, I thought at the time that nobody would be able to match Lynn in

her support and her excellence in everything. I thought, "Who is this David fellow?" But, David, of course you

did and then some. Sorry, Lynn.

For over a decade as Clerk and nearly four decades in parliamentary service, David, you have been the

steady hand and very calm mind guiding this Chamber through moments of very high drama, very complex

procedural issues and quite a bit of change—very good change for us. It truly has been remarkable to witness that,

whatever we have thrown at you, you have remained very calm and respectful, however crazy our ideas have

been. I must say, from experience—and probably many members in the Chamber would agree and have already

said as much—David, your very wise counsel has more than once stopped me embarking on some harebrained

scheme or other. You know what I am talking about, and thank you so much. More often than not it is your advice

and support that has been so welcome and valuable—and made me appear smarter and more knowledgeable in

this place.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 38

We all know that David is a very much a procedural nerd and, of course, you have to be. Steven Reynolds

is also one. They are around the place. The moment that really dawned on me, when I really thought, "Wow, that's

a real love of procedure," was when I had the privilege of exercising the new powers of a committee chair to eject

a member of a committee, should they need to be ejected. I came back from lunch and I gave a considered ruling

and a justification for that ruling after a meeting with the very good committee secretariat, who had spoken with

David. As I was giving the ruling, I looked across the room and a lone figure was in the public gallery. David

Blunt was sitting there, wanting to be part of that moment in history, I think. I hope that is what it was and it was

not him ready to pounce because Cate Faehrmann put her foot in it—"Hold on, no, you were supposed to do

something else."

David, under your stewardship, the Legislative Council's role as a house of review has only grown stronger.

You have defended the fundamental principle that the upper House exists to hold governments to account and that

this House has a duty to uphold the transparency and scrutiny that our democracy depends on. In other words, we

all know in this place that we are far superior to the other place. Doesn't it feel great to have David on our side

when we are flexing our muscles so much? David's leadership and mentorship is so obvious—just look at the

incredible calibre of those in the Clerk's office, the Usher of the Black Rod and her team, and the Procedure

Committee. As sad as we are about your departure, David, we know we are in very good hands with Steven

Reynolds and the team.

David, there is no doubt that your leadership has ensured that the New South Wales Legislative Council

remains one of the most effective and respected upper Houses in the Commonwealth. I will miss your wisdom,

your integrity and your humour. I really do enjoy those moments in this place when—and we have a couple of

them, occasionally—we are being funny and we look down at the Clerk's table and David has his hand covering

his face. I should not put that on record, should I, because he has to stay completely neutral, but his hand would

be over his mouth. I wonder whether at the dinner table, Lynne, he is able to just laugh very fully and not have to

hide it, because it is so funny here. You can see sometimes when he is really enjoying it and he is trying not to

because the Clerks should not smile.

David, thank you for your extraordinary service. I will miss you. I wish you all the very best for what

comes next. Of course, we have talked about the beautiful national parks and climbing Kathmandu or just relishing

the thought of never having to take a call from any of us again. I think you are looking forward to that more than

all those beautiful mountains. But are you 100 per cent sure? Is there nothing we can do? Because I happen to

know that David, and possibly Lynne, also like a little bit of Kate Bush—they were at Sydney Festival; I think it

might be Lynne. I will finish with this:

And if I only could

I'd make a deal with God

And I'd get Him to make David stay

Be runnin' up that road

Be runnin' up that hill

Be runnin' up that building

Say, if I only could, oh

The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (15:20): David, having been in Parliament for such a short amount of

time, I feel a little precocious standing up after all of the contributions from members who have worked with you

for so long. But I contribute to say thank you, not just for making us all feel welcome—and we heard from some

of the class of 2023 colleagues earlier in the day—but also for the nature of the engagements that I have had with

you. You always come across as gentle and humble. They are two characteristics that I do not think we experience

enough in the world today and that are not lauded enough. I appreciate that very much. That humility and

gentleness are your legacy, and you have handed that legacy to your staff. They bring that feeling—which is a bit

of an anchor—to this sometimes rowdy and crazy place. We appreciate that. Thank you so much.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (15:21): I associate myself with the comments of all the members who

have spoken so far. I must say it is an interesting experience to watch the debate. Nobody is addressing their

comments to you, Mr President, but rather to the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT: Rightly so.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: It is a novel thing to do but it is very well deserved by the Clerk. When

all of us enter this place, it is very intimidating. We become comfortable in it and it becomes a second home but

it is a very intimidating place when we start. I remember the words of Greg Pearce, a former member of this

House, when I started. He said, "Mate, no-one's going to help you in this place; everyone wants you to fail." Greg

may have been particularly jaded when he said that because he was no longer a Minister. But I remember thinking

at the time that the only people who are really there to help are the Clerk and his team. It was incredibly true and

I thank you, Mr Clerk, for all of your support not only when I entered Parliament but over the years as well.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 39

One of the first things I did in this place was the bizarre committee on committees—or the select committee

into the committee system. I remember one of the hearings. We had many hearings with academics, which nobody

was interested in. No crowd ever assembled for those. But when the Clerk came before the committee on

committees it was a packed house—similar to what we see in the gallery today. All of the staff were there to cheer

David on. I always notice that at budget estimates hearings as well. Other representatives come forward to give

evidence with their teams, in defence mode. But when it came to David's appearances as the Clerk, the teams were

there to watch and admire him. That says a lot about the way your staff have always looked upon you.

Of course, we look upon you in the same way and give credit to you. But your staff have always been there

for you and absolutely love you. You can see it in their faces, as I see it in their faces today. It shows in every

word that is ever uttered about you, because they have a deep love and regard for you, as we all do. We will very

much miss you in this place. I note that Ms Cate Faehrmann broke into song. I have heard of the love that you

may have for The Kid LAROI. I do not want to be Ron Hoenig and choose inappropriate lyrics so I will confine

them just to this, which might be apt, from The Kid LAROI:

I told you I'd change, even when I knew I never could

I know that I can't find nobody else as good as you

I need you to stay, need you to stay, hey

Of course, that is not true and it would be remiss of us to drag you here and detain you any longer than we need

to. We have talked a lot about what you are going on to do. But one thing has not been reflected upon; I have not

heard the words "Parramatta Eels" or "going to see a Parramatta Eels premiership this year" mentioned. As a

long-suffering Tigers fan, I feel your pain. I think you may actually achieve something this year that we have

achieved over many years and that is the spoon, so look forward to that. That being said, this is somewhat like the

accession to the throne. We do mourn, of course, your departure from this place, but we also look forward to the

rise of Steven Reynolds as the Clerk of this Parliament. I know he has been your partner in this place for so many

years. He could not have had a better mentor. We thank you for your mentorship of him and we thank you for

your service to this Parliament and to the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (15:26): Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Only 3½ hours to go, David!

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: I thank the Hon. Rod Roberts for moving this motion. I make a brief

contribution. I came to Parliament in 2019 and I have known David for six years. I focus more on the personal

touch that David has brought to this place and the personal interactions that he has had with me and many of us.

I, too, was very daunted when I was elected. Even before I was elected, I had a phone call in the late evening from

David as the Clerk congratulating me on entering the most bizarre workplace that most of us will ever work in.

He actually took the time to walk me through the onboarding process. I thought it was bizarre but also so

heartening that a leader of this place would take the time to do that when it could possibly have been delegated to

someone else within his staff.

That personal nature really set the tone for my interactions with David. Whenever I came to him with a

conundrum or a harebrained scheme, he never rolled his eyes. There probably were a few raised eyebrows but

then it was quickly back into the zone of not being fazed—"This is how you would solve that problem," or "This

is the best path forward." It is those personal interactions, David, that have made us all better members of

Parliament in this place and better representatives of the people who voted to put us here. Not to understate the

work that you have done procedurally, for me it is those personal interactions that you have had with us all that

I have found the most value in. I wish you all the best. I hope you look forward to more spare time with your wife

and kids. But, of course, if you have trouble sleeping at night, become viewer number six on the Legislative

Council YouTube and feel free to enjoy our wacky adjournment speeches and wacky interactions in this place.

All the best.

Dr AMANDA COHN (15:28): I have been in Parliament for only a brief amount of time and, having

recently become a member, it is a very unique position. We are uniquely privileged, but we are also uniquely

isolated. Very few people help and support us in this role, so your unwavering support absolutely makes a

difference to us and the people we represent every day. This is a workplace where we furiously disagree with each

other every day; we are here for the purpose of disagreeing with each other every day. It has become very clear

that there are only a couple of things that members agree on: firstly, of course, that this is the better of the two

Houses of Parliament; and, secondly, that we unanimously admire and respect you and your work.

In addition to the anecdotes that were shared today, I put on record my experience of the way you respond

when you are asked a question. You are never annoyed and you never act like we have created more work for

you. You always act with genuine delight and enthusiasm to be able to help, combined with an intellectual

curiosity. When you do not have an answer to something you are asked about, you are so delighted that you go

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 40

away and look it up. That shows your absolute dedication to your role and to this Parliament. Your love for your

work comes across every day and in every interaction you have with us. You will be very sorely missed.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (15:30): I associate myself with this wonderful motion moved by the

Hon. Rod Roberts. I have been here for two years and two days, since the election. In that time what I have seen,

and what I think is perhaps your best legacy, is the wonderful team of people that you have built around you as

Clerk. As a member of Parliament, I can go to any single person in your team and get the advice I need at any

time, and that will outlive your period as Clerk. You leave Steven Reynolds, the incoming Clerk, in such

wonderful stead. Over the short period that I have been here, I have come to you for advice about procedural

matters and parliamentary friend groups. I have genuinely enjoyed your wisdom and good intellectual argument.

I have not won many of those arguments, but I am the better for it.

When I have won an argument, your raised eyebrow or sinking head made me think, "Perhaps I should not

have won that argument," or, "I should rethink the whole thing." That is so important, along with your absolute

trust and integrity. When we come to you with an issue, all members know we will get honest, impartial advice,

and we know that advice will always remain confidential. That is absolutely what makes the system work. I thank

you for everything you have done in the short time I have been here and look forward to working with

Steven Reynolds as the new Clerk. I wish you all the best on your many journeys and adventures. There will be

many days when I will wish that I could join you on your adventures. I hope you tune in to see what is going on

from time to time.

The PRESIDENT: Are there any further contributions?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (15:33): Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: I call the Father of the House.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I personally prefer Mad Uncle, but I am happy to accept the opprobrium

of "Father". I also associate myself with the wonderful motion before the House. Part of my dilemma with listening

to the other contributions from members is that, having been here for such a relatively short time, I am trying to

think about what I can say in public without getting a few of us into a little bit of bother. Firstly, all members have

indicated the high respect and regard we have for the Clerk. For me, that was borne out in my role as Government

Whip for eight years, as a Minister in this place and as President. That experience tells me that, regardless of how

long members have been here, they understand and appreciate the wisdom of our Clerk and incoming Clerk.

Whenever I think of David, I think of David and Steven. I appreciate the work they have done for so many years.

I certainly look forward to Steven continuing the great work he has been doing and will now do as the

Clerk of the House. In addition to the three-dimensional Tetris—the rules and customs of this place—that the

Clerks interpret for us and give us advice on, I also recall that they worked in the background on the administration

of this place. For example, I recall an issue we had a few years ago—given my short time here—when the

Legislative Council office was haunted. A number of people indicated that they did not wish to go into the

Legislative Council office after dark. It is interesting that the ghosts did not choose to haunt the Legislative

Assembly office. The ghosts must appreciate quality, which is good. I certainly have not heard of any ghostly

carriages or people being pushed downstairs in the Legislative Council. I know that was dealt with by the Clerks,

and it will be dealt with by using appropriate exorcisms in the future.

There were other incidents, too. Members might recall that we opened Cafe Quorum with the scissors that

were used to open the Sydney Harbour Bridge—maybe that was not appropriate. But I now understand why they

used De Groot's Sword—the scissors were totally blunt and we had to tear the thing! In those days that was not

the responsibility of the Department of Parliamentary Services [DPS] but of the two Clerks of the Parliament.

Finally, what was most telling about David's role in the administration of this place was how he and Steven were

integral in allowing us, together with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, to form DPS. Members should talk

to some of the old-timers—not me, but members who have been here for much longer than me—about how this

place operated prior to the formation of DPS. If members think DPS causes them difficulties, I could share many

stories in the quiet backrooms about what it was really like to operate in this place.

The people who were part of that negotiation and who assisted with making it happen were David and

Steven. It was very complex, but it gave this place some professional backup. As President at that stage,

I appreciated that backup. Like all members, I appreciate the advice I have received about what I call

three-dimensional Tetris, or the rules and customs that dominate this place. But I also appreciate all the

background work—getting rid of ghosts, sorting out DPS and a whole range of other things. I genuinely appreciate

it. Thank you very much for your contribution. I only ask that at some distant time in the future you do not come

back to haunt us.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 41

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (15:38): Sorry, mate. As reluctant as I am to draw out the torture,

it would be remiss of me to not make a few comments for someone who I have a great deal of respect for and

have had the pleasure to know both in a professional and personal capacity, particularly when I was a novice Whip

after I got elected and did not really have a clue about what was going on in this place. Those visits to your office

were always very, very invaluable and helpful. As has been said by other members, you always have a sense of

calm, centre-of-gravity professionalism that everyone looks up to.

It has been touched on before, but with such high stakes and deep political cleavage—both ideological and

political, and the conflict that has been mentioned—the rules that govern this place are extremely important and,

indeed, the centre of gravity of how it works. You are the upholder of those rules. The fact that everyone looks up

to you and respects your role in that institution is what makes this place great. Your ability to have the office of

the Clerk and the President rise above the politics of the House is what makes it such a great place to work, and

you have been such an integral part in that whole role.

David navigates what is essentially a political beast. Often, when asking David for advice on a particular

tactic or what we were trying to get through to the House, I would think to myself, "This bloke's actually on our

side. I reckon he's a Labor guy." But what he was actually doing was telling you how to achieve what you wanted

to achieve within the rules. I soon learnt that he was giving the same advice to the other side as well. That is what

makes him so great.

There are a few things that spring to mind that I will have amusing, fond memories of. I will never forget

the regular visits—not as often as my colleague the Hon. Daniel Mookhey—to the SO 52 room, the privilege

room. I always appreciated the way David did not open the door when I closed it; I am only half joking about that

with the privileged documents. You gave invaluable advice on the medical gas legislation we were able to get

through the House when in opposition. The automatic mutual recognition legislation was another memorable one

which you guided us through.

All in all, my recollection of you, David, will be as a true gentleman, a professional and a good person.

I do not think what matters in life is necessarily how intelligent or smart someone is—and there is no doubt you

are well endowed with those faculties—but the way you treat people and the genuineness with which you have

your interpersonal relationships. That is what has struck me most about interactions with you. Since we are into

music today, and knowing what a fan you are of music, I am going to quote the great Bob Dylan. If you could just

substitute "the Legislative Council" for "Maggie's Farm", I will recite a few words:

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no more

No, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no more

Well, I wake up in the morning, fold my hands, and pray for rain

I got a head full of ideas, that are drivin' me insane

It's a shame, the way she makes me

Scrub the floor

I ain't gonna work on, nah

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no more

And nor should you, David. You deserve much better than us. I wish you all the best.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (15:43): In the spirit of comedy, I too pay tribute to the great David Blunt.

I came here in 2019. David, you did not know the full truth of this, but when I had been Manager of Opposition

Business in the House of Representatives and then, to a lesser extent, Leader of the Opposition, I was at war with

the Clerks.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I'm shocked.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Shocked!

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I know I have shocked the Chamber. Members would have expected it, of

course, but I do not think David knew the full extent of it. I came here thinking, "Maybe we will get it on with

this guy"—but it never really happened. In fact, you did us a great favour, ultimately, which I will come to. But

there was another source of apprehension much more important than this Chamber: the great game of rugby

league. As a St George supporter, we are traditional rivals with Parramatta from the 1977 drawn grand final and

our tremendous, heroic victory in the replay. As I stood on the hill for the battle of Kogarah the following year,

the savages from Western Sydney got even with the great Rocket Ready and belted the absolute billyo out of him.

It was a game only overshadowed by the even more vicious battle of Lidcombe that same Sunday afternoon.

We are traditional rivals. After my six years in this place, David, it is a fantastic revenge to know that

single moment in your retirement you will suffer the fact that we have given you, as your coach, one of the greatest

boofheads to pull on a Dragons jumper, Jason Ryles. He was a penalty-conceding machine absolutely despised

by Dragons fans. How anyone ever thought he could coach is beyond me. Of course, we know you are none for

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 42

three and you will probably be none for 22 through the season under the guidance of Jason Ryles. But I hope you

do not suffer too much. It is a great club, Parramatta, and it will come back. But thinking of when you win your

next comp, it is a bit like that meme of the old lady on the Titanic: "It's been 84 years."

[Interruption]

Well, the young ones know it. I am not as uncool as I look. I have sons who love the "84 years" memes.

But, David, you will probably get one before that. I was there in 1986 at your last grand final win, the only tryless

grand final, so I have a little bit of Parramatta in me. Just for your edification, I did captain the under-15s

Parramatta rep team a long time ago, so I am not totally unsympathetic. With one eye red and one eye white, I go

with the Dragons, but I will always be watching Parramatta's progress on your behalf.

In terms of your service as the Clerk, I thank you for what was the greatest floor show we have ever seen

here as we replaced John Ajaka as President. I know, David, that not for a moment did you truly believe that

someone who had the most votes in a ballot had not won it, but your interpretation pleased me and the Hon. Robert

Borsak no end. We absolutely loved the biffo of the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones, on the advice of the

Hon. Damien Tudehope, seizing the chair like a Third World dictatorship while the previously passive the

Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Anthony D'Adam screamed at her from the back of the Chamber. Borsak and

I would love that sort of biffo every single day; I know it is not possible here in this genteel Chamber. But you

orchestrated that floor show for us and we thank you for it. Ultimately, the standing order had to be changed to

reflect the political reality that if you get the most votes, you win. Who ever thought otherwise, other than down

at the Australian Turf Club? Maybe that is where you could go, David. They are looking for that kind of advice.

I congratulate you on your service. Our great achievement is that we never really had a strong disagreement, let

alone a blow-up, and I am quite proud of that.

The Hon. Taylor Martin: There is still the rest of the day.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Well, when I found out the Hon. Rod Roberts would move this motion,

he said, "You're not going to get into him, are you? You're not going to blow it up?" I said, "Rod, it's your motion.

You're a higher power than me in the Chamber. I can't possibly blow it up"—but I would not anyway, David.

You have served the Chamber tremendously well, with ethics and honesty—a lot better than your colleagues in

the House of Representatives back in the day. I wish you a very, very happy retirement.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (15:47): I have a short contribution. I observe that a parliamentary Clerk is

similar to a constitutional monarch and nightly newsreader, in that they all have close proximity to politics but the

less political they are, the better they are at their job. Their job is to be apolitical. Queen Elizabeth II reigned for

seven decades, but no-one has any idea of her political leanings. For 45 years in this city we had a beloved

newsreader on Channel 9, Brian Henderson. After 45 years of close proximity to politics, no-one has any idea

how Brian Henderson personally voted. I think the same could very much be said for David Blunt, who has been

perfectly apolitical. He is basically the Queen Elizabeth II and the Brian Henderson of this place. That is not to

say that we are not curious as to how he votes, but I strongly suspect that will be an eternal mystery even after his

retirement.

He has always been very courteous to me in my short time here. I do have a staff member who used to

work for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and asked me to say something. Fred, as we all know, was a longstanding

member of this place and was frail in his last few years. The Clerk, David Blunt, was endlessly considerate,

courteous and understanding of someone who was a legend of this place. David, thank you very much for your

service. I say to Steven Reynolds that all members very much look forward to you stepping up to the role and

doing an equally fine job.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (15:49): I want to borrow from the Heath Ledger movie 10 things

I hate about you. I hate how you always know the standing orders better than anyone else. I hate that you spot

procedural errors before we even make them. I hate your calm voice when everything around is absolute chaos.

I hate that you are already three steps ahead, and I am still trying to find Standing Order 187. I hate your perfectly

timed raised eyebrow, sharp enough to rule a motion out of order. I hate how somehow you remember every

amendment in every bill in the past three years. I hate that your poker face during division debates could win

tournaments. I hate how you are always the one who understands exactly what happened in that five-minute flurry

of points of order. I hate that your diary is more full than any Minister's and yet you still remember my name. But,

mostly, I hate the fact that I don't hate you at all—not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all. Thank you

for keeping the Council in check, on track and just the right amount of terrified. This tribute is all in jest, but our

admiration is very real.

The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (15:50): I will warn up-front that I have no lyrics prepared. In fact, I do

not have any notes prepared. There were many mentions earlier about members being called to your office, David,

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 43

and maybe some more than others. I have been a member of this place for eight years now. I did not think that

I was much of a naughty kid at school, but it does really feel like being called to the principal's office when you

have to go and see David Blunt. But it is very comforting when you sit on that lounge and start talking, because

I knew that, no matter what the issue was, I was getting all of your best advice. I also knew that every other

member of this place, whether they are here now or have gone before us, got exactly the same from you. Like the

Hon. John Ruddick, I would not have the faintest idea of how David voted in any ballot previous or would vote

in any ballot to come in any election, State or Federal. I would not have any idea because you afforded every one

of us your best as a human being, and I thank you for that. In this sea of political skulduggery here in this place

and in politics more widely, David, you are an island of impartiality, and we all thank you for that.

The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (15:51): I have already mentioned this earlier today during the take-note

of answers debate, but it is worth repeating. As new members in the Fifty-Eighth Parliament, our first interaction

with Mr Blunt was in our members' induction. We were sitting in a room and learning about this whole new world

that we were about to enter into. We had no idea of how we were going to be guided through the puzzling maze

of rules. We had books and slide after slide of information—we were just surrounded by information. Then we

came to the slide of our welcome from the Clerk; he could not be with us in person at the time. It was a video

which was grey and loud, and we were squinting to try to see what it was. It was a snowstorm, somewhere in the

Nepalese alps. We could make out a figure with snow across his face and a massive beanie on his head. He was

saying to us, "Welcome to the Parliament", and that he would be with us very soon to guide us.

There was a comfort in knowing that there would be someone in our lives who could make it through a

snowstorm in Nepal, and that he would come back and tell us all we needed to know and how to act appropriately

to get through the snowstorms and the blizzards that we would experience in this place. I want to say thank you

so much for the joy that you bring to this job and to this place and to your life. All the passions that you have

outside of this place so clearly inform the type of person that you are and the character that you demonstrate and

display to us. This is a very unique and unusual workplace where we get to know each other in unusual ways. The

ability to be very much yourself in this place is a testament to your strength of character and something that we

all can learn from and have certainly benefited from. Thank you so much for everything that you do and for

making this State a much healthier democracy.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, Minister for Domestic Manufacturing and

Government Procurement, and Minister for Natural Resources) (15:54): I join with members of this House

in thanking David for his extraordinary service and contribution to our Parliament and to the community of

New South Wales. All of us come to this place in the spirit of being custodians who seek to leave it a little bit

better than when we found it. David, you have certainly fulfilled that. During your time here, you have been

recognised with membership of the Order of Australia and have become a published author. Those things and,

certainly, the impact that you have had on every individual member, which we have heard about in the heartfelt

contributions from members today, all speak to your ability to bring this extraordinary and historic institution to

life and to leave it a bit better than when you started.

The common themes in the contributions today have been your humility, your respect and the considered

advice that you have shared with all of us, no matter where we have been sitting in the Parliament, and the

enormous amount of knowledge that you somehow manage to retain in your brain. I do not know how you manage

to do that. It is extraordinary. I will briefly share a story, which I think I have shared with David before. When

I was considering seeking preselection for the Labor Party, I had just had my first child. I was not quite sure what

I was embarking upon, and I did not really know what to do. I did some googling, and I did not get very far. I then

received a suggestion that I should just call the Clerk. I thought, "I do not know if I can do that." Anyway, I did.

I picked up the phone, and David answered. As a member of the public, I asked him some questions—actually,

he shared the experiences of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell.

What really stayed with me is that he answered the phone directly, and that his considered and thoughtful

advice was given honestly to a member of the public to whom he had no real need to give that advice. But it gave

me comfort at a point when I was making some big decisions about my future. The ability to provide that humble

and considered but enormously informed advice to a member of the public, or to any one of us in this place, is

extraordinary. We thank you so much for the time, effort and sacrifice that you have made in supporting us all

during your time here. We wish you all the best in your retirement with Lynne.

I did not get to question time today. As for musical contributions, I am not much of a musician, but I was

inspired by one of Arthur's and my favourite songs. Arthur is quite the Michael Jackson fan. You might have seen

MJ: The Musical. I am not sure if this song is in it, but the one we love is Workin' Day and Night. Certainly you

will not be doing that for too much longer. I wish you all the very best in your retirement and for your wonderful

adventures beyond. No doubt we will continue to try to tap into your knowledge, and no doubt the amazing people

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 44

that you have trained will continue to do that. Thank you so much for your time, for your contribution and for the

amazing imprint that you have left on all of us.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (15:57): In reply: I thank members who contributed to the debate today: the

Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in her role as the

Leader of The Nationals in this place, Ms Abigail Boyd, the Treasurer, the Hon. Emma Hurst, the Hon. Robert

Borsak, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, Ms Sue Higginson, the Hon. Natalie Ward, the Deputy Leader of the

Government, Ms Cate Faehrmann, the Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine, the Hon. Scott Farlow, the Hon. Mark Banasiak,

Dr Amanda Cohn, the Hon. Cameron Murphy, the Assistant President, the Hon. Mark Buttigieg, the Hon. Mark

Latham, the Hon. John Ruddick, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, the Hon. Taylor Martin, the Hon. Jacqui Munro,

and the Minister for Finance.

I could have just thanked "those who contributed", but I wanted to go through all those names because the

number of people who wanted to stand up and speak and be associated with this motion today, David, is a

reflection. We have all sat in this Chamber and heard members make speeches that they did not want to make.

I do not care which political party they may have been from, but they had been caucused into a particular position

and had to get up and speak. That is just the reality of politics. But the speeches we heard today were the warmest,

most heartfelt and, above all, most genuine speeches that I have ever heard in this place.

It is hard to say anything in reply because every adjective or descriptor in the world has been used. There

is nothing else left for me to say, really, except a couple of things. The Hon. Mark Latham and the Hon. Scott

Farlow touched upon the elephant in the room, which is your dedication to the Parramatta Eels. I think I have

mentioned this to you before: I don't know how such an educated man could support Parramatta. But then, in

reflection, I think that's just a mark of the man because his loyalty and dedication never wavers. So that's probably

your excuse.

I will say a couple of things in closing that some people did not touch upon. I have been in this place since

2019. During the debate I jotted down a few notes about some of the things that have changed in this House in

that short time. This is in no particular order. One is the roadshow taking the Legislative Council to the people—

what a tremendous thing that has been. Again, that was driven by you and the President, with big input from the

LC office. The presidential coup, which was a particular time that we try to sweep under the carpet and pretend

never happened, was a big event in this place. As I touched upon in my original speech, the standing orders have

changed. Another new development was the Mookhey library, which was a result of this House exercising its

power of accountability over government.

We had the COVID period, which no member has mentioned. We had to organise the sitting of Parliament

through COVID. Again, the responsibility was left to you and your team to sort out. We had place markers for

where members could sit. We had people wearing masks. We had TVs and perspex screens. We had everything.

If I hear the name Hibbs one more time, I will have a breakdown. We have seen the introduction of Webex for

committees, where both members and participants could "zoom in" for that process. We've had the bicentenary,

which I touched upon before. We had the visit of King Charles, which I know you were closely involved in. And,

of course, your visit with former President Matthew Mason-Cox to see Prince Charles when he was still the Prince.

That was at Balmoral, I think. In that short period, there has been so many things that have tried and tested you,

and you have been able to get us through. I said quite a bit at the beginning; everybody else has said everything

else. There can be nothing more to say other than thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Unfortunately, in this Chamber there is no right of reply for our guru, our oracle, our

very own Gandalf, David Blunt. For David to shed light on how he votes or, in fact, on any other matter, members

will have to wait until tomorrow night. Until then, David, in honour of you: Go the mighty Eels. And in the

immortal words of Paddington Bear, thank you, David, for everything.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Members and officers of the House stood and applauded.

Bills

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT SECTOR GIG WORKERS AND

OTHERS) BILL 2025

Second Reading Speech

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 45

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:03): As I was saying, when making a declaration, the

Industrial Relations Commission must be satisfied that the contract is for the transportation of persons or goods

and that it is appropriate for the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] to do so having regard to the factors listed

in new section (3B) (b). These include that the person has low bargaining power in relation to the particular

contract or that its terms would be unfair, or operate unfairly, in relation to the person. This could include the

declaration of contracts of carriage beyond the circumstances now prescribed in schedule 1 [5] if the IRC considers

it appropriate having regard to all matters.

Schedule 1 [3] to the bill removes exemptions within section 309 (4) of the Act. Chapter 6 currently

excludes certain categories of contract transport workers, including those whose contracts of carriage are for the

carriage of bread, milk or cream for sale, or delivery for sale, or the delivery of mail on behalf of Australia Post,

including the delivery of parcels. However, I note that the bill does not and is not intended to affect the Australian

Post letter service. It is worth mentioning that Australia Post delivers a lot more than letters, particularly parcels,

hence the removal of the existing exemption in chapter 6. In the twenty-first century, these exclusions are archaic

and deprive persons who would otherwise be contract carriers from the protection of chapter 6, in particular the

minimum standards afforded through contract determinations.

Schedule 1 [5] to the bill amends section 309 of the Act and acts to extend the operation of chapter 6 to

contract carriers who own or operate a total of up to three motor vehicles, including providing them with minimum

standards provided that the IRC varies an instrument to include them. This change brings a protection to a highly

vulnerable group of workers who often operate a second or third vehicle at the request of a principal contractor,

which has the result of depriving them of the protections of chapter 6. Schedule 1 [5] also clarifies and expands

upon prescribed circumstances currently contained in the regulations. This is designed to protect a contract carrier

in situations where they may be otherwise reasonably unavailable for driving duties, such as being on workers

compensation or being unable to drive in order to comply with mandatory rest breaks. The IRC will have the

ability to provide for a contract determination to apply to successors of principal contractors. Schedule 1 [7] to

the bill clarifies that where the extension of up to three motor vehicles applies, this does not create the carrier of

the main vehicle as being a principal contractor.

Schedule 1 [8] to the bill creates a mechanism to include transport gig workers under the Act.

Schedule 1 [8] does this by providing that a contract that is for the transportation of goods and persons, or both,

is taken to be a contract of carriage if the particular contract is arranged or facilitated through a digital labour

platform or booking service. The bill sets a definition of a digital labour platform. These new provisions do not

apply to or affect a contract of bailment in the taxi industry. The new categories of workers that will be covered

under chapter 6 will be able to access the safety net provided by contract determinations. Schedule 1 [9] amends

section 313 of the Act to provide a broader and non-exhaustive list of considerations the commission must consider

when making a contract determination in respect to contracts of carriage.

I refer the House to the remarks of the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and

Safety in the other place, who set out in further detail all the other schedules and provisions of the Act. Having

done so, I now make some concluding remarks. The bill continues the Government's progressive reform of the

State's industrial relations system. The bill will benefit thousands of workers in the road transport sector by

improving the terms and conditions of their employment, which is of course what Labor governments do. The bill

also delivers on the Government's election commitment to reform chapter 6 of the Act.

I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of many of the people who, for more than 20-odd years, have

campaigned to maintain this section of the Act, to improve it, to protect it, to defend it and to use it as well. There

are many in the gallery—and I will speak about some of them later on in reply—who do not vote for my party but

do support this legislation. That is because, fundamentally, they get that a person's rights at work should not turn

on what they are called. They can be called an employee, an owner-driver, a contractor or a gig economy worker.

What matters is how they are treated.

In New South Wales we have a unique system that, for more than 50 years, has cared more about what

people do and how they are treated than what they are called. That is itself a terrific form of reform. The fact that

we are taking this opportunity, potentially, to modernise that Act, to include it and to, in many senses, lead the

world in adapting such a system for the twenty-first century is another example of this Legislative Council

grappling with complex problems and reaching good results. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other

members. I will talk more about the many people who have been associated with this reform in my reply. Until

then, I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Before I call the Leader of the Opposition,

I acknowledge and welcome to the gallery Nick McIntosh, assistant secretary of the Transport Workers' Union

NSW; Robert Rasmussen, Sydney Sub-branch secretary; Robert Pirc, South Coast and Southern Sub-branch

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 46

secretary; as well as a number of rideshare and delivery delegates and members of the Transport Workers' Union

from across New South Wales. You are all most welcome.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (16:09): I speak in debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment

(Transport Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025. I begin by reflecting on my early years as a lawyer. One of

my first cases was an application under section 88F of the Industrial Relations Act in respect of a Norman Ross

driver who had purchased a particular run for a significant amount of money, and then the employer—Norman

Ross, as it was at the time—sought to enter into another arrangement with a contract driver. The owner who had

purchased the run lost the benefit of that contract. I recall thinking at the time that it was the most extraordinary

and outrageous approach to people who were just making a living and who had worked for themselves and

purchased a run. It applied across lots of industries. I had clients who had purchased milk runs. I had clients who

thought that in buying a business, they would enter into a contract of a form where they would become contract

carriers. In those circumstances, I had enormous sympathy for the manner in which those drivers had been treated

over a long period of time. However, the Opposition does not support the bill.

In every circumstance where amendments were previously sought to be made to cover the same content, it

was always the position of the then Government, the now Opposition, that those drivers exist across Australia.

The appropriate place to legislate for the rights of drivers, owner drivers and people making a living in the

rideshare industry is not in the Industrial Relations Act of New South Wales but in a national position that would

cover those rights in another place. Guess what? That actually happened. Legislation was introduced and passed

in the Commonwealth Parliament last year and gave the rights that this bill seeks to give. Our opposition to the

bill is not based on ideological opposition. It is an abuse of this Parliament to legislate in circumstances where it

is already covered in another place. Section 109 of the Constitution would give rise to a circumstance where cases

in that place would override any position taken by the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC].

The Minister for Industrial Relations claims that the bill "does not seek to replace the new Federal

jurisdiction or to duplicate the important work that has taken place federally". The claim that the bill does not seek

to duplicate the important work that has taken place is not sustainable. A simple examination of the Fair Work

Commission website shows that the commission is already engaged in detailed work on five applications from

the Transport Workers' Union [TWU]—those people in the gallery today—for employee-like and road transport

minimum standards orders. Firstly, the TWU applications were made on 28 August 2024 for minimum standards

orders to cover those "who perform work that involves the transport by road of goods, wares or other things, other

than food, beverages and other like things". It is a considerable sector.

On the same day, the TWU also lodged an application for a "minimum standards order to cover

employee-like workers who perform digital platform work in the transport by road of food, beverages and other

like items". That would apply to Uber Eats, DoorDash and all the other companies participating in that kind of

business. On 17 February 2025 the TWU initiated a further application for a "road transport contractual chain

order" for "the transport of cash and other valuables and the performance of ATM work". Finally, on

26 September 2024 the TWU lodged an application for a "road transport contractual chain order" for the transport

of a very wide range of goods, including goods, wares, merchandise, material or anything whatsoever, whether in

its raw state or natural state, wholly or partly manufactured state or of a solid, liquid or gaseous nature or

otherwise—meat, crude oil or gas condensate, milk and cream, quarried materials, vehicles and waste materials.

I note that item [2] of schedule 1 to the bill, which would expand the range of contracts and classes of

contracts for which a contract determination can be made by the Industrial Relations Commission, is not scheduled

for commencement until 18 months after assent. That is not before September 2026. That clause will bring the

rideshare sector under the jurisdiction of the IRC. However, if in the intervening period either the TWU or one of

the rideshare platform companies make an application to the Fair Work Commission for a minimum standards

order for that sector, the IRC proceedings would still have no coverage whatsoever. It seems unlikely that such an

application will not be made by September 2026. That leaves the bill with little work to do. That is why the

Opposition says that legislation of this nature should be opposed.

Insofar as there are minor changes to chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 that do not duplicate

or overlap with the Fair Work Act 2009, they could have been brought in a separate bill or included in an omnibus

bill. As it stands, the bill is a farce. It is yet another example of a government with no real agenda other than

ticking off IOUs that it owes the union movement for its help with donations to the Labor Party and its assistance

at the ballot box. It is pure virtue signalling with no real-world impact. Where is the presumptive cancer legislation

for our firefighters, which the Government promised before the election but has not considered a sufficient priority

to introduce in the first two years of the Minns Labor Government? To be fair to the Minister for Industrial

Relations, whose genuine passion for workers' welfare I respect, the Minister is no doubt trying to keep faith with

the firefighters but is being blocked by either the Premier or the Treasurer, who are claiming that the cupboard is

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 47

bare. This Chamber's time should not be wasted by dealing with bills that are duplicative of comprehensive Federal

legislation and, therefore, never going to be of any operative effect. The Opposition will not be party to that farce

and, therefore, opposes the bill.

The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:18): I speak for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in support

of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025. It is an issue that

directly impacts the hardworking men and women who are the lifeblood of our economy: our transport workers

and small business owners. The issues that the bill addresses have been well ventilated. They were covered in the

inquiry into the point to point legislation in 2020, which was chaired by Ms Abigail Boyd, with myself as deputy

chair, as well as the inquiry into the impact of technological and other change on the future of work and workers

in New South Wales, which was aptly chaired by the now Treasurer, with myself as deputy chair.

One thing that stood out from the latter inquiry was the tragic story of a HungryPanda food delivery driver

who died while working ridiculous hours for very little money. He had left his young family to come to Australia,

to set up a new life, a better life. That part of the story is not unique. In fact, that is the quintessential migrant

story. It was the story of my grandparents and is the story of so many people in this great State. What made this

stand out was having his widow, in complete despair, appear before the inquiry and witnessing the careless

disregard a gig company had for her and her children. He was not an employee to them; he was simply a resource

to exploit. That moment alone is reason enough for me to support this bill, but there are many more.

I cannot overstate the importance of our State's truck drivers. Everything we have in our houses, the clothes

on our backs, the cars we drive, absolutely every possession we have spent time on a truck at some point and got

to us because of our truck drivers. Of course, this bill supports not only truck drivers but also the taxi industry,

which our party has fiercely advocated for. This bill helps address some of the issues that emerged when Uber

was allowed to operate illegally for 18 months under the last Government. It helps address the unequal working

environment that exists in the point to point industry and was built off the back of Uber's and other gig companies'

exploitation of workers, built off the back of what may have been a legally clever but morally bankrupt argument.

Both these industries have faced many challenges. We saw it most clearly during the COVID-19 pandemic,

when the road transport industry stepped up to the plate, ensuring that essential goods and services continued to

reach every corner of our State. Taxi drivers, with their universal service obligation, put their health on the line to

ferry passengers from the airport to home or to hospital, exposing themselves. They did not have the option of

tucking and running away like other rideshare companies.

I will touch on some of those challenges in some more detail. The cost of entry into road transport is

immense. Aspiring owner-drivers face overwhelming financial hurdles right from the start. The costs of heavy

vehicles, yearly registration and insurance are astronomical. Then there are the regular maintenance costs, the

repairs and, of course, petrol and tolls, all just to keep their vehicles on the road. I had the privilege of joining the

Transport Workers' Union of NSW last week in its rally just outside this Parliament. Owner-drivers from across

the State parked their vehicles on Macquarie Street, and together they made their presence and their support for

this bill known. I thank them for their tireless advocacy in this space. I even had the chance to climb up into one

of those heavy trucks. Let me just say I did it with a reasonable level of poise and grace, though not so much in

the exit.

It is not until you sit behind the wheel of one of those vehicles that you truly understand what it means to

be an owner-driver. These trucks are immense, and so are the pressures that come with them. These are not only

machines; they represent years of hard work, sacrifice and the constant grinding pressure of just staying afloat in

an industry that is anything but kind. More often than not, owner-drivers finance their vehicles against their homes,

taking on massive financial risks in the hope that their hard work will pay off. But the road transport industry is

not kind. For all the hard work they put in, these drivers often have little to no security in terms of business

arrangements. They shoulder all the costs yet have no guarantee of fair compensation for their work.

To make matters worse, the traditional, highly regulated point to point industry has been decimated over

the last decade. The rise of digital labour platforms from giant multinational companies such as Uber has created

a race to the bottom in rates and conditions for transport workers. If you do not understand what that looks like,

go out on any busy night and try to catch a cab or a rideshare vehicle, go and look at the airport and see what is

happening there at the moment. It is an absolute disaster. The conditions, the disorganisation and the chaos that

have been created from this deregulation are just astounding.

The consequences of this race to the bottom have been dire. We have seen 18 gig workers die on Australian

roads over the last 10 years. Honest, hardworking taxi drivers have not seen a substantive pay increase in over a

decade. These are not only statistics; these are lives lost, families devastated and livelihoods destroyed. That is

not an exaggeration. In the last Parliament, the number of phone calls I took from taxi drivers suicidal because of

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 48

what the previous Government had allowed to happen to them by allowing Uber to illegally operate for 18 months

cannot be overstated.

The bill we are debating today seeks to change the freefall happening in the road transport industry. It is

about restoring fairness, dignity and security to workers who have long been neglected. The reforms in this bill

will no longer exclude gig workers, bread and milk carters, and others in similar roles from coverage under chapter

6. This means that these workers will finally have the ability to argue in the Industrial Relations Commission for

minimum pay and conditions. By passing the bill, we are taking a step towards ending the decimation of the taxi

industry and rebuilding competitive pay and conditions across the sector.

At its heart, this bill is about protecting the small business people who are the owner-drivers, the taxi

drivers and the bread and milk carters, who work tirelessly to keep our State moving. I had the pleasure of meeting

with the Transport Workers' Union earlier today, and I spoke directly with business owners who shared their hopes

for what this reform means to them. For them this bill will enhance the Industrial Relations Commission's capacity

to resolve disputes between principal contractors and contract carriers, including through issuing interim

determinations when necessary; establish liability across contractual chains so that wealthy clients—those at the

top of the chain—will finally be held accountable for their role in influencing the pay and conditions of

owner-drivers; and enable contract carriers to recover the cost of tolls incurred as part of their work, ensuring they

are not unfairly burdened with expenses that should be covered by the industry. As the Treasurer has alluded to,

there is more to come. I sense that these reforms are just the beginning of a much-needed transformation in the

road and transport industry.

None of this would be possible without the relentless work of the Transport Workers' Union. I take this

moment to acknowledge the tireless efforts of individuals like Tony Matthews, Richard Olsen and Nick McIntosh.

Their commitment to fighting for better conditions for transport workers has brought this issue to the forefront of

Parliament, and for that they deserve our gratitude. I am proud to stand here today in support of this bill, which

seeks to protect small businesses, to ensure that our hardworking transport workers are no longer taken for granted

and to restore fairness to an industry that has been left to deteriorate for too long. I commend the bill to the House,

and I call on all of us to stand united in our support of those who keep New South Wales moving: our transport

workers and small business owners.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts,

and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) (16:26): I support the Industrial Relations Amendment

(Transport Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025 in my role as Minister for Transport and as the former

Minister for Roads. Road transport jobs are tough jobs filled by people who are working hard. The truth is road

transport is Australia's deadliest industry. There are, across the continent, hundreds of truck-related crashes and

deaths of drivers. Each of those has a real impact on families and communities. Many of those deaths are avoidable

and are the product of unsustainable pressures in the industry. Many of those pressures come from higher up the

supply chain. That is exactly why this bill is important. It will expand access to dispute resolution and help with

cost recovery, including for tolls. It is so tough to be a driver in this State and in this city not just because of traffic;

it is the tolls as well, adding to the stress and pressure on these businesses, and owner-drivers and contract carriers

are small businesses. This bill will help reduce some of the pressures they face, giving them a better chance to

continue operating.

This Government says it is not good enough to leave this to the Federal jurisdiction. These are longstanding

provisions in the law we are amending here in some cases. It is certainly not an abuse of Parliament to be bringing

this bill here. That is the position of this Government. One of my concerns as roads Minister was the view that

has been put to me that this city is Australia's least friendly city for truck drivers—between the traffic, the tolls

and the tough way of doing business. There is no greater symbol of that than the 180-kilometre gap between

Wyong and Pheasants Nest, with no proper rest stop for truck drivers to pull off the road at. One of the things the

Government is doing, in parallel to this bill, to fix that is to have a dedicated rest stop in the heart of Western

Sydney. The Treasurer has indicated that this has been a long campaign, and that is absolutely true. I also thank

Tony Matthews, Richard Olsen and Nick McIntosh of the Transport Workers' Union and all the members who

have been involved in this campaign over decades to get to this point. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (16:29): It is with great pride that I contribute to debate on the Industrial

Relations Amendment (Transport Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025. Before I begin, I acknowledge some

of the people in the gallery today—Bill Perdikaris, Steve Newton, Margaret Harvey, John Waltis, Walter Koppen,

Warren Thompson, Scott McGrath, David Andrew, Nick Saade, Glen Finlay, Damen England, Johnny Lasovski,

Andrew Athansopoulos and Brad Graham. We also have Rosalina, Jay and Dave as gig delegates. I also

acknowledge Nick McIntosh and Richard Olsen. Richard is not in the gallery today, but I have known him for 30

years and admire him greatly, not least because he seems to be able to find the funny side of almost any situation.

He is also outstandingly fierce when it comes to fighting for the rights of transport workers in the State.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 49

I am very interested in and passionate about this area. I have a prepared speech, but I feel that I need to

make a couple of comments reflecting on the contributions made by other members, particularly the Hon. Damien

Tudehope. I have to say that I am astounded at the double standards that are applied to the activities that unions

undertake. When Uber and other gig operators first entered the market, we were told that they were new and

innovative, and that they were regulatory disruptors and were somehow exciting and interesting. However, when

unions attempt to be regulatory innovators and do interesting things and go after their own interests in ways that

have not been done before, that is seen as inappropriate or labelled as a farce. It is worth pointing out that unions—

the organisations that represent workers—have just as much right as those large digital platform behemoths that

have so much control over the work that gig workers do. The other thing I enjoyed about the Hon. Damien

Tudehope's contribution was that he outlined the litany of work that the Transport Workers' Union is undertaking

across the transport sector. I appreciate that being entered into Hansard.

I will now turn to my prepared speech regarding aspects in response to the bill. Over 10 years ago, when

I first started researching and writing about the gig economy, there were concerns about the disruption of this new

business model of Uber and other gig economy businesses. Business models attempting to ruthlessly drive down

labour costs and circumvent labour law are not new, and neither are attempts to make sure that workers, in any

job, are treated with dignity and respect and are able to earn fair pay. Often precarious work is the consequence

of business restructuring and outsourcing, such as the use of supply chains; management techniques like

franchising; subcontracting and labour hire; and business decisions to substitute full-time continuing employees

with casual, fixed-term or contract workers or other forms of non-standard employment contracts like gig work.

Workers have been engaged in non-standard employment contracts throughout the history of our industrial

relations system. And often after campaigning from unions and sometimes good employers, those contracts came

with regulatory innovations that provided some protections for those workers. Chapter 6 of the New South Wales

Industrial Relations Act was exactly such an innovation. Arising out of concerns for worker conditions and safety,

driver death, and undercutting of wages, chapter 6 contains provisions for sustainable minimum rates through

contract determinations and agreements, remedies for harsh and unjust or unreasonable termination of contracts,

and a dispute resolution process.

As we heard from the Treasurer, it was first established by provisions which were originally inserted into

New South Wales industrial statute in 1979 and were carried over into chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act

1996. It was instigated to ameliorate the vulnerable positions of owner-drivers who owned one truck and

performed work for one hirer. Its provisions have largely enjoyed bipartisan support. In fact, an inquiry

commissioned by the New South Wales Liberal Government in the 1960s found:

… owner-drivers have been in the past exploited as to rates and subjected to oppressive and unreasonable working conditions.

It concluded that there was an overwhelming case for State regulation of owner-driver arrangements. Concerns

about oppressive and unreasonable conditions have animated interest in the gig economy over the past decade. In

2019 I conducted a literature review of 140 publications from 2016-19 related to gig work. Three key issues were

identified then and, having kept an eye on the research, I think they are still relevant now. The first of those is the

question of conditions for gig workers. A key theme was the characterisation or mischaracterisation of gig work

as independent contracting. That was connected to the actual conditions experienced by gig workers, and it was

viewed as a risky business where management of income and hours is difficult. Possibilities for remediation were

also a significant area of scholarship and include exactly what we are talking about today—opportunities for

regulation and also the question of collective action for gig workers.

The second research area that emerged from the analysis was the impact of gig work on workers through

how they experience their activity, on the workforce in terms of skills, and on society through the creation or

destruction of jobs. We heard from the Hon. Mark Banasiak about the impact of Uber on the taxi sector. The third

research area that emerged was the issue of technology. Given it is based on platform intermediation, information

and information technology play a key role in gig work. The literature was particularly concerned about three

areas: the management and use of personal information, the role of social media, and controversial algorithmic

management practices.

All of those themes suggested that gig work is characterised by vulnerability and is subject to the control

of allegedly third-party, arms-length technology platforms. But the economic dominance and control of the

platforms, though wielded through algorithm, is not dissimilar to the economic dominance at the top of other

transport supply chains. In fact, as already mentioned, the parliamentary select committee undertaken in 2020 on

the impact of technological and other change on the future of work and workers in New South Wales, chaired by

the Treasurer, concluded that current laws perpetuate the overwhelming power imbalance between lone

contractors and multinational platform companies rather than mitigating it. The inquiry made four key findings:

Finding 1

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 50

That New South Wales is falling behind other states and comparable nations in developing laws that establish decent work

in the gig economy.

Finding 2

That the failure to provide gig workers with a minimum wage, paid leave and other basic workplace entitlements is increasing

inequality in New South Wales.

Finding 3

That gig workers currently lack the power to interact and negotiate with on-demand platforms as equals in New South Wales.

Finding 4

That the failure to provide gig workers with access to a low-cost independent tribunal empowered to hear and decide disputes

is leading to injustice in New South Wales.

Those issues, particularly around worker conditions, as well as questions about regulation of non-standard

employment and the impact on workers and society parallel those that were the impetus for the creation of chapter

6. Those parallels are why, despite the disapproval of gig companies and the Hon. Damien Tudehope, chapter 6

is an appropriate way to regulate transport gig workers. It is resilient legislation that has survived over 40 years

of various New South Wales governments and attempts at a Federal takeover through the Independent Contractors

Act.

Rapid growth in the transport sector during the Second World War, which continued into the post-war

boom, resulted in demand for employee drivers outstripping supply and led to transport companies seeking

owner-drivers to overcome the shortage. Those developments took place against a background of legal precedent

where common law contracts typically viewed truck owner-drivers as contractors rather than employees. Those

owner-drivers historically became deprived of the benefit of legislative protections for employees, such as

legislatively determined minimum pay rates. Does that sound familiar? It sounds very much like the development

of the gig economy.

While I acknowledge that in some industries a level of flexibility and independent contracting does

facilitate entrepreneurial activity, it is a big stretch to say that that is the case in food delivery, for example.

I recognise that there are a variety of motivations, circumstances and categories of people working in the transport

gig economy, just like the difference in categories of owner truck drivers. Some people engage because they want

to have flexibility. Indeed, I have conducted research and published papers on the ways in which gig drivers

understand their own work.

However, it is our responsibility to ensure a minimum set of conditions for all workers in the transport

industry and that companies are not driving down standards for those whose bread and butter is driving. It is our

basic responsibility to render exploitation more difficult and to provide workers with minimum and safe working

conditions regardless of why they are doing it, regardless of other people's sense that they might choose to be

working that way, and in the face of the repeated fallacy that imposing any minimums in some way means the

death of flexibility and choice.

The successful operation of chapter 6 for owner-drivers over decades makes a lie of that. Let us not forget,

though, that the changes are not just about extending the coverage of chapter 6 to transport gig workers; they are

also about modernising the chapter to ensure that it reflects the modern transport industry. What is important about

chapter 6 generally, and these changes particularly, is that everyone who is involved in the contractual chain and

reaps benefit from the work of the driver or rider bears some responsibility. It is important to be explicit about

what constitutes a contractual chain, and the bill does so by adding a definition of contractual chain to the Act.

The bill also introduces a new section, where those persons who have been involved in a contravention of

the new provisions are taken to have contravened those provisions. That accessorial liability can, for example,

result from aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the contravention or from inducing the contravention by

threats and promises. The provisions reinforce that models for the regulation of labour standards in contractual

chains need to take into account that the direct engager of workers is not the only economic entity that bears

responsibility; indeed, often the organisations with the most economic power are several steps removed from the

worker but they are the ones that wield control—in other words, they are the price-makers—and largely determine

the conditions of contracts.

We know how to regulate for fair work. It takes will, determination, creativity and an understanding of

history. The will to provide regulation for minimum standards for gig workers in New South Wales has been

provided by this Labor Government. The determination has been provided by the relentless campaigning of the

Transport Workers' Union for protections that serve workers in the modern transport industry. And the creativity

and preparedness to look beyond ideology to support workers engaged as small businesses and now as gig workers

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 51

have been provided by every person in this Parliament in the past and today who has understood that protections

like these are fair and reasonable and address market distortions that jeopardise livelihoods and lives themselves.

It is unfortunate that members opposite have chosen a different path. At the end of the day, chapter 6 is a

clever and appropriate place to legislate for those engaged outside of direct employment in New South Wales

transport. It has its roots in keeping drivers safe and is resilient. But it is appropriate to modernise it after 45 years.

I draw members back to the 2020 New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into the future of work, which

I mentioned earlier. One of the 22 recommendations states:

That the NSW Government take greater leadership in the gig economy by actively anticipating the changes taking place, monitoring

those changes and their effects, engaging with both business and workers, and establishing the best regulatory measures to ensure

optimal outcomes for workers, business and the broader community.

It is fantastic to see a Labor government enacting this recommendation. I am proud to support the bill and suggest

that every member of the House do so too.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK (16:43): The Libertarian Party opposes the Industrial Relations Amendment

(Transport Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025. We will not be moving any amendments to the bill as we

do not see how it can be salvaged. It is an unnecessary and harmful duplication of Federal legislation that also

should not exist. I salute the many workers in the thriving gig economy, so named because those who work in the

industry treat each task they get paid for as a one-off gig. Many choose to do a lot more than a one-off gig, of

course, but there is no obligation to do so in many cases.

The gig economy is laissez-faire economics at its finest. The industry has sprung up without any so-called

government assistance because it can stand on its own feet and thrive. The gig economy is a success because it

has endless happy customers. It is supply-side economics at its finest. Its prices are determined not by a politician

or a bureaucrat but by good old supply and demand. The genius of the gig economy is how flexible it is. Those

who choose to earn money from the gig economy are only interested in having a largely commitment-free

arrangement with their employer. Many are only interested in short-term work. Who works in the gig economy?

They are typically ambitious young people who are determined to get ahead by working hard and diligently.

Employers, customers and employees are happy. I have not seen any gig workers protesting and marching in front

of Parliament asking to effectively be put on the slippery slope to unionisation.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Careful what you wish for.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK: No, they will not. They are all too busy happily working. Why does the

Labor Government, and all Labor governments since the 1890s, want to shackle thriving, happy industries? It is

because the central planners get irritated. They cannot sleep at night, knowing that somewhere out there people

are prospering beyond the reach of their interference. The central planners lust to be busybodies. I am convinced

that they are convinced that they are doing good things. The reality is that all these laws and regulations harm

people. I saw that in mortgage broker industry. That situation was quite similar to what is happening with gig

workers. In the 1990s banks, borrowers and brokers got together without any government coordination. It just

sprung up out of the blue. After about 10 or 15 years, there was a magnificent industry called the mortgage broking

industry, which government had paid no attention to. Then it gets to 50 per cent of the market. Obviously, the

home loan market in Australia is a pretty big market. I am talking about trillions of dollars. Then Kevin Rudd

came along and said, "We've got to regulate this."

The Hon. Mark Buttigieg: Yes, because it was rorted.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK: Mr Union Boss would know. Were there any complaints about mortgage

broking?

The Hon. Rose Jackson: Yes.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK: Well, people were voting with their feet. They did not want to deal with

banks; they wanted to deal with brokers. It is up to 75 per cent now. There were no complaints. There were more

complaints about branches than brokers. That was the success of the brokers. But Kevin Rudd said, "We've got to

throw in endless regulation." The Liberal Party was not any better under Scott Morrison, but Rudd kicked it off,

of course. It just put a handbrake on everything. It used to be a really dynamic industry. It still is a good industry,

but it could be a lot better. An outstanding decision of the previous Government was in 2015 when the State—the

gracious State—permitted ridesharing services like Uber in New South Wales. It was outrageous we even needed

to have a debate about that because Uber was already being widely used. We should have just welcomed Uber. If

the people do not like it and if the customers do not want it, they will not use it. If the workers do not like it, they

will not work for it. That is what happens in the free market.

In the pre-Uber era our genius overlords were debating, "How can we have this situation where a stranger

gets in stranger's car and we're not looking after it? There are going to be safety issues. Something is going to go

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 52

wrong. It is just going to be terrible." They could not see how it worked in theory. The free market delivered the

Uber app. Of course, I am not talking only about Uber, but it delivered a superb, efficient, cheap and popular

service where drivers and passengers can rate each other. It works beautifully. In the old taxi industry, people

would get a government licence, which they would pay a lot of money for, but they had no incentive to innovate.

That is why the industry fell apart. It was another government failure in industry. I think the Hon. Daniel Mookhey

would agree in his quiet moments.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: When are my quiet moments? I've never had one.

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK: The Treasurer knows what is going on. We are working on it. We will

make him like Michael Costa. He will evolve with time. The bill far exceeds the Government's original election

commitment to bring gig workers under chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act. I remind the House that this

commitment has been well and truly overtaken by events, specifically the Albanese Government's Federal

reforms. I thank the Leader of the Opposition in this place for providing that history, which I did not know. It all

makes sense now. We already have these laws. The Libertarian Party does not believe in these laws but, as the

Leader of the Opposition said, if we are going to have them, they should be at the Federal and not the State level,

because the gig economy is a national industry. Despite Federal reforms and with minimal consultation with

industry, the Government is pushing ahead with unnecessary and rushed legislation without a compelling

justification for its urgency.

The bill dramatically expands the scope of industrial disputes in New South Wales, allowing unions to

bring forward disputes on just about any so-called industrial matter before the New South Wales Industrial

Relations Commission. It removes the public interest test. Those disputes will no longer be tied to compliance

with an industrial instrument. That will open the floodgates for the Transport Workers' Union to bring disputes

about virtually any issue related to platform work, including pay and conditions, terminations, discrimination,

surveillance and even established industry customs. It sounds like misery for everyone except the unions and their

legal mates.

Once the commission hands down a ruling, it becomes a binding industrial instrument. The Government

says that this is world-leading reform. That is nonsense. It is simply damaging and duplicative. The Federal

system, under the Fair Work Commission, is already implementing national minimum standards for gig workers.

Again, the Libertarian Party opposes that on principle. Government overreach and government meddling did not

create the gig economy, but government overreach will smother it and stop its innovation. It could innovate for

another 100 years if the Government got out of the way. If the technology keeps getting better, we say let it go

and get out of the way. The Government might be keen to tick a box on its election promises list and keep the

Transport Workers' Union happy, but at what cost?

The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: Hear, hear!

The Hon. JOHN RUDDICK: "Hear, hear!" said the member for the TWU. The bill is not unnecessary;

it is actively harmful. If it is passed, the bill will only achieve confusion, red tape and a waste of resources. The

bill will burden businesses and tie up gig workers in endless, needless disputes. In the end, it will increase the

price for consumers. That is what is going to happen. Fewer people will want to work in the industry, prices will

go up, new entrants will be deterred from joining the market and central planners will have achieved what they

wanted to achieve. They will have stagnated a flourishing industry, but they will have control and oversight. I urge

the House to reject the bill. The Minns Government must cease endlessly kowtowing to union shopping lists.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (16:51): As The Greens' industrial relations and work health and safety

spokesperson, I indicate our support for the bill, which will modernise chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act

1996. The bill has been a long time coming. I acknowledge and congratulate members of the Transport Workers'

Union. A number of its members are in the gallery today to witness the passage of the bill through the Parliament.

They have been calling for changes to the Act and for protection for their colleagues and comrades in the transport

sector. The TWU has been relentless in its campaign for greater protections, not only for application-based gig

workers like drivers and food delivery riders, but also for its members across the entire road transport industry.

The campaign for reforms to conditions in the transport industry has been prosecuted relentlessly for more

than two decades, and it is testament to the power of that campaign that the TWU has won it twice over. First, in

August last year changes were passed in the Federal Parliament to create a road transport division of the Fair

Work Commission so that employee-like workers are granted greater protections against predatory contracts, the

right to lift standards across the industry and the ability to resist the race to the bottom led by exploitative

employers. Second, with the passage of this bill, a 30-year overdue update to chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations

Act will provide protections for owner-drivers and gig economy workers against the shonky and underhanded

tactics of big companies.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 53

The reform has been a long time coming. The campaign was waged on many fronts. It has been less than

10 years since food delivery apps were introduced in Australia, but in that time more than 15 workers have died

and thousands more have been injured across the country. In 2020, in the span of three months, five food delivery

drivers died on the roads in the course of their work—four of them on Sydney roads—as a result of the deadly

pressure placed on them as they worked under the onerous conditions imposed by the technolibertarian

applications that have swept across the nation and the world. The absence of basic entitlements like minimum

wages and protection against unfair contract terminations drive workers to put themselves in harm's way simply

to keep their jobs and make enough money to scrape by.

In March 2020 this House resolved to form a Select Committee on the Impact of Technological and Other

Change on the Future of Work and Workers in New South Wales to examine, among other things, the impact the

on-demand or gig economy has had on the safety and prosperity of workers in the New South Wales economy.

I recognise the now Treasurer for his instrumental role in the establishment of that inquiry. I recognise also my

colleague, now Senator David Shoebridge, for the work he has done in this place, as well as in the Senate, where

he assisted with the passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill.

I participated in the inquiry into the future of work and am confident that the expert submissions and evidence,

and the recommendations that subsequently emerged from the inquiry, were instrumental in the formulation of

the bill before the House.

The inquiry found that New South Wales had fallen behind in its regulation of the gig economy and that

the failure to provide gig workers with a minimum wage, paid leave and other basic workplace entitlements was

increasing inequality in New South Wales. It clearly identified the immense power imbalance faced by gig workers

in their interactions and negotiations with on-demand platforms. It recommended the establishment of a tribunal

or jurisdiction with the power to set minimum pay and conditions for gig workers, regardless of work status, and

the extension of chapter 6 to include at least rideshare and food delivery workers, as well as those engaged to

deliver bread, milk and cream. Those recommendations have been taken up as policy by The Greens, and we are

very pleased that legislation is before the House today.

The Greens are also in favour of the establishment of a portable entitlements scheme for gig and other

precarious workers, and the provision of full workers compensation benefits to on-demand platform workers that

are equivalent to the level of benefits currently provided to employees injured in New South Wales workplaces.

I look forward to supporting the inclusion of gig workers in the workers compensation regime when the

Government eventually acts on that still-outstanding recommendation and commitment it made prior to the

election. As the Treasurer would be aware, members are anxious to know the details of the foreshadowed changes

to workers compensation that have been swirling around in recent weeks and months. Will the Government give

an assurance that workers compensation coverage for gig workers is still a commitment, or has that fallen by the

wayside?

Another highly relevant recommendation that emerged from the inquiry was for an urgent review of the

grouping provisions in the Payroll Tax Act 2007 to ensure that on-demand platforms do not obtain an advantage

over other businesses that do not trade in the gig economy. That is particularly relevant because Uber is before

the courts, contesting an outstanding payroll tax bill of over $80 million. Uber is a notorious offender; it extracts

astonishing levels of profit from the poorly regulated Australian economy. Uber Australia has been described as

the "crown jewel" of the Uber group. A former food delivery executive described Australia as a "big profit centre

for Uber Eats". In 2023 it was reported that Uber Australia's "collections" through a third party was $9.2 billion.

That is the best proxy we have for the full size of spending on its platforms in the country. That money is funnelled

through related companies and complicated tax structures.

Despite rideshare drivers and food delivery riders generating literally billions of dollars for Uber, Uber has

been notable for its screeching and fearmongering about the prospects of regulation and being made to pay its fair

share. This reform occurs in that context. It is no accident that we are describing this reform as a modernisation

of chapter 6, because the law has fallen well behind the pace of change in the point to point transport and carriage

sector. Over the past 10 years, gig platforms have driven an enormous upheaval of our society and economy.

These companies and their investors have aggressively flooded our market. In Uber's case, that has meant

undercutting the taxi industry to grab massive swathes of new customers. Its point of competitive advantage is its

supposed innovative new model.

While using GPS and one's phone to place an order was certainly novel, it was not a transformation in the

way things were done, and it does not warrant Uber's immense profits or its ability to disrupt entire industries. At

the end of the day, we are still getting in a car to be driven somewhere or using a phone to order food from a

restaurant and have it delivered. We could do those things in the 1980s. The real innovation that has led to the

explosion of these companies is their innovation in corporate structure and employment model—their innovative

new approach to sidestep workplace regulations. Their real engineering breakthrough was to artificially deem

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 54

their workforce as contractors, not employees, while depriving them of all the agency that would typically

accompany a genuine contractor arrangement.

Uber launched, illegally, in Australia in 2012. It did so in full knowledge of what it was doing. In fact, that

strategy was pulled directly from the playbook it has replicated around the world to move fast and break things.

Undercutting workers' rights is one of America's most significant cultural exports, and these companies have

followed in a long and proud tradition. Stage two of this strategy states that after breaking into a market and

undercutting existing stable operators, you then lobby to legalise your operations. That is exactly what they did

here, to disastrous effect.

I was privileged to chair the inquiry into the operation of the Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire

Vehicles) Act 2016, another parliamentary inquiry that identified the pressing need for reform of chapter 6 of the

Industrial Relations Act. The tenacious Treasurer was on that inquiry as well. Relevant to the point to point

transport industry is the system of bailment, which provides employment protections for taxi drivers but not

rideshare drivers. The relationship between taxi drivers and taxi operators is governed under chapter 6, which

applies to bailment and contracts of carriage. This legislation provides a "discrete regulatory regime for certain

transport workers, who at law are not employees". During that inquiry the New South Wales Government told us

in evidence that "rideshare drivers are unlikely to be covered by chapter 6" because of the way bailment is defined.

And because rideshare drivers are not considered employees of their rideshare platforms, this means they do not

have access to employee entitlements.

Fully aware of this, the former Government proceeded to welcome in these platform companies anyway,

destroying the value of taxi licences while leaving rideshare drivers adrift in an industrial regime that granted

them no power. The business model of these platforms is to fragment their workforce to degrade and undermine

its power and ability to organise, therefore enabling them to exploit their workers and siphon off enormous profits.

Because of the unfavourable working conditions, in many cases those who end up taking on this form of work are

those workers already most vulnerable and prone to super exploitation, like migrant workers and young people.

It is for this reason that this bill specifies the matters that must be fulfilled in order for the commission to

make a contract determination. The commission must not make a declaration unless it is satisfied it relates to

persons who have low bargaining power, who receive remuneration at or below the rate of a comparable worker,

who have a low degree of authority over the performance of their work, whose contract is or operates unfairly

against them, or whose contract is otherwise considered unreasonable.

Read another way around, when all stakeholders and this Parliament agree that the functional effect of this

bill will be to enable the commission to make determinations with regard to platform-enabled transport and

delivery workers on platforms like Uber, DiDi, Menulog, HungryPanda, it is a laundry list of the degradation of

workers rights and conditions that have been imposed by these exploitative companies. This bill is stating that we

recognise that these workers are subject to their collective power being consciously dispersed, their wages

undercut, their agency undermined and their contractual terms made unfair and unreasonable, and that we want to

bring these big companies to heel. I could not be happier to support this important initiative.

But while a lot of attention and discourse surrounding this legislation has rightly concentrated on

platform-based delivery drivers, it is not exclusively for those workers that this bill is relevant and it is not

exclusively for those workers that the Transport Workers' Union has campaigned for so long. For owner drivers,

these reforms will mean a lot. An owner driver is a small business that is highly dependent on a principal contractor

for their ongoing work. It is not uncommon for an owner driver to operate more than one vehicle for the principal

contractor, often at the request of the principal contractor. Yet under the current regime they lose access to chapter

6 if they do so, meaning they lose access to a minimum enforceable safety net and the right to challenge unfair

termination of contract without onerous and burdensome litigation. This traps small operators and owner drivers

in a relationship that stops them from being able to grow, build a little more buffer or provide employment

opportunities to, often, family members or other relations. Alternatively, it forces them to expand against their

will and in the process in fact undermine their own rights and entitlements.

This bill expands access to chapter 6 contract determination provisions to owner drivers with up to three

vehicles. This better reflects the reality for these workers and is an important provision. Owner drivers in the

transport industry are not as visible a class of workers in the public discourse as others, but they are some of the

most precarious. They have been subject to profound contractual precarity as a result of their diminished

bargaining power. This bill will seek to provide, in effect, access to unfair dismissal protections for those workers.

So too have owner drivers faced uncertainty of contract through no fault of their own, seeing their livelihood

thrown into the air and into disarray just because of a change in principal contractor. This bill will allow for

transmission of business in relation to contract agreements, a simple matter that is extremely significant.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 55

One of the reasons chapter 6 has been historically necessary—and is in need of reform and modernisation—

is because of the distinct nature and construction of the road transport industry. It can be turtles all the way down,

with layers upon layers of contractors. This reform allows for accessorial liability, which means liability right

throughout the contractual chain. This means that no matter where you are within a contractual chain from top to

bottom, determinations are able to be made that apply and all participants can be held accountable under those

determinations. That is a vital reform that prevents tricky corporate structures designed to prevent access to justice

for workers.

Finally, drivers will be able to recover toll costs incurred in performing their contracts. This might seem

like a simple proposition, but its inclusion is significant and also representative. This matter was one prosecuted

adeptly and effectively by the Transport Workers' Union in another inquiry I had the privilege to chair, the inquiry

into road tolling regimes. During that inquiry we heard of how contract carriers or owner drivers face an

unbearably high cost imposition by toll roads in the context of a highly competitive price-taking industry.

The terms contract carriers are engaged under are often set unilaterally, limiting their bargaining power, and too

often the rate offered by principal contractors does not provide for cost recovery for toll expenses. The cost must

then be borne by someone, and that someone is the driver. Due to the often unreasonable timing and scheduling

expectations of these drivers, and because of the appalling state of our road network generally, it is not possible

for those drivers to avoid the toll roads. This bill will provide for a fairer process where routes can be mutually

agreed upon and, where necessary, toll costs can be recovered.

I saved this section for last as it ties together what is a remarkable campaign by the Transport Workers'

Union and its supporters both within and outside of this Parliament over many, many years. That this House, and

myself as chair of some of those inquiries, had the benefit of meeting with and learning from so many workers

over the years as a case was built for these vital reforms tells a real story. It demonstrates tenacity and dedication.

It demonstrates creative thinking and flexibility of approach. It demonstrates the undeniable necessity and

legitimacy of this long overdue reform. I congratulate every person who has played a role in bringing it about.

I note here also the work of the Minister for Industrial Relations, Sophie Cotsis, and her team for their

work on this bill. I am reliably informed that the bill has gone through an ungodly amount of revisions and

amendments on its long journey to us today. There are some pretty significant changes from the exposure draft

version of this bill that was exhibited for over a month online. The fact that this bill has landed in such a way that

all parties are satisfied is a testament to the maturity of approach and legitimacy of the reform. I say all parties,

but that's not quite true; the Australian Industry Group still is not happy about it. That should stand as the greatest

endorsement of all as to why this is a good bill worthy of support.

I note the point of the Leader of the Opposition that these provisions are best dealt with federally. With a

Federal election to be announced imminently, I think it is extraordinarily prudent for us to legislate a Dutton-proof

backstop. All members know that the first thing he will do is seek to tear up every industrial relations law

advancement that has been achieved in the last few years. Let us take responsibility for the workers in our State

and lock this in. I again congratulate everyone involved. I look forward to continuing this more open and

constructive collaboration on the reforms that matter most to the working people of our State. We support the bill.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (17:07): Madam Deputy President Kaine, I start my contribution by

acknowledging your investment in the Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport Sector Gig Workers and

Others) Bill 2025. I congratulate Minister Sophie Cotsis, who has been instrumental in bringing this bill to the

Parliament, but also Treasurer Mookhey, who has had a long history with both the Transport Workers Union and

this sector and pursued this relentlessly in opposition over a long period of time. I am happy and proud to support

this important piece of Minns Government legislation. Once again, it is a Labor government doing very Labor

things.

The legislation is significant because it brings several areas of workers rights that have hitherto had no

protections or industrial recourse into the remit of the Industrial Relations Commission to afford those workers

access to wage and condition justice. Significantly, the bill allows for gig economy workers in the transport

industry—predominantly rideshare and delivery drivers using platforms such as Uber—to be covered under

chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act. The bill removes exclusions to allow delivery drivers of items like milk,

bread and dairy to access protections under the Act. The bill also provides protections for small transport operators

with two or three vehicles. Currently, once an owner driver has more than one vehicle they lose the protections of

minimum terms and conditions that are afforded under the Industrial Relations Act. I know many of those owner

drivers are in the gallery today, and I will acknowledge some of them later. Those are just a few of the ways this

bill will modernise chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act.

I note that this legislation is supported by Business NSW and the Taxi Council, and we are in a somewhat

unusual position of the champions of business on that side of the House not supporting the bill. Once again, this

legislation exemplifies the worker-focused nature of the Minns Labor Government, which is doing very Labor

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 56

things on top of the raft of reforms that we have already achieved in two years. Up until now, we have had a totally

unfair and unjust situation whereby those workers had zero protections and recourse as a direct result of the wilful

inaction of members opposite, who I note are opposed to the legislation.

I acknowledge some of those workers who are in the gallery today: Tony Matthews, the president of the

Transport Workers' Union [TWU] New South Wales branch and an experienced owner-driver; Keith Stone, who

until recently was an owner-driver and has fought for these changes for decades; Scott McPherson, an

owner-driver at StarTrack; Paul Newton, David Lenoir, Ralph Rivas and Zak O'Brien, owner-drivers from Team

Global Express; Rob Serafini, an owner-driver at FedEx; Ian Barnaville and Paul Dewberry, owner-drivers in the

concrete sector; Dave Wojcik, an owner-driver at Toll; Rosalina Pirozzi, a gig worker; Warren Thompson, a lorry

owner-driver; Walter Koppen, a lorry owner-driver for ANC; and Ray Childs, a long concrete delegate of the

TWU. I apologise if I have missed anyone.

The TWU has shared with me a real situation experienced by Team Global Express owner-drivers Paul,

Dave, Ralph and Zak. In 2021 the division they worked for was sold to a new principal contractor. Any existing

contract they had did not transfer over, which left their rates and conditions at risk. Fortunately, in this case, the

new contractor came to the bargaining table. Regardless, Paul made the point that this showed how vulnerable

they were to the generosity of the new contractor. There was no requirement for the new contractor to honour

their existing rates and conditions. Paul said:

It's too easy to undercut our conditions by threatening to go back to minimum standards. Drivers share some of the liabilities

(insurances and running cost), all of which are assumed under conditions and agreements that are in place without the view they won't

be subject to change.

We must finance our vehicles against our homes—

they are taking mortgages out against the purchase of equipment; in this case, trucks—

with massive entry costs, so we are incredibly vulnerable. The security of knowing that a transfer of business comes with our

conditions would make us feel a whole lot safer.

This example illustrates how necessary this bill is to ensure the protection of small businesses—members opposite

claim to be the champions of small business—operating in the road transport industry. The bill ensures that an

existing agreement would apply to the new principal contractor. Why do people have to tolerate this situation

whereby, just because they are a small-scale owner-driver with a couple of trucks or are working through the

agency of a platform app, they have no rights at work and are at the behest of employers with no recourse to

pursue claims for decent wages and conditions? By bringing these classifications and job types into the remit of

the Industrial Relations Commission, we give those workers the protections they deserve and make a real

difference in their working lives by allowing them to be lifted up to the same standard as their colleagues in similar

transport jobs across the industry.

I will address a couple of points that were made in the debate. The Hon. Damien Tudehope went on about

duplication, and we heard various contributions as to why it is necessary for this legislation to be enacted at the

State level to fill in the gaps. Even to the extent that there is duplication, why would we not give access to working

people to a low-cost, worker-friendly and accessible regime? What happens, God forbid, if those opposite get

elected at the Federal level? We want to assert our right as a State legislature and enshrine protection for workers,

notwithstanding what members opposite might do if they ever get elected to government. As far as the Hon. John

Ruddick is concerned, he regaled us with the virtues of a totally free market—"Let AI rip, let platforms rip, and

to hell with what happens to workers as a result"—which is insanity writ large.

Technology is a great thing. Platforms that ease or lubricate information between people and goods and

services are good things to have but not at the cost of workers' rights. The gig economy and the gig platform

technology are examples of things to come, which Deputy President Kaine has done a lot of work on as well. With

the spectre of artificial intelligence, unless we get in front and pre-empt what is going to happen and legislate and

empower workers to control AI—not the other way around—we will be playing catch-up time and again. We

should not have to play catch-up. We should be anticipating what can happen with technology and use it to

empower workers instead of leaving them on the scrapheap. This legislation picks up the pieces and makes sure

that that does not happen.

Before I conclude, I reiterate what I have said previously in this Chamber. It is important to understand the

difference between this Labor Government and our opponents, which should be patently obvious to all given how

the debate is panning out. Under members opposite, who do not believe in industrial relations, the thought of ever

having this legislation is unthinkable, and all members know it. They have proved that today. For those who want

to criticise us for having links to the trade union movement, this is a transmission mechanism of working people

sharing the problems they have experienced over many years. They are using their connection to the labour

movement, which in this case is via the Transport Workers' Union—one of the greatest unions affiliated to our

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 57

party—to get results. That is what we are all about, and we do not hide from that. We are proud of our unions.

The fact that members opposite oppose the bill says everything about their philosophy and how they treat working

people. It is disgraceful.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): Order!

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Those opposite should know that their own supporters at Business NSW

support the legislation. I finish up by reiterating it has taken decades of effort from the TWU and its members to

bring this legislation to fruition. I acknowledge the strong advocacy of Tony Matthews, Richard Olsen—who

cannot be with us today—and the assistant State secretary of the TWU New South Wales branch, Nick McIntosh.

I notice that Minister Cotsis is present tonight to see this bill through, and she has been instrumental in this game-

changing piece of legislation. I reiterate my thanks to the Treasurer for all his work on the bill. I commend the bill

to the House. As I said, this is a Labor Government doing very Labor things.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:18): I support the Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport Sector

Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025 on the foundation that it is the least worse option available to the House and

a leap of faith in saying that we trust the Treasurer—and it takes some faith to do that. Having completed an

economics degree way back when, I struggle with the new concepts. The care economy? I dry retch in the morning

when I think about the idea of a care economy being a concept for employment growth when, really, it should be

the private sector. Over the past couple of years I have struggled to understand the gig worker and the gig economy,

and I think I have worked it out that they are things that are moved around on contract labour, be they product

services or people. Is that pretty well it? Yes, that's the gig economy.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Intermediary through digital platforms.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: It is true, from my understanding of the gig economy and gig workers,

that they are often exploited, they are lowly paid, and they can be working in dangerous conditions. It is incumbent

upon members of the Parliament to do as much as we can to help the workers affected so badly by those poor

wages, poor working conditions and job insecurity. I welcome the initiative, but I worry about weakening the

principle of a unified national economy. Jeff Kennett took the initiative in Victoria. One of the few good things

he did for the economy was to try to bring in a single national framework for industrial relations law. It was

supported by Labor in Canberra, and the powers were transferred around the Commonwealth. But apparently

chapter 6 is a residual power that was left behind in the era of Kennett and other State and Territory transfer of

industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. In Canberra the transfer was welcomed. I remember Laurie

Brereton manfully trying to free up the system with a bit of enterprise bargaining and having to stare down the

unions for that purpose. It was good economic reform and should have gone further.

This residual chapter 6 goes back to milk deliveries. I can remember soft drink being delivered to the

House. I suppose, back in the day, we had bread and other food deliveries. They are coming back into fashion at

Woolworths and Coles, so what was old has become new again. At least chapter 6 has regathered some relevance.

But does it put us at risk for forum shopping? If the laws are the same in Canberra, the worker representatives—

I suppose old mates in the Transport Workers' Union [TWU]—would be saying, "Which is the industrial relations

judge who will give us the best deal? Is it the one in New South Wales or the one in Canberra?" Then, if the

business representatives lose out according to that judgement, they will go to the other forum—the other

jurisdiction—to see if it can be overturned. Of course, the Commonwealth wins.

That is a matter that I would like the Treasurer—an expert, we heard earlier today, at organising TWU

blockades and boycotts—to give an explanation on these laws in his reply, because I am something of an amateur

in this area. My only TWU expertise, of course, was the Australian Labor Party's famous document, Greiner's

100 broken promises. I thought, in a pure sense, I would list broken promise 87 as Greiner's failure to launch a

royal commission into the TWU. All hell broke out! Number 87 had to be purged from the document, and I was

temporarily purged from Bob Carr's office because of the outrage of the TWU. I hope they have forgiven me.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: No.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: They haven't? All these years later, it is a hard, tough—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Never forgive, never forget.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: It is a unforgiving union. I am supporting the bill today. Is that any sort of

penance?

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: That might help.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I support the bill as the least worst option. I would like an explanation on

forum shopping, which is a major concern. Are we undermining the principles of a unified national economy?

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 58

Whether someone is an Uber driver or a milk, soft drink or food delivery man in Western Australia, Queensland

or New South Wales, there should be one set of laws that cover what is a national economy. That is the one

concern I have. I understand there will be no division or amendments on the bill, so it is going through.

The Hon. Wes Fang: So why all the talk?

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Sorry? Maybe there is a late entry to the amendment race, but we will see

what that comes to.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Don't tempt me.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: We won't, don't worry. The statute will not come into effect until

12 months after assent, so this time next year. Then the statutory review is the year after that, which is during the

State election campaign, so this item could have a chequered history. I will still be in this place, as will half the

members of this House, for the statutory review, which will be important to see whether there has been forum

shopping and whether we are undermining the principles of a unified national economy, particularly in industrial

relations laws. We have those safeguards in place, which is why I support the bill. I hope it succeeds in achieving

the outcome of protecting these workers, to give them better wages, greater safety and greater job security, which

is absolutely critical. The Parliament has one important role, which is to protect the most vulnerable in society,

and we are talking about that group in the workforce. So even if I do not have the forgiveness of the TWU—this

hard, tough union, unforgiving in every single sense—from all those years ago, I still support the bill.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (17:24): I support the Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport

Sector Gig Workers and Others) Bill 2025. It is an important and necessary bill, despite what the Opposition said

about it. For the sake of brevity, I will not go through the elements that have already been ably put to the House

by the Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine, the Hon. Mark Banasiak and the Hon. Mark Latham. I will talk briefly about the

changes that schedule 1 [8] will make. I start by thanking the members of the Transport Workers' Union for their

long, hard work campaigning for this. It is incredibly important, and I commend them for that. I also commend

the Minister, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, for bringing the bill to the Parliament and, of course, the Treasurer, for

dealing with it in this place.

Members have talked about the long, hard, dangerous work, in particular of gig workers. We know that if

there is a gap at all between Federal and State laws, gig platforms like Uber, DiDi and the myriad various food

applications will find it and ram their platform right through it in order to exploit people. We saw that when Uber

turned up in New South Wales. For the first of couple years it was running in a completely lawless fashion, not

following the law in any way, shape or form. The Government at the time did little or nothing about it. We have

to regulate in this area to make sure people have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

It is not only the poor hours, low pay or significant danger facing gig workers; it is their inability to

negotiate with those platforms. I have had gig workers say to me "Who do I talk to?" because the boss is usually

some AI chatbot that they talk to in a dispute. One of the biggest complaints that I hear from gig workers all the

time is on the issue of down rating. If a customer makes spurious complaints, gives the worker one star instead of

five stars or leaves a bad review—down rates them—there is no effective mechanism for a review. They ask for

it to be reviewed—AI is doing that work for one of these platforms—and if it goes against the worker, despite the

facts and the evidence they might have, practically, there is nothing that they can do about that. They may as well

be arguing with a chatbot. At least now there is a jurisdiction that can deal with all sorts of disputes, not just pay

disputes but disputes over conditions. Things like down rating have a material effect on people's earnings—

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: What about the Fair Work Commission? What does it do?

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY: —because it means they miss out on jobs and miss out on work. The

important thing about this legislation is that it closes any gap that might be there.

The Hon. Damien Tudehope: What gap?

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY: It provides jurisdiction to New South Wales bodies to deal with it,

and that is the very least we ought to do in terms of protecting these workers. I am not going to draw this out by

responding the Opposition's interjections. I will just say that I commend the bill to the House. It is utterly

necessary, and I am glad that we have honoured our election commitment to bring this legislation to Parliament.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (17:28): In reply: I take this opportunity to thank all

members who contributed in this lengthy debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport Sector Gig

Workers and Others) Bill 2025. I thank the Hon. Damien Tudehope, the Hon. Mark Banasiak, the Hon. John

Graham, the Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine, the Hon. John Ruddick, Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Mark Buttigieg, the

Hon. Cameron Murphy and, of course, the penanced the Hon. Mark Latham as well. It has been remarked in this

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 59

debate that I have had a long association with the Transport Workers' Union [TWU]. One of the things that I learnt

at the TWU was the general principle that if one has the numbers, one should call the vote.

I am not going to make an extensive reply, but I address some of the matters that have come up in the

debate. I start with the contribution of the shadow Treasurer, and shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, who

asked: Why enact laws in New South Wales when there are laws in Canberra? The story told by the Hon. Damien

Tudehope was missing some important context—that is, his party fought relentlessly against those laws in

Canberra, did everything it could to stop those laws in Canberra, and has said that it would get rid of those laws

in Canberra. That is an important piece of context that people should recall. The Hon. Damien Tudehope says that

transport workers should not fear the Liberal Party because it supports them and there is already a law to protect

them, but the Federal Liberal Party has acted in a way that is contrary to that. That is the first point.

The second point that I address in further detail is the question: What is the point of the law? A fine student

of the law that was enacted in Canberra would say that that law has drawn from concepts that have applied in

New South Wales since the 1970s. This State has been dealing with matters that Canberra has not dealt with since

the 1970s or in the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly when it comes to rideshare and its interaction with the taxi

industry. The Fair Work Commission system has relevance to rideshare and parts of the taxi industry, but it

remains the case that under Federal law, contracts for bailment and such remain predominantly a matter for the

State. Therefore, there is the risk that in the absence of a law like this in New South Wales, there will be

jurisdictional confusion at a Federal level. The fact that the Federal law does not override the standards that we

have for the taxi industry in New South Wales means that we need to ensure that the standards here and the system

that sits behind them are dealt with.

The system that we are putting up will ensure that the same protections that apply in Canberra for gig

workers when it comes to termination also apply for non-gig workers who are otherwise covered by chapter 6 in

New South Wales. That is the concept of termination. That is the point about how our laws are changing. In the

scenario of our Constitution, in which responsibilities are allocated between the Commonwealth and the States,

the system works when everyone is keeping pace with each other. The problem that we have had for a long time

is that we have ceded ground to Canberra and allowed the system to fossilise and not be modernised. When it

comes to picking up concepts that Canberra has picked up already—like principal contractors, supply chain

regulation and the like—putting them into New South Wales law is a good thing. That is a large part of what the

Government is doing with the bill. I will answer the good questions asked by the Hon. Mark Latham about whether

the bill is disturbing the national integration of industrial relations laws. Firstly, I was not in the Parliament when

the referrals took place in the Commonwealth. In fact, I was in year 8. As part of a commerce assignment in year 9,

I read a lot of newspapers about that, and I had the opportunity to look at it in university.

I point out that the 1996 legislation was referable to the extent of Commonwealth power as it existed under

the Commonwealth's Industrial Relations Act, which meant that most private sector regulation was regulated at a

State level until 2006, when the Commonwealth switched which of its heads of powers it relied upon from the

Industrial Relations Act, which everyone knows had a lot of limitations—namely the fact that the Federal

Constitution says that the Commonwealth can only regulate industrial disputes to the extent to which the dispute

goes beyond any one State—to the corporations power. That was the big shift. When that big shift, called

WorkChoices, took place at the Commonwealth level in 2006 under John Howard, the nation made a decision

that it would not revert back to State-based regulation of the private sector, except in one respect: chapter 6. When

the Howard Government enacted the Independent Contractors Act 2006, it exempted chapter 6.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Why chapter 6?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: For the very simple reason that chapter 6 was a State power. It was

never intended to go national because it only applied in this State. That is the reason. It did not exist in any other

State, except for a version in Western Australia. At the time, there was a version being put together in Victoria. It

was never intended because it was never considered a part of the industrial relations system. It was considered

how you regulate work-like arrangements. The people who made that exemption—and I know this because it was

my very first campaign—were the architects of WorkChoices, John Howard and the late Kevin Andrews. I think

it was Paul Drury—I am fairly positive he is in the gallery today—who met with John Howard and others to talk

about that exemption and explain why this was different. He and the relentless campaign that the union waged

persuaded the then Prime Minister, amongst others, to ensure that there would not be the unintended consequence

of the quite ridiculous Independent Contractors Act wiping out about $3 billion of goodwill at the time.

The reason Mr Howard accepted that he should not override it is because he was not coming after workers

in the traditional Liberal way; he was wiping out billions of dollars of goodwill for small businesses where people

had borrowed against their house, which the Hon. Mark Buttigieg and others alluded to. He ran the risk of the

unintended consequence of wiping out not just their goodwill but the equity in their homes and impoverishing and

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 60

immiserating that class of small business. I am talking about concrete drivers, car carriers, couriers and the like.

That is why the system was put in place.

The Hon. Mark Latham made a good point about forum shopping—that is, if one does not like the outcome

at the Fair Work Commission, can they come to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission? The

Minister for Industrial Relations has got her head to that and made it clear that in the provision, the powers of the

Industrial Relations Commission in New South Wales cannot be activated if there is a Federal standard. That is

important because that is how the two systems are supposed to work with each other. In the absence of a Federal

standard, the jurisdiction can be enlivened. That is about ensuring that as technology changes—as technologies

and other forms of intermediation arrive that we do not foresee—we are building a system with resilience to be

able to cope with changes to the market.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Where's Albo?

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: The Hon. Mark Latham says, "Where's Albo?" Albo is the one who

created the Federal system and is now going to the election saying that we should keep it. It is a fair point, because

it is not intended to have the idea of duelling jurisdictions. It is intended to ensure that there is no regulatory gap

that workers can fall within. I take that point and I wanted to reply. Those are the reasons why there is a particular

point here. I address the contribution of the Hon. John Ruddick by simply saying that his ideal industrial relations

system is the Master and Servant Act of 1823. One can judge a conservative by the era they wish to return to.

When it comes to my conservative colleagues, I often think that the Hon. Damien Tudehope wants to return to the

1950s, because, let us be honest, he is a Democratic Labor Party guy at heart.

I cannot help but feel that the Hon. John Ruddick thinks the world was perfect in the nineteenth century

and that everything since then has corroded the Garden of Eden that was nineteenth-century labour relations. Let

him continue to maintain his rage against such modern concepts as workers' rights. I understand that he is

continuing to campaign for the libertarian utopia that we would otherwise describe as quite horrible. Nevertheless,

let him keep going in that respect. I fundamentally disagree with him.

That brings me to my conclusion. The Industrial Relations Amendment (Transport Sector Gig Workers

and Others) Bill 2025 is a good bill. It is an example of this Parliament acting ahead of the debate. The other

pertinent part of the debate—which Ms Abigail Boyd and the Hon. Mark Banasiak talked about—is the long

history of the Legislative Council getting involved and leading the nation in this debate. Before Fair Work Act

amendments came through, before the Federal Parliament was engaged, the Legislative Council was doing it. It

has been doing it from 2015 onwards, when these platforms came in. I am really pleased, frankly, that we did a

lot of work to ensure that this Parliament was available, first, for workers to tell their stories; second, to interrogate

what we were being told; and third, to formulate not just a policy prescription but the capacity to deal with the

differences with the industry. That work has allowed us to bring this legislation forward.

I thank a few people. I know that Ms Abigail Boyd and the Hon. Mark Banasiak will agree with me in first

thanking the staff of the select committee on the impact of technological and other change on the future of work

and workers in New South Wales. The amazing work our staff did in helping us formulate good policy must be

remembered. It is a big part of how we got to this change and is a commendation of the committee system. At the

time, that select committee I established was the first in any Australian parliament to look into these issues. We

led, and that is a good thing. Obviously, I thank Sophie Cotsis, who is destined to go down as a Labor legend for

her industrial relations reforms as well and for once more leading the nation in not just proposing reforms but also

getting them through. Good on her and her staff, especially Tom, who has shown the patience of Job when it

comes to enacting this particular law.

I mention a few people from the TWU. Many others have made special mention of Richard Olsen, Mick

McIntosh, Rob Pirc, President Tony Matthews and many others. But this campaign goes back a lot longer. I cannot

forget that the national secretary of the TWU, Michael Kaine—someone whom you may know, Madam Deputy

President Kaine—is also a big part of this, as are Senator Tony Sheldon, Wayne Forno, Michael Aird and many

others. But I particularly point out the owner-drivers committee of the TWU. My first proper job was to assist it

in the campaign to save this section. The House may well be shocked to hear that, when I worked for the TWU,

I had this occasional habit of sporting a bowtie.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Bring that back.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: Careful what you wish for. I recall the first time I was given the

responsibility to assist in this campaign and told I had to front the owner-drivers committee of the TWU. I was

proud. I remember rocking up to level 3 of the Harry Quinn building, which is still a disastrous building. How it

ever got approval, I do not know. I gave a forceful presentation. I thought it was great. I thought it went well. The

next morning I was called into the secretary's office, and the secretary said, "What did you do, turning up to a

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 61

meeting of the owner-drivers in a bowtie? They think you are an idiot. They think we have given them a fool to

run the campaign. You are never to do that again." I thank the owner-drivers committee of the TWU. Despite its

best efforts, I survived that job and got to this place to be able to do this. I particularly recall Paul Dewberry, who

is still chairing the committee after such a long time, and his team and how hard they worked on this, and I am so

glad. It is a career honour to move this legislation. For all those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): The question is that this bill be now read a

second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

CLAIM FARMING PRACTICES PROHIBITION BILL 2025

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (17:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025. The bill will create a

new Act to prohibit the practice of claim farming in relation to certain personal injury claims under the Civil

Liability Act 2002, as well as personal injury claims arising from intentional torts. Specifically, the bill will

prohibit a person from both contacting another person to encourage them to make a relevant claim with the

expectation of receiving a fee or other benefit, and buying or selling a relevant claim referral. The bill will also

amend the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 to impose additional consequences on legal

practitioners who engage in the prohibited conduct.

"Claim farming" refers to the practice of procuring information about a potential claimant and persuading

them to make a civil claim. Claim farming can involve a range of problematic conduct, including obtaining a

person's personal information without their consent; making unsolicited contact with the person to pressure or

harass them to make a claim; presenting as a claims management service, a survivor advocate organisation or

similar; selling claims to a lawyer or other claim farming organisation without the claimant's knowledge; and

making promises about potential legal entitlements which may not be accurate or in the claimant's best interests.

Anecdotally, stakeholders report that claim farmers are paying third parties between $50 and $100 for each

potential new claimant the third party identifies and selling claims to law practices for between $800 and $10,000.

I seek leave to have the balance of my remarks incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Lawyers may then pass on these costs to claimants through disbursement fees upon the settlement of a claim, which may not be

properly understood by claimants.

These practices are unethical and can have negative and traumatic impacts on people when they are most vulnerable, particularly

where the person targeted is a victim-survivor of historical child abuse.

By prohibiting claim farming in personal injury claims under the Civil Liability Act and personal injury claims arising from

intentional torts, this bill will protect the community from this kind of exploitative conduct.

The Government has undertaken extensive consultation during the development of the bill.

In May 2024 an issues paper to canvass views on potential reform options was distributed to targeted stakeholders. Stakeholder

submissions in response to the paper informed the development of a draft bill.

In January 2025 a draft bill and accompanying background paper were released for public consultation, including via the Have Your

Say website, and 32 stakeholder submissions were received. The non-confidential submissions are published on the Department of

Communities and Justice website.

I thank all of the stakeholders and members of the community who engaged with the consultation process and provided feedback on

the draft bill.

The New South Wales Government is confident that the bill as introduced strikes the right balance between protecting members of

the community from unethical, predatory and exploitative claim farming practices, while preserving legitimate pathways and practices

that facilitate access to justice.

I now turn to the scope of the bill.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 62

The bill will apply to certain personal injury claims to which the Civil Liability Act applies, as well as personal injury claims arising

from intentional torts. This includes most common law personal injury claims, including those related to child abuse, assault, medical

negligence, and public and product liability.

Clause 4 (a) of the bill states that the prohibitions apply in relation to claims for "personal injury damages", as that term is defined by

section 11 of the Civil Liability Act. That term relates to death or injury and includes prenatal injury, impairment of a person's physical

or mental condition, and disease.

The bill also applies to intentional torts—that is, to intentional acts done with intent to cause injury or death or that are sexual assault

or other sexual misconduct. While these claims are generally excluded from the Civil Liability Act by section 3B (1) (a) of that Act,

this bill does not adopt that exclusion.

Clause 4 (a) does, however, exclude certain personal injury claims from the scope of the bill. These are specified in section 3B (1) (b)

to (h) of the Civil Liability Act.

These include claims for dust diseases, motor accidents, workers compensation, public transport accidents, victims of crime, sporting

injuries compensation and compensation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Many of these other claim areas have separate and distinct legislative frameworks, responding to the features of the types of claims

they cover.

I now turn to the key features of the bill.

The bill will make it an offence to contact a potential claimant to solicit them to make a claim, where the person making contact

expects to receive a fee or benefit.

Clause 5 (1) and (2) of the bill make it an offence for any person to contact another person:

(a) to solicit them to make a claim; or

(b) to refer them to another person to provide a service in relation to a claim.

if the person making the contact:

(a) receives, or agrees or expects to receive, consideration because of the contact; or

(b) asks for someone else to receive, or agrees to someone else receiving, consideration because of the contact.

The intention of these "contact offences" is to prohibit the uninvited contacting of a potential claimant in circumstances where the

person making the contact has a financial motivation to do so.

The contact offences are not intended to prohibit selfless, good faith communication with the victim of a personal injury—for

example, by a friend—that makes the victim aware of their potential claim or suggests they explore their legal rights.

Under clause 5 (3), it will also be an offence for a person to arrange for someone else to commit the contact offences—for instance,

where an employer directs an employee to contact a potential claimant.

The contact offences carry a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, currently equivalent to $55,000.

Clause 5 (4) of the bill contains several key exemptions to the contact offences. These will safeguard access to justice and preserve

the proper functioning of the legal services sector. The contact offences will not apply:

(a) if contact is by way of notification of representative proceedings—that is, a "class action";

(b) if a law practice contacts a potential claimant for whom they have previously acted, subject to a reasonable belief

that the potential claimant will not object to the contact; or

community legal service or an industrial organisation, and the law practice has confirmed that the representative

reasonably believes the potential claimant will not object to the contact.

The term "law practice" includes an "associate" of a law practice, as both of those terms are defined in the Legal Profession Uniform

Law (NSW). This is a broad term that includes individual legal practitioners, principals, employees, and law firms.

Clause 5 (5) of the bill expressly confirms that the accused—the person making or arranging contact—bears an evidential burden in

relation to the exemptions:

(a) that is, the accused will need to point to some evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that an exemption

applies.

(b) however, once raised, the prosecution will still bear the legal burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the

exemption does not apply.

The bill will also make it an offence to buy or sell a claim referral.

Clause 6 (1) and (2) of the bill will make it an offence for any person:

(a) to receive consideration for referring a claim to another person—that is, to sell a claim referral;

(b) to provide consideration to another person for the referral of a claim—that is, to buy a claim referral;

(d) to arrange for a third party to buy or sell a claim referral.

"Consideration" is defined to mean a fee or benefit.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 63

A "claim referral" will include:

(a) a referral arising from services already provided to a claimant—that is, the sale of work done to date for a claimant

(for example, the preparation of an evidentiary witness statement)—and

(b) the disclosure of a claimant's personal details—for example, selling the claimant's contact details so the buyer can

contact the claimant to offer their services.

The "referral offences" will carry a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, currently equivalent to $55,000.

Clause 6 (3) of the bill confirms that the prohibitions against buying a claim referral apply regardless of whether it is the buyer or

someone else who ultimately provides a service in relation to the claim.

There are important exemptions to the referral offences under clause 6 (4) of the bill.

Firstly, the referral offences will not apply where a law practice is acting for a claimant and, as part of that continued legal

representation, it refers the claimant to a third party to provide another service in relation to the claim—for example, an expert

medico-legal report.

Secondly, the referral offences will not apply in relation to the sale of all or part of a law practice to a purchasing law practice, if the

claimant approves the referral and the sale value is not more than the claimant's unbilled legal costs at the time of the sale.

Law practices will be permitted to recover remuneration for work done to date but will be prohibited from profiting from the sale

itself, beyond the value of the legal work completed.

The sale of "part" of a law practice is undefined, and the intention is that this will include the transfer of any single, or any number

of, claim referrals to a purchasing law practice.

The evidential burden will be placed on the accused—the alleged claim farmer—to point to some evidence to suggest there is a

reasonable possibility that an exemption applies.

Once raised, the prosecution will still bear the legal burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the exemption does not apply.

There will also be a general exemption to all of the offences in relation to the general public advertising of legal services.

Clause 7 of the bill is included for the avoidance of doubt to confirm that publicly advertising a law practice's services will not be

prohibited contact, and payment for advertising services will not be a prohibited claim referral even where the advertising results in

a claim.

I turn now to the operational provisions of the bill.

Clause 8 of the bill provides that the limitation period for all offences in the bill is:

(a) two years after the alleged commission of the offence; or

(b) two years after the date on which evidence of the alleged offence first came to the attention of a police officer.

These are longer than the default summary offence limitation period of six months under section 179 (1) of the Criminal Procedure

Act 1986. A longer limitation period is required for the following reasons:

(a) the offending conduct may be difficult to detect until the end of a claim, for example, a disbursement charged for

the payment of a claim referral may be identified during costs assessment.

(b) personal injury claims commonly take up to one to two years to be resolved.

commencement of the claim.

Clause 9 of the bill provides that the offences may be dealt with summarily before the Local Court. This is in line with the maximum

penalties imposed for the offences and is consistent with the approach taken in Queensland and the approach taken in a bill currently

before the South Australian Parliament.

Clause 10 of the bill requires a statutory review to be commenced as soon as practicable after the period of two years from

commencement.

The time period for the statutory review is appropriate, noting in particular the matters that I have just referred to, that justify the

longer limitation period and the time that it takes for criminal charges to proceed through the criminal justice system to finalisation.

Schedule 1, part 2 to the bill contains transitional provisions.

The new offences will apply only to conduct that occurs after the Act commences. However, the referral offences under clause 6 of

the bill will not be contravened where payment for a claim referral occurs after the Act commences, if:

(a) the referral itself occurred before commencement; and

(b) a written agreement for that referral was entered into before commencement.

Importantly, lawyers will face additional consequences for engaging in claim farming.

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Legal Profession Unform Law Application Act 2014.

The bill will insert a new section 61A into part 6 of that Act, which relates to particular kinds of legal costs. Under the new section,

law practices that are convicted of a claim farming offence:

(a) will not be entitled to charge or recover legal costs in relation to the claim to which the conviction relates; and

(b) will be required to immediately refund any legal costs already received in relation to the claim.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 64

This will ensure that the fine imposed on a law practice for a conviction will not simply be absorbed as a "cost of doing business".

The bill will also amend section 165B of that Act to specify that conduct by a lawyer that contravenes the new claim farming Act

may be unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.

This means that the NSW Legal Services Commissioner may investigate alleged misconduct by lawyers in connection with these

offences, regardless of whether charges have been laid by NSW Police or a conviction has been recorded.

This bill, if enacted, will protect members of the community from predatory and exploitative claim farming practices, while also

preserving legitimate pathways and practices that facilitate access to justice.

I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (17:46): I speak on behalf of the Opposition about the Claim Farming

Practices Prohibition Bill. The bill will prohibit the practice commonly known as claim farming. This is an

unethical practice engaged in by a very small number of legal practices and other persons to aggressively solicit

persons to make compensation claims in tort. Even though the overwhelming majority of the legal profession

behaves ethically and in the best interests of its clients and the community, it is appropriate to legislate to prohibit

claim farming. It is a rare practice, but it is also an unacceptable practice that should be prohibited. Claim farming

involves a kind of secret commission or undisclosed fee to the claim farmer. This is sometimes paid by a lawyer

at the end of a claim against the vulnerable claimant.

Claim farming occurs when legal practices or other persons actively solicit claimants—there have been

examples of the entire population of a prison being contacted and asked whether anyone has a claim—and

indicating to them that they may have suffered some tortious damage for which they can recover. Claim farming

often exploits vulnerable claimants by exposing them to high-pressure tactics, including what are often misleading

promises, to coerce them into lodging claims. Victim-survivors of child abuse have been a particular target of this

practice. They have a significant risk of re-traumatisation and financial loss through these aggressive practices.

There are a number of reports of the compensation available to victim-survivors through the civil redress scheme

being deposited, as part of the claim farming practice, into a solicitor's trust account, to cover fees on a separate

claim, with the promise of a higher damages payout. This may or may not eventuate, but any civil redress money

is exhausted in the payment of professional fees, leaving the claimant with nothing but revisited trauma.

Claims that are pursued for the benefit of claim farmers and unscrupulous lawyers can result in a cost order

against the vulnerable claimant if the case is ultimately unsuccessful. This puts the claimant in a much worse

financial position than they would have been in before being contacted by the claim farmer. Claim farmers also

make extensive use of referral services. Adding insult to injury, the referral fee paid for the claim is often charged

to the client as a disbursement. So the claimant is charged for the cost of the solicitor sourcing their business.

Anecdotal reports indicate that claims can be sold to law practices for anywhere between $800 to $10,000,

indicating the value of the new business to the claim farmer.

Claim farming is also harmful to the administration of justice. In the rush to make claims, it is clear that a

number of the claims made are fraudulent. Only last month, seven people were arrested and charged over alleged

fraudulent sexual abuse compensation claims, part of a claim farming scheme that targeted the Department of

Education and was allegedly worth more than $1 billion. New South Wales police alleged that claim farmers

approached former young offenders, inmates and public school students, encouraging them to file fraudulent

compensation claims for historic child sexual abuse while in care. Prospective claimants were coached on how to

make fraudulent claims through various Sydney law firms. Apparently, one-third of inmates at Cooma

Correctional Centre submitted claims, all of which will now be investigated by police and a number of which are

thought to be fraudulent.

The bill will prohibit a person from contacting another person to encourage them to make a relevant claim,

prohibit a person from buying or selling a relevant claim referral and, importantly, prevent lawyers who are

convicted of those offences from charging legal costs in relation to the claim and require them to refund any costs

already received. That is appropriate because solicitors should not be able to benefit financially from claim

farming practices and will also be liable for criminal penalties. The bill will not prevent claimants from making

legitimate claims and will protect them from aggressive and unethical practices.

The bill contains a number of protections and exemptions for what we would regard as normal and

legitimate activities, including the buying and selling of legal practices or the referral of clients to another law

firm with more expertise in a particular area of work. The central element of the offences portion of the bill is that

consideration must flow for a referral. That does not include the sadly all too common situation where, at a

barbeque, somebody who is known to have a legal qualification may be asked for a bit of advice or a referral to

somebody who could do the work. No payment is made for that type of referral, and therefore it will not be caught

by the bill.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 65

The Hon. Rose Jackson: You are safe.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: That is right. Only harmful and wrongful practices for undisclosed fees are

covered by the bill. Claim farming harms the vulnerable and harms our entire community. It incentivises litigation

for commercial gain rather than for justice. It erodes public confidence in our institutions, clogs courts with

speculative or exaggerated claims and exploits vulnerable members of society. It can lead to inflated legal costs,

increased insurance premiums and the misuse of court time and resources. Individuals targeted by claim farmers

may be misled into pursuing claims that they do not fully understand or that are not in their best interests, often

without informed legal advice. The bill aims to protect claimants, discourage opportunistic and unethical

behaviour, and ensure that our system is based on justice rather than exploitation. We are happy to support it.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (17:52): On behalf of The Greens I indicate that we will not oppose the Claim

Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025. It is important to acknowledge the significance of personal injury claims

as a legal option for the victims and survivors of harm, including child abuse. Claim farming is essentially conduct

that involves unsolicited contact where personal information is obtained without consent in relation to personal

injury claims. The bill is a response to the unethical tactics employed by individuals and organisations to

aggressively push people, often involved in personal injury cases, to pursue compensation claims. The practice

has become most perverse where claim farmers prey on some of the most vulnerable, such as victims and survivors

of child abuse and child sexual abuse, including when such victims and survivors are in prison.

The bill will prohibit a person from contacting another person to solicit them to make a relevant claim,

prohibit a person from buying or selling a relevant claim referral and, importantly, prevent lawyers who are

convicted of those offences from charging legal costs in relation to the claim and require them to refund any costs

already received. The bill will prohibit claim farming for personal injury claims under the Civil Liability Act 2002

and arising from intentional torts—intentional acts that result in injury or death. The Civil Liability Act applies to

many types of claims, including serious injury, medical negligence, and public and product liability. Intentional

torts cover acts such as child abuse, assault and deprivation of liberty.

As a lawyer I am aware of the duty all practising lawyers share to act in a client's best interest, including

to advise them of causes of actions open to them and, of course, the limitation dates of those causes. That is a

special fiduciary relationship. Personal injury claims are an important option for access to justice for victims and

survivors of abuse. It is also important that victims and survivors are able to choose whom they turn to for legal

and other support. Those people should not be harassed, pressured, deceived or taken advantage of, especially not

when seeking assistance with their access to justice, redress and compensation options.

The bill is brought before the House in the context of seven recent arrests for an alleged fraudulent claim

farming syndicate that apparently netted more than $1 billion. Police alleged that claim farmers at the heart of the

scheme coached former young offenders, inmates and public school students on how to file false compensation

claims for child sexual abuse while in care, then sold those referrals on to law firms in Sydney. That case involves

fraudulent activity. It is important to recognise that, whether or not the prohibition in the bill takes place and the

laws are introduced, the conduct that is currently being alleged and pursued by the New South Wales police is

fraudulent and will always be criminal.

Claim farming is currently legal in most States, including New South Wales. Intermediaries are allowed to

sell on the details of victims to law firms, who then make claims on their behalf. Last week's arrests were not due

to claim farming per se but due to allegations that the claims being farmed were fraudulent. It is important to

remember that. This type of claim farming is unethical conduct that undermines the integrity and operation of the

justice system. It is exploitative and causes serious distress for victims and survivors of abuse because it subjects

them to harassment, intimidation and high-pressure tactics from predatory actors. Going beyond that, claim

farming has been too easy to exploit, and those fraudulent cases have created an environment that makes it harder

for victims and survivors to be believed and to get justice. It undermines legitimate claims by survivors of abuse,

who can be incredibly vulnerable and already distrustful of the legal system.

It is important to understand how these practices particularly target victims and survivors who experience

heightened marginalisation. That includes victims and survivors who are First Nations people, including stolen

generations survivors and victims and survivors living in rural, regional and remote communities. The Royal

Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recognised that people in prison were more likely

than people in the general population to have experienced child sexual abuse. That is very relevant to us because

there are more people in prison in New South Wales than in any other Australian State or Territory.

In the submissions to the discussion paper about the bill, many reports outlined how claim farming schemes

target prisoners and offer them compensation for disclosing the names of other prisoners who they think have

experienced child sexual abuse. Claim farming can become entrenched in those places, where people experience

heightened marginalisation and inadequate support. For those reasons it is necessary to support the bill for the

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 66

protection of victims and survivors. With that being said, I reflect on some of the concerns set out in the public

submissions. My worry is that addressing the issue through a blanket prohibition of the conduct will make it harder

for some individuals to access justice in areas where communication is restricted, such as prisons and regional

and remote communities. The bill will directly limit the ability for those people to be informed of an entirely

legitimate cause of action.

The issue is undoubtedly nuanced. Any issue that is intertwined with traumatic events like systemic abuse

requires close scrutiny and attention. It requires regulation at a systemic level that properly balances access to

justice issues with the protection of survivors and victims. As the Law Society of New South Wales stated in its

submission, many regional communities rely on word-of-mouth communications and the genuine transfer of

information throughout the profession and relevant sectors and environments. I question the approach of a blanket

prohibition rather than strong and robust regulation. That said, I believe the bill is crucial to address and protect

the people that predatory claim farmers target.

Prohibiting claim farming will not prevent abuse victims from bringing a claim for compensation, which

can be done by contacting a lawyer directly. It also will not stop the practice of advocacy and support organisations

and community legal centres assisting victims and survivors to access justice. Rather than a ban, what should have

been introduced today was a regulation to support organisations that do such work out of an access-to-justice

motivation and not a profit-driven, predatory-style motivation. A government with a genuine understanding of the

way access to justice works would have introduced a scheme with much more robust regulation.

If the Government was really focused on access to justice and protection of victims and survivors, we

would have seen a funding increase for those good community legal services and advocacy organisations that

carry the load and do important work. It would be remiss of me not to say that this is a terribly lazy approach to

justice. It would be really good to see the end of the Government's lazy approach to justice. It regulates the things

that it should be banning, and it bans the things that it should be regulating. We should be regulating this area

firmly to make sure that we are protecting victims from predatory behaviour.

I fear that this lazy approach will limit the capacity of those who are genuine advocates of access to justice

to assist some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The reality is that the community justice

organisations this Government thinks will continue this work are the same organisations that do not have the

resources to do the deep work that victims and survivors of abuse need right now. That is a real fear held not just

by The Greens but also by all those advocates and families and friends of victims and survivors. While The Greens

support the bill, our strong message to the Government and the Attorney General is that it is time to do much

better. It is time to work out how we can best serve victims who have been wronged by the State and members of

the community. Let us do some of the hard work, because right now the fundamental premise that is seriously

lacking in this State is access to justice.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (18:03): I make a contribution to debate on the Claim Framing Practices

Prohibition Bill 2025. I support the bill for the reasons already canvassed by many members. However, I do so

with reservations. While the bill seeks to close a loophole regarding large-scale attempts to defraud the taxpayer,

I place on record that it still leaves the back door open to acts of fraud via the victim support services recognition

payments. I previously brought the attention of the House to this matter on 13 February this year. While I will not

restate my speech in its entirety, I will remind the House how easy it was for victim support services to also

become a victim. I said:

In late October last year The Sydney Morning Herald reported that two men had been arrested by the New South Wales Police for

allegedly defrauding the compensation scheme to the tune of over $218,000. The scam was not overly clever or elaborate. Let me

explain. The two con men filed two dozen fake victim reports to gain payments ranging from $5,000 to $15,000. Because a [Sexual

Assault Reporting Option] report has the option not to trigger a formal police investigation, anyone can invent a story of sexual assault

and provide no documentary evidence other than a bogus counselling report.

I say "bogus" because "counsellor" is not a protected term like "psychologist", for instance. Anyone can hang a shingle out the front

of an office with "counsellor" on it. There is no legal requirement to meet and no specific training or experience is required. Without

training and without skills, an individual can write up a report that gets stapled to a story of sexual assault and the Government opens

the wallet of monetary compensation. We have got to a point that with no police investigation, no evidence tested in court and no

cross-examination of the alleged victim to test the veracity of their claims, the scammer can use their story to get $15,000 from the

pockets of taxpayers all on the balance of probabilities.

The bill is deficient because it will not close that back door to possible acts of fraud. The Attorney General

confessed to this in his second reading speech. He said:

Clause 4 (a) does, however, exclude certain personal injury claims from the scope of the bill. These are specified in section 3B (1) (b)

to section 3B (1) (h) of the Civil Liability Act. These include claims for dust diseases, motor accidents, workers compensation, public

transport accidents, victims of crime, sporting injuries compensation and compensation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

That revelation should concern all members of this House. New South Wales police are certainly concerned at the

ease with which that scheme can be defrauded and the bill does not do anything to address their concerns.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 67

Detective Superintendent Gordon Arbinja was interviewed by The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 February this

year. He named the Sexual Assault Reporting Option as being a doorway through which criminals can illegally

access public funds via a redress payment on fraudulent claims. Detective Superintendent Arbinja highlighted the

deficiencies in the redress scheme when he stated:

The problem is the system is porous and needs to be strengthened.

He also said that none of the victims the police spoke to wanted to go down the police route. He further stated that

"the threshold to put a claim in is low". The police have already said what the problem is. They identified it some

time ago. I have spoken about it. This bill was an opportunity for the Attorney General to address the matter, yet

it does not. The problem is allowed to continue. The bill does not address the concerns of the police, does not

strengthen the system and does not require a police investigation to test the veracity of claims. It does nothing to

raise the threshold to lodge a claim.

I have had concerns about the ease with which the scheme can be defrauded for some time. That is why in

November last year I put question No. 2955 to the Attorney General, seeking clarification and comfort that there

are strong systems in place to ensure that taxpayer money is not being handed out to bad actors. I wanted to know

the total payout figures for the years 2023 and 2024. The Attorney General's answer raised more questions than it

answered. Firstly, he confirmed that the threshold for receiving a compensation payout was very low. Secondly,

it appears that he does not know the total payout figures. Why? Because there is no digital system in place to

record them. The Attorney General's answer stated:

The data requested is not captured in the relevant case management system in an easily exportable manner. Obtaining this data would

require the diversion of frontline staff to review every application submitted during the relevant period noting there were tens of

thousands of applications for a recognition payment alone made in FY 23/24.

The Attorney General has admitted there are serious issues with the scheme, including the ease with which it can

be defrauded and the lack of financial management systems to monitor the expenditure.

The bill does absolutely nothing to address the heart of the problem. As I said at the outset, I support the

bill reluctantly because of my concerns. True victims and the taxpayers of New South Wales deserve a better bill.

Victims deserve a system that supports them in their time of need, and taxpayers need assurance that the finite

resource of their tax dollars is being managed with the utmost care. Above all, they deserve a government that

will do the hard work of closing loopholes. Sadly, they have been let down by the bill before the House.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (18:09): I contribute to debate on the Claim Farming Practices

Prohibition Bill 2025. I listened intently to the contribution from Ms Sue Higginson. She raised concerns about

the issues that potentially occur when we introduce legislation that might adversely impact victim-survivors. Many

people hold that concern. Importantly, the bill is very narrow in its scope. It is designed to stamp out claim farming,

which is the practice of paying a fee to somebody to obtain their details and encouraging them to lodge a claim.

Claim farming is a practice where one obtains information about a potential claimant and then pressures that

person into making a claim. The bill seeks to eliminate that.

Problematic conduct involved in claim farming includes organisations or individuals obtaining a person's

personal information such as their contact details, like an email address, telephone number or name, or other

circumstances that might provide general information about where a potential claim might be lodged. That is all

done without the person's consent, so they do not know that someone has actively sought to obtain their

information. Someone then makes uninvited contact with that person at their house or workplace to talk to them

and pressure them into making a claim because other people in like circumstances have also filed claims.

The types of organisations the bill seeks to prohibit from doing those things often present themselves as

claims management services. They say they simply facilitate the ordinary claims process. There are offences for

particular types of serious misconduct for members of the legal profession in the bill, but the focus is on other

organisations that may, in effect, earn a fee to pull people into a larger network of claims so that they can expand

the number of people taking action. That is often done without those people being aware of why they are making

a claim. That is the practice of claim farming.

The organisations that gather that information by talking to potential claimants then sell that information

for a fee. It is usually sold to lawyers who then follow up and lodge a claim on that person's behalf. We have heard

evidence that in some cases people do not know why they are making a claim, other than that they are told, "Sign

here. This is good. You will earn something out of it at the end of the day." The Government has heard reports

that third parties earn fees of $50 or $100 per claimant. Those organisations then package up those claims and sell

them, in other jurisdictions, to law firms for $800, $900 or even as much as $10,000, depending on the scope of

the potential claim.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 68

What often happens is that those costs are passed back to the claimants through fees, and that practice

ought not occur. Those practices are unethical and must be stamped out, but it is a careful balancing act. We must

ensure that we maintain the ability of victim-survivors and others to make claims, but not in such a way that people

are unduly pressured into making claims because of a financial pyramid in which people are earning commissions

and fees are going between people up and down that pyramid in order to facilitate those claims. That is the practice

of claim farming, and it can be traumatic for people.

In some cases people simply want to forget what has happened and they do not want to have anything to

do with the organisation that has caused them distress or harm. They just want to walk away, but people incessantly

call them and say, "Other people are making claims. You must also make a claim in relation to this." It is exactly

that type of pressure, which is referred to as claim farming, that the bill seeks to prohibit. The bill will create a

new Act to prohibit claim farming in relation to certain personal injury claims only under the Civil Liability Act

2002, as well as personal injury claims arising from intentional torts.

In his second reading speech, the Attorney General said that this would include most common-law personal

injury claims, including those related to child abuse, assault, medical negligence, and public and product liability,

but it excludes other personal injury claims from the scope of the bill as specified in section 3B (1),

subparagraphs (b) to (h) of the Civil Liability Act. They involve claims for matters like dust diseases, motor

accidents, workers compensation, public transport accidents, victims of crime, sporting injuries compensation and

compensation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

The bill makes it an offence for one person to contact another person to encourage them to make a relevant

claim—but, importantly, with the expectation of receiving a fee or other benefit for doing so. It also creates a

summary offence that will prohibit a person from buying or selling a claim referral. The bill includes exemptions

to those offences to safeguard the effective provision of legal services and to protect legitimate practices that

facilitate access to justice by ensuring that members of the public are informed of their legal rights. The important

part of that is, in essence, the payment of the fee.

The bill does not capture people who legitimately assist victims of institutional abuse and do not earn a fee

for doing so. If they provide the normal assistance that one would expect—by explaining to people their rights

and saying, "Go and see somebody if you want to"—the bill does not capture that conduct. It only captures the

conduct of somebody being paid a fee for a referral. I could make a number of other remarks but, in the interests

of brevity, I will leave it there. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (18:18): On behalf of the Legalise Cannabis Party I support the

Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025. The bill aims to prohibit claim farming practices by making it an

offence to, firstly, make certain contact with a potential claimant in relation to civil proceedings for personal injury

damages and, secondly, pay or receive referral fees in relation to civil proceedings for personal injury damages.

Strike Force Veritas was established by the NSW Police Force State Crime Command's Financial Crimes Squad

in February 2024 to investigate fraudulent compensation claims for historical sexual abuse.

The Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025 proposes to create two new summary offences that

prohibit a person from contacting another person to encourage them to make a claim with the expectation of

receiving a fee or other benefit, and buying or selling a claim referral. The maximum penalty for the two claim

farming offences under the bill is 500 penalty units, or $55,000. Claims covered by the bill will include most

common-law personal injury claims, including those related to child sexual abuse, assault, medical negligence,

and public and product liability with some exceptions, as outlined by the Hon. Cameron Murphy.

The Legalise Cannabis Party supports the bill. It adds more protection to our system to eliminate what we

think is an egregious practice. However, I note that the bill has come before the House relatively rapidly.

We believe there are matters that the Government and the Attorney General have not yet addressed relating to

victim-survivors making claims and getting the compensation they deserve. The decision of the High Court

in Bird v DP has created a problem that needs to be addressed urgently: protecting victims of child sexual abuse

when perpetrators were not in formal employer/employee relationships.

The Bird decision is affecting victims now. We welcome the Government acting quickly on claim farming

practices and urge it to consider the vicarious liability bill I introduced. Claims are on hold or being abandoned

now. Matters that are before the courts are being adversely affected now. Having to address this decision has

significant administrative and personal costs and trauma now. In our opinion, the anti-claim farming legislation

is somewhat of a distraction. If people have engaged in fraud, they can be prosecuted under ordinary criminal law.

All claims are vetted by plaintiff and defendant lawyers and all evidence needs to be approved. Affidavit evidence

must be signed off by an officer of the court. The Government should be addressing Bird and not being distracted

by claim farming, which is not as important as supporting victims with new legislation to address the Bird

decision. While we support this bill, we remain concerned that there is a massive class of victim-survivors out

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 69

there in limbo. They are calling on the Government to retrospectively legislate to ensure they can have the day in

court they deserve.

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (18:22): In reply: I thank the Hon. Susan Carter, Ms Sue

Higginson, the Hon. Rod Roberts, the Hon. Cameron Murphy and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham for their

contributions to this debate. The Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Bill 2025 will create a new Act to prohibit

claim farming in relation to claims for personal injury damages, including those arising from intentional torts such

as child abuse. In introducing this bill, the Government is acting to protect people who have suffered personal

injury, including victim-survivors of abuse, from being exploited by claim farmers. Importantly, measures have

been included in the bill to ensure that access to justice is not compromised. Our Government acknowledges the

importance of supporting victim-survivors to access trauma-informed legal advice and support services. The bill

will not in any way prevent important organisations like those from supporting victims and survivors, but what it

will do is protect people from the unscrupulous conduct of claim farmers.

I will briefly address some matters raised during debate on the bill. Ms Sue Higginson put forward the

proposition that a blanket prohibition will limit access to justice and the capacity for genuine advocates to assist

potential claimants. Ms Higginson has also suggested that a robust regulatory approach should have instead been

adopted. The bill specifically targets unethical, predatory and exploitative behaviours associated with claim

farming through the two offences relating to contact and referral. It does not prohibit legitimate legal practices

that help potential claimants access the justice system.

Importantly, both the contact and referral offences in the bill require the contacting of a potential claimant

and the referral of a claim to be made for consideration, which is defined under the bill as a fee or other benefit.

If there is no fee or benefit, the contact or referral in question would not be an offence. This ensures there is no

barrier to altruistic contact with a personal injury victim by individuals and organisations—such as health

practitioners, victim advocacy groups and family members—to refer claimants to lawyers, and legitimate referrals

of claims by lawyers.

For example, a friend of a potential claimant will not commit an offence if they refer the potential claimant

to a lawyer as long as there is no fee or benefit exchanged in relation to the contact and referral. Similarly, a lawyer

will not commit an offence if they refer a claim to another lawyer because they do not have expertise in the

relevant area, as long as there is no fee or benefit exchanged in relation to the referral. Various exemptions have

also been included to the proposed offences to ensure that legitimate contact and referral practices are protected.

Ms Sue Higginson has also suggested that a funding increase to community legal services and other

advocacy organisations is required. Funding for legal assistance services is a separate, albeit important, issue. But

I also note that under the National Access to Justice Partnership [NAJP], commencing 1 July 2025, the New South

Wales legal assistance sector will receive $1 billion in Commonwealth funding over five years. That includes

funding for Community Legal Centres, the Women's Legal Service, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Legal Service, family violence prevention legal services, and Legal Aid commissions. Importantly, for the first

time, the NAJP will include dedicated funding streams for women's legal services and family violence prevention

and legal services.

The Hon. Rod Roberts raised issues regarding alleged fraudulent activity in connection to the Victims

Support Scheme. Fraud is obviously a crime and something to be taken seriously, but it is separate to the issue of

claim farming that the bill seeks to address. I note that the claim farming offences in this bill are separate to, and

do not affect, existing fraud offences. If fraud offences are committed with respect to the Victims Support Scheme,

they can be investigated and charged under offences that already exist. I also acknowledge the advocacy of the

Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, who pointed out the need to address the fallout from a High Court decision. He is very

passionate about the issue and remains deeply respected by the Government for his advocacy. I understand the

Attorney General is engaging with him on that matter. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The question is that this bill be now read a

second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I shall now leave the chair. The House will

resume at 8.00 p.m.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 70

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2025

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (20:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2025, which makes

necessary amendments to further streamline the planning system, support the delivery of housing and provide

certainty to the construction industry, local communities and other stakeholders. The Minns Labor Government

is committed to addressing the housing challenges facing New South Wales and has acted decisively. The

challenge before us is complex and requires innovative thinking and a strong commitment to cutting through

unnecessary red tape that has too often slowed progress. Families are struggling to find affordable homes, young

people are being priced out of the housing market, and renters are facing unprecedented pressures. Uncertainty in

the planning system has impacted on the delivery of new homes and simple modifications of development

consents, and it has held back progress at a time when we clearly need efficient, effective and streamlined planning

processes. The bill continues the Government's pragmatic and functional reforms of the planning system,

specifically to development assessment and determination. I thank the other place for progressing this important

amendment bill to the House.

I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my second reading speech.

Leave granted.

This bill responds to decisions from three separate challenges in the New South Wales courts to restore certainty in planning

assessment decisions.

Unfortunately, in two of these cases, the decisions of the Court of Appeal and Land and Environment Court have caused considerable

uncertainty.

In the third case, the decision established a positive planning outcome, but the pathway used to reach that conclusion is not without

uncertainty. This bill will clarify the position.

This bill proposes amendments to:

 Sections 4.55 and 4.56 of the planning Act to clarify the powers of a consent authority to modify a development consent.

 Schedule 1 of the planning Act to provide certainty around how submissions are counted.

 Section 4.24 of the planning Act to provide the ability for a consent authority to assess and determine a subsequent development application, subject to conditions, following the determination of a concept development application despite

any inconsistency between the concept development application and the subsequent development application.

Following constructive amendments agreed in the other place, this bill supports housing delivery and a streamlined planning system

by:

 Removing the statutory requirement for the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to obtain and publish advice from the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] before declaring certain types of residential development to be State significant

development [SSD] under section 4.36 (3) of the planning Act.

 Requiring the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure [DPHI] to notify a council as soon as practicable, following a decision by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to declare certain development as SSD.

 Implementing less formal meeting arrangements for the HDA to deliver high-quality housing advice to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces more quickly.

 It also requires the HDA to publish a record of its meeting and any resolutions and reasons within 14 days of the meeting, supporting transparent decision-making.

 Providing for the DPHI's Community Participation Plan to specify a reduced minimum exhibition period for certain residential SSD projects, provided that period is at least 14 days.

 Modernising requirements for affordable housing contributions to better align with current needs and expectations across New South Wales.

 Removing outdated references to the "Six Cities Region" under division 3.1 and preparing the way for a new regional strategic plan for Greater Sydney to be delivered and make the strategic planning framework consistent across New South

Wales.

 Requiring the Secretary of DPHI to review a regional strategic plan every five years after it is made.

These measures reflect the Minns Government's commitment to cutting red tape, improving the efficiency of our planning system,

and continuing to tackle the housing challenge.

I will now outline to the House why each proposed amendment is essential, and how they will be implemented in practice.

I refer to the amendment regarding the modification of development consents.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 71

This amendment responds to part of the NSW Court of Appeal's decision in Ku-Ring-Gai Council v Buyozo Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA

177, or Buyozo.

The court's decision in Buyozo changed the established understanding of the powers of a consent authority to modify a development

consent under sections 4.55 (1A), 4.55 (2) and 4.5 6 (1) of the planning Act.

This case found that a modification application must seek to effect some change to the development.

This limits the ability of an applicant to seek a modification of a condition of their development consent where the proposed

modification of that condition would not result in a change to the development, the subject of the original consent.

The Buyozo decision applies to all part 4 development, including both SSD projects and local development.

Historically, applicants have sought different modifications, some of which did not necessarily involve a change to the development,

the subject of the original development consent.

For example, modifying a condition of development consent relating to the proposed timing, staging, or sequencing of the

development.

However, since the decision in Buyozo, the power of consent authorities to assess and determine a modification application that seeks

approval to modify a condition of development consent only, has become uncertain.

This has led to applicants "bundling" other proposed changes to a consent to be certain that the consent authority has the power to

modify conditions under sections 4.55 (1A), 4.55 (2) and 4.56 (1) of the planning Act.

In some cases, this has resulted in applicants seeking very minor and otherwise unnecessary changes, for example minor landscaping

amendments, which means this costs time and planning resources are allocated where there may not be spare capacity.

Industry and government agency proponents have raised concerns about the uncertainty created by the Buyozo decision and asked

DPHI to amend the planning Act in response.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia wrote to DPHI as far back as January 2022—under the previous Government—to

identify this issue.

The bill seeks to amend sections 4.55 and 4.56 of the planning Act to clarify that a consent authority has the power to determine

modification applications, even where those applications would not result in a change to the development the subject of the original

development consent.

This will provide greater clarity and certainty for both applicants and all consent authorities.

I now move to the amendments regarding how submissions are counted.

Schedule 1 to the planning Act sets out the minimum requirements for public exhibition and community consultation of plans,

applications, or other matters.

Section 15 of that schedule states that submissions may be made during the exhibition period but does not state that they can only be

made within the exhibition period.

The bill amends schedule 1, division 3, section 15 of the planning Act to require submissions, in response to a publicly exhibited

development application or plan, be made during the exhibition period.

This amendment will strengthen the department's established policy for counting and considering submissions, particularly for SSD

applications.

It will provide greater certainty for all consent authorities, communities, state agencies, and the development industry by making it

clear only submissions received during an exhibition period can be counted when identifying a consent authority.

It also provides greater certainty for applicants and state agencies on the consent authority for SSD applications.

Firstly, the planning system has a long-standing, established framework for deciding the consent authority for SSD applications.

It makes sure that the most appropriate authority considers and determines SSD applications.

For example, the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] will determine most SSD applications if the relevant council(s) object to

the application, if there are at least 50 submissions (other than from a council) objecting to the development application, or if there is

a political donations disclosure made by the applicant.

Where the IPC is not the consent authority, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, or a delegate, will determine the application.

It is essential that rules are clear around establishing the consent authority for SSD applications.

The amendment makes clear that only submissions lodged within the public exhibition period will be counted when determining the

consent authority.

This amendment responds directly to the decision of the court in Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd atf Banton Family

Trust 2 and Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2024] NSWCA 41, or Filetron.

That decision has cast uncertainty over whether a late submission, by way of objection, should be counted for the purpose of

determining the consent authority for a particular development application.

And it is worth noting that incorrect counting of a late submission may lead to the wrong consent authority being appointed.

Without an amendment to the planning Act to clearly define when a submission should be counted, it is possible that inadvertent

errors will be made and further court challenges will follow—again, further adding uncertainty and potential delays to the delivery

of housing projects.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 72

However, I emphasise this point: that this amendment will not prohibit the consent authority from considering any issues raised in

late submissions during the assessment of the project, as currently takes place.

I refer now to a court decision that has had a positive impact on the planning system and the processes we should be adopting as a

result.

A concept development application allows approval for the overall development concept of a site, such as building envelopes and

height limits.

However, a subsequent development application must still be submitted, assessed, and approved by the relevant consent authority

before any construction works can commence.

The subsequent development application must align with the approved concept development application for consistency.

The Land and Environment Court decision in Castle Hill Panorama Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 24, or Castle

Hill, clarified how consent authorities can address inconsistencies between concept approvals and subsequent development

applications:

 In this case, the Land and Environment Court confirmed that a consent authority could approve a subsequent development application even if it departs from the original concept approval by using the mechanism established in section 4.17 (1) (b)

and (5) of the planning Act.

 The decision resulted in a positive planning outcome, enabling an increase in housing supply.

 The Land and Environment Court came to the decision that consent authorities could impose a condition requiring the applicant to either modify or surrender the original concept approval as part of granting development consent for the

subsequent development application.

This amendment removes potential barriers to sensible planning outcomes.

It is intended to support housing delivery as it will improve the ability of a consent authority to approve a development application

which seeks to use housing bonuses, such as additional height or floorspace, that are inconsistent with an approval for a concept

development application, as they may not have been available when the consent development application was originally approved.

The proposed bill builds on the Castle Hill decision by providing certainty and clarity in the planning process.

It confirms that consent authorities have the power, under sections 4.17 (1) (b) and (5) of the planning Act, to impose conditions

requiring the modification or surrender of a concept approval when assessing a subsequent development application.

This will make sure that there are no jurisdictional barriers to achieving flexibility in planning decisions while also maintaining a

framework that supports consistent and sustainable development outcomes.

These changes strike a balance between delivering positive planning outcomes and maintaining the integrity of the concept approval

process.

I will now advise the House about other elements of the proposed bill that will help speed up the much-needed delivery of new homes

in this State.

As the House will be aware, in November 2024, this Government took a significant step towards boosting the housing supply in

New South Wales by establishing the Housing Delivery Authority [HDA].

The HDA was created with a clear purpose: to streamline the delivery of residential accommodation using the SSD planning pathway.

It should also be noted that this is an optional planning pathway for applicants of projects.

A main function of the HDA is to evaluate and provide advice to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces on expressions of

interest [EOIs] for high-yield residential accommodation.

These reviews are conducted against a set of well-defined and published criteria, making sure that only projects with significant

potential for high yield housing delivery in the right locations are recommended to be declared as SSD.

Based on its evaluation, the HDA provides advice to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces on whether specific developments

should be declared as SSD, enabling them to benefit from a consistent and streamlined assessment process.

Under the current provisions of section 4.36 (3) of the planning Act, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces is required to seek

and publish advice from the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] before declaring a development as SSD.

The IPC plays a vital role in providing oversight for a range of projects, however this additional advisory step for residential SSD is

an unnecessary duplication, slowing down the declaration process for housing projects that are urgently needed.

The proposed bill seeks to address this issue by removing the statutory requirement to obtain advice from the IPC before deciding

whether certain residential developments should be declared SSD under section 4.36 (3) of the planning Act.

Instead, the HDA will provide this advice for residential projects as part of their agreed functions.

The IPC will continue to provide advice to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for all other types of development that is

proposed to be declared SSO under section 4.36 (3) of the planning Act.

The Minister for Planning and Public Space will also retain the option and capacity to refer matters to the IPC for consideration

should the circumstances warrant it.

By eliminating the duplication of advisory functions, the proposed reforms will streamline the decision-making process, reduce red

tape, and accelerate the delivery of housing, while also maintaining the integrity of the planning system.

The bill also seeks to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 to provide fit-for-purpose meeting

arrangements for the HDA.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 73

This is important for the following reasons:

 The HDA will primarily perform an advisory role, and the public hearing style forums typically used for planning panels such as determining DAs or hearing evidence are less relevant.

 It is anticipated that the HDA will meet regularly and at short notice, when required. This more agile approach will reduce

lead times and associated administration to deliver high quality advice to government more quickly.

 The Department will continue to publish a record of each HDA meeting including high-level information about each EOI submission, the HDA recommendations, advice and reasons within 14 days of a meeting.

The bill will also require the Planning Secretary to notify as soon as practical the relevant local council in which a proposal is declared

as SSD under section 4.36 (3).

Importantly the consultation processes for subsequent development stages will continue to be undertaken to make sure opportunities

for important council and community input are maintained.

The bill introduces the ability for the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure's Community Participation Plan to specify

a shorter period of public exhibition for certain residential SSD projects, provided that period is at least 14 days.

This is designed to streamline the approval process for critical housing projects while maintaining opportunities for public

consultation.

The amendment will apply to the following types of SSD applications:

 development applications declared SSD by the Minister under section 4.36 (3) of the planning Act that include residential accommodation, and

 Housing developments listed under Schedule 1 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021, such as:

 Housing development carried out by certain public authorities,

 In-fill affordable housing projects,

 Build-to-rent housing projects, and

 Seniors housing projects.

 Developments within accelerated Transport-Oriented Development [TOD] precincts listed under schedule 2, clause 19 of the Planning Systems SEPP may also benefit from the reduced 14-day exhibition period, provided they include residential

accommodation.

It is also the case that any changes to the Community Participation Plan will require consultation for 28 days.

This change strikes a fair balance between speeding up the delivery of critical housing projects and making sure that the community

has sufficient opportunity to provide input on proposals.

By streamlining this aspect of the planning process, the Government aims to reduce delays and facilitate faster delivery of housing

projects.

Affordable rental housing is vital for individuals and families with low or moderate incomes and a key provision of this bill.

It provides a critical safety net for those unable to afford housing in the private rental market, which has become increasingly

inaccessible for many due to the ongoing housing challenge.

As a result, demand for affordable housing has surged, highlighting the need for targeted measures to address this issue.

The delivery of affordable housing is a key objective of the planning Act.

Under Section 7.32, a financial contribution for affordable housing can be imposed if a State Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP]

identifies a need for affordable housing in a specific area and the condition is authorised by a local environmental plan through an

affordable housing contributions plan.

The planning Act also makes sure that financial contributions collected for affordable housing are reinvested within the local

government area where they were collected or in an adjacent area.

The bill will streamline the development application process for councils by clarifying when a condition requiring an affordable

housing contribution can be imposed on a development consent.

Given the maturity of Community Housing Providers and the need for affordable housing, this is not just an overly complex process,

but also one that could lead to geographical gaps in the availability of affordable housing.

This reform will enhance the efficiency and certainty of processes related to the assessment of development applications involving

affordable housing contributions, thereby enabling the New South Wales Government to respond more effectively to the housing

crisis.

The bill also aims to modernise the state-led rezoning process by allowing all environmental planning instruments [EPIs], not just

local environmental plans, to impose affordable housing contributions as a condition of development consent.

This change will enable both a local environmental plan and a State Environmental Planning Policy to implement affordable housing

contribution schemes and collect contributions directly, making the framework more flexible and effective.

This amendment will also apply retrospectively from 1 March 2018, resolving any uncertainties about existing provisions within the

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 that address the loss of low-cost rental housing.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 74

The last amendment proposed in the bill will remove legacy references to the Six Cities Region, paving the way for the creation of a

new regional strategic plan for Greater Sydney.

Following the repeal of the Greater Cities Commission Act 2022 last year, strategic planning powers for Greater Sydney, the Lower

Hunter, Central Coast, and Illawarra-Shoalhaven regions were transferred to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the

Planning Secretary in 2024.

Under the proposed changes, all regional boundaries, including Greater Sydney, will now be declared by ministerial order.

The delayed commencement of these amendments will provide an opportunity for consultation to make sure that the regional

boundaries are considered.

Until the new regional plans are finalised, existing regional strategic plans and district strategic plans will remain in operation,

providing continuity.

These changes represent an essential "tidy-up" of the planning Act, resulting in consistent and flexible processes for boundary

declarations and strategic planning requirements across the State including the declaration of housing targets and how they are to be

addressed in regional strategic plans.

It also removes the requirement for the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to advise a local council

within the Six Cities Region about the consistency of a local strategic planning statement with any applicable strategic plan.

These changes will pave the way for a more modern and cohesive strategic planning framework.

This bill is not the end of the journey of planning reform started under the Minns Labor Government.

It is a significant milestone toward a better, more effective planning system and a better future for New South Wales.

It is a clear statement of our values as a Government - of fairness, opportunity, and progress.

It is about delivering more quality and well-located houses, closer to their jobs, and near public infrastructure investments, particularly

for young people, families and key local workers so they can live within the communities they choose.

It is a recognition that the challenges New South Wales faces demand bold solutions and that we cannot afford to keep kicking the

can down the road anymore, as happened under the last government.

The reforms proposed in this bill will support the delivery of more homes, faster, and more efficiently through the planning system.

It proposes to further cut red tape.

Further reducing delays in assessment created by the court decisions.

And removing duplication of resources, time and effort.

It will provide greater clarity and more certainty for applicants and all consent authorities.

And restore confidence that planning decisions are being made efficiently.

This bill will make our planning system more transparent, more flexible, and more focused on the outcomes that we all want to see—

the delivery of more homes and more jobs.

And it will make sure that New South Wales remains a place where everyone can live, work, and thrive in the communities they

choose, in a place they can call home.

I commend this bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (20:03): On behalf of the Opposition, I speak in debate on the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2025. I note Minister Scully's presence in the gallery

tonight, late on a Thursday night. From the outset, I thank him for his consultation with the Opposition on the bill.

In large part, we agree with the substantive reforms and amendments that the bill proposes. We believe that the

amendments that were supported in the other place have gone some way to addressing some of the concerns that

stakeholders and the Opposition had with the bill, as expressed in the other place. We believe that there is still an

outstanding issue, which I foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment to address during the

Committee stage. The Coalition remains firmly committed to increasing housing supply in New South Wales and

working constructively with all parties to improve our planning system and remove the barriers to getting homes

built. I believe that all parties in this place have shown good faith in that pursuit as the bill has been navigated

through both Houses.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis that demands practical and strategic solutions. It is essential to work

together to increase the availability of housing while ensuring that new development is supported by the necessary

infrastructure and that communities are consulted along the way. We know that building more homes is essential,

but it must be done the right way, supported by the infrastructure that growing communities need to thrive. That

is why strategic planning is an important part of supporting housing growth across the State and ensuring the

planning system delivers all that we need in our State, including liveable communities, employment opportunities,

and the infrastructure needed to support movement from one to the other.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 75

Planning reform represents an opportunity to streamline the planning process and unlock new housing

supply while maintaining the integrity and accountability of the system. The Coalition's planning reforms in

government were aimed at improving certainty in the system and providing meaningful consultation with the

community. A stable and predictable planning framework is critical to encouraging investment and ensuring the

housing targets are met in a way that reflects the needs of local communities. It is important to remember that

building homes is a fundamental part of the planning system but is not the entire system. Our planning system

needs to allow for places in which the people of New South Wales can live, but also places for us to work and

places for recreation. It also needs to deliver economic opportunities for our State now and into the future.

The planning system also must be underpinned by an understanding of and plan for how we deliver and

integrate the infrastructure that supports it all. The development of the Greater Cities Commission, the Six Cities

strategy, the Greater Sydney Region Plan—a Metropolis of Three Cities, and the district strategic plans that

underpin these were all part of this strategic planning approach. The bill removes references to the Six Cities

region in the Act, giving the Minister the power to declare any area of the State to be a region or a district. The

Opposition understands that the Government did not like the Greater Cities Commission and is taking a new

approach. However, in introducing the Greater Cities Commission Repeal Bill 2023, the Government assured us

this would not be the case. Minister Scully stood in the other place and said:

Importantly, the bill does not change the process for making strategic plans and it does not change the content of those plans.

He went on to say:

… a district strategic plan prepared for a district within the Six Cities Region must still address the planning priorities, including the

number of net additional dwellings required for each local government area within the district for the next five, 10 and 20 years.

The bill before the House does away with all these things in the legislation. We take the Government at its word

that an updated Sydney regional plan is being worked on and will soon be finalised, but it is not a requirement of

the bill. Under the bill, district strategic plans may be prepared by the Minister and, if the Minister requires it,

then the secretary must complete it. Formerly it was a requirement for the secretary to prepare such plans. This

bill affords the Minister significantly more discretion when it comes to strategic planning, rather than compelling

such planning under legislation as presently exists.

Likewise, we take the Government at its word that 10- and 20-year housing targets are being progressed,

but the bill abolishes the definition of "housing target", removing the requirement for them to be formulated for

the next five, 10 and 20 years. In addition, we understand that housing targets envisaged under the bill will be

marked on completions within the period in line with the Housing Accord agreement. Again, this moves away

from the previous definition, which required net additional dwellings, so that 1,000 knockdown rebuilds in an

area, that did not add one additional dwelling, would not be counted towards the housing target. Similarly, the

existing definition allows for an additional target of development consents—something that was within the

purview of a local council, rather than a completion target, which they may have no control over with the pressures

of countervailing market forces and the imposition of additional State contributions hampering the delivery of

new homes.

Concern around the dilution of strategic planning requirements under the bill has been expressed by the

Committee for Sydney, the Planning Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects. Amendments

were moved by the member for Wakehurst in the other place to address some of those concerns, one of which was

successful. The Opposition understands that the Government has abolished the Greater Cities Commission and,

with this bill, is moving away from the Six Cities strategy. It may not have been the Coalition's approach, but we

accept that this is the intention of the Government. However, we cannot get away from the need for a regional

strategic plan for Greater Sydney. This bill itself reflects that by amending schedule 4 to the Act, "Savings,

transitional and other provisions", to maintain that the Greater Sydney Regional Plan—A Metropolis of Three

Cities continues to have effect as a regional strategic plan for the designated Sydney local government areas.

The unintended consequence of the Government's bill is that there will no longer be a requirement for there

to be a strategic plan for Greater Sydney. As Australia's largest economic centre and largest capital city, it must

have a regional plan in place to guide sustainable growth. The amendments of the member for Wakehurst would

have ensured that there is always a Greater Sydney region plan. It makes sense that a regional strategic plan that

stays in place after this bill is passed should be revised. The Government has outlined that one is already being

worked on. While we take the Government at its word, the Coalition would have preferred to see it preserved in

the Act. While that amendment was not successful in the other place, another amendment was approved that

tightened the requirements around the review of regional strategic plans. The bill as drafted originally would have

allowed for regulations to effectively dispense with the requirements to review a regional strategic plan every five

years, which was cured by that amendment and something that we believe has improved the bill.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 76

Concerns have also been raised with the changes in schedule 1 [24], that a regulation may prescribe

circumstances in which a planning proposal authority does not need to give effect to a strategic plan. Amendments

moved by the member for Wakehurst in the other place sought to remove that provision, but they were not

successful. The Opposition had discussions with the Government and considered moving an amendment to require

an explanation of why such a deviation from a strategic plan would be necessary. In discussions, the Opposition

determined not to move such an amendment, but I invite the Minister in her speech in reply to outline potential

scenarios that are envisaged under this power and address those concerns. I note that the Opposition is somewhat

assured that such regulations will be disallowable instruments and that an egregious use of the power can be

considered by this House in the future.

Industry has expressed concern about removal of the requirement under section 3.9 (3A) of the Act, which

requires the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to issue written advice that a

local strategic planning statement is consistent with the regional and district plans. The Government's rationale

for removing the requirement is that it only applies in the six cities region and the amendment provides consistency

across the State. It is my contention that this was the case because, as it stands, it was only in those regions that

there were applicable regional and district plans and that only councils in those areas were provided with a local

housing target. It is our view that this was a relevant safeguard when introduced to give effect to district and

regional plans at the local strategic planning level, and it is a safeguard that should be maintained to provide

consistency with strategic plans that are developed by the department. The Opposition will move an amendment

in the Committee stage to address that issue.

The Government's introduction of the Housing Delivery Authority in January this year has introduced a

new body into our planning system that was not envisaged by the Act. The HDA is an advisory body, and

applications which they recommend to the Minister proceed as State significant development [SSD] applications,

but they still need to go through that process with the checks and balances that it entails. The Opposition is satisfied

that this body does not perform the function of a prescribed planning body as was envisaged under the Act, and

as such should not be subject to the same requirements. However, like many stakeholders, the Opposition would

like to continue to see the utmost transparency around the determinations and recommendations that are made by

the HDA to increase confidence within the community about its operations. It is our understanding that this was

the intention of the Government, and it forms part of the charter of the terms of reference of the HDA.

To date, many stakeholders have expressed their appreciation for the publication of the HDA's record of

briefing, and it is an important part of the transparency associated with that body. The Coalition believes that the

HDA should perform with the utmost transparency to the community concerning the determinations and

recommendations that are made to the Minister. Such measures are intended to increase confidence within the

community about its operations but not in a way that would impede its work. We welcome the transparency shown

so far. The amendment moved by the member for Sydney in the other place, which was successful, incorporates

a requirement to publish, within 14 days of a meeting, the minutes of the meeting and a record of any decisions

made, and reasons for those decisions. That is a positive measure that improves the bill. It addresses much of the

concerns that were raised by Local Government NSW and other stakeholders to require the transcription records

of HDA meetings and resolutions to be made publicly available.

Similarly, concerns with respect to the reduction of the minimum public exhibition period from 28 days to

14 days for State significant development that involves residential accommodation were ones that were enunciated

by Local Government NSW, along with the Planning Institute of Australia, the NSW Institute of Architects and

the Committee for Sydney and were shared by the Opposition. The State significant development pathway is one

that will typically be used for larger developments that will have more impact on local communities and, under

the HDA process, may also include concurrent rezoning applications. We believe that as this is the case it is

appropriate to maintain a higher level of public exhibition for such developments. We were not convinced that a

reduction to 14 days would have any appreciable impact on the timely delivery of homes, as this stage typically

runs concurrently with the assessment and agency referral processes; yet it has the potential to erode community

confidence in State significant planning pathways.

The amendment of the member for Sydney went some way to addressing that concern by limiting the

residential SSD that can be exhibited for 14 days to types of development identified in a community consultation

plan, and we understand from the Government that those developments will be ones that are not more complex in

nature. We will be carefully looking at the community participation plan and changes to it, which must be publicly

exhibited, with opportunities for community input, for 28 days. Within those amendments, notification to relevant

councils was also inserted into the bill, which is welcomed by the Opposition and Local Government NSW, whose

president, Councillor Phyllis Miller, the Leader of the Opposition and I had the pleasure of meeting with yesterday.

We welcome Councillor Miller to the role and look forward to working with her and Local Government NSW in

the future as we address solutions to deliver more homes and strengthen local communities.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 77

A clear, predictable planning framework is needed to give developers and local councils the confidence to

bring forward projects that deliver homes in the right places, supported by infrastructure. It is only right that

councils know and understand what development is potentially occurring in their local communities so they can

coordinate the infrastructure delivery that they are responsible for and also to track their housing targets, as set by

the State Government, in the timeliest manner possible.

The bill also dispenses the requirement that with residential development the Minister must have advice

from the Independent Planning Commission before declaring an application to be a State significant development.

The Opposition is satisfied that the HDA substitutes for providing that advice to the Minister with respect to

residential development and understands this amendment is supported by the Independent Planning Commission,

whose expertise can be targeted more effectively.

The bill seeks to clarify when an affordable housing contribution can be imposed, especially if a State

environmental planning policy [SEPP] identifies a need for affordable housing in a specific area and the condition

is authorised by a local environmental plan through an affordable housing contributions plan or a SEPP. The

amendment will apply retrospectively to 1 March 2019 and contributions are to be reinvested where they were

collected or in an adjacent area. The Urban Taskforce has raised concerns with the provisions because they remove

the current safeguards that are in place against excessive or unreasonable contributions under section 7.32 (1) of

the Act, namely that at least one of the following applies:

(a) … the proposed development will or is likely to reduce the availability of affordable housing within the area, or

(b) … the proposed development will create a need for affordable housing within the area, or

I note the Minister's explanation in the other place in his reply that he sees the provisions not as safeguards but as

handbrakes on the delivery of affordable housing. At a time when feasibility is the biggest impediment to

delivering more homes, I think it is incumbent on all of us to be conscious of the imposition of charges on the

delivery of new housing stock. Affordable housing contributions are part of that equation. Affordable housing

contributions will deliver less affordable housing and less housing overall if they are too onerous and act as an

impediment to the feasibility of delivering new homes.

The Minister's department acknowledges that in its assessment of differentiated affordable housing

contributions across each of the transport oriented development accelerated precincts ranging from 3 per cent to

10 per cent. Unlike affordable housing incentives through uplift provisions, when it comes to affordable housing

contributions, it is a cost that must be borne by someone, and that someone is the end purchaser of the property.

The Opposition will continue to pay close attention to the operation of affordable housing contribution schemes

as a result of the changes made by the bill and the impact on the delivery of affordable housing and housing

delivery in general. The primary intention of the bill is to make substantive responses to decisions of the courts

that have had a significant impact on the operation of the planning system in our State. The Coalition supports the

changes that are moved in that regard and have found a broad cross-section of support for the amendments

amongst stakeholders in order to provide clarity and consistency.

In the first of these amendments the bill clarifies the power to modify a development consent. Under the

current framework, there has been some uncertainty about whether a consent authority can modify a condition of

consent if the modification does not change the overall development itself following the decision of the court

in Ku-ring-gai Council v Buyozo Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 177. The bill makes it clear that the consent authority

is not prevented from modifying a condition of consent under sections 4.55 (1A) and (2) and 4.56 (1) simply

because the change only affects the condition and not the development itself. It is a sensible amendment that will

hopefully allow for modification applications and prevent cumbersome workarounds that have developed in order

to get projects built more quickly where there is no change in what has been approved.

Secondly, the bill also defines how public submissions are to be counted during the development

assessment process, addressing the decision of the court in Filetron Pty Ltd v Innovate Partners Pty Ltd atf Banton

Family Trust 2 and Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2024] NSWCA 41. At the moment there is some ambiguity

about whether late submissions should be counted when determining the level of public support for or objection

of a proposal. Under this legislation, only submissions made within the formal public exhibition period will be

counted for the purpose of determining a consent authority's decision, which is particularly important for the

triggers under the Act that determines the consent authority.

The last of the changes made by the bill in this regard concerns a response to confirm the decision of the

court in Castle Hill Panorama Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 24, which makes changes to

the Act regarding concept approvals and subsequent development applications. The changes uphold the decision

of the court and confirm that there are no jurisdictional barriers to a consent authority imposing a condition of

development consent that requires the modification or surrender of a concept approval. That means that even if a

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 78

subsequent development application is inconsistent with an original concept approval, a consent authority will

have the power to impose reasonable conditions to enable the development to proceed.

Planning reform must take steps towards greater planning certainty by improving assessment processes

and removing unnecessary red tape. A clear, predictable framework will give developers and local councils the

confidence to bring forward projects that deliver homes in the right places, supported by infrastructure. We cannot

talk about increasing housing supply without addressing infrastructure. More homes mean more pressure on local

roads, schools, hospitals and public transport, which is why strategic planning is so important as we build our

State and its cities for the future.

I take the opportunity to thank stakeholders for their continuing engagement on the bill, including the

Australian Institute of Architects, the Committee for Sydney, the Housing Industry Association, Local

Government NSW, the Planning Institute of Australia, the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute of

Australia and the Urban Taskforce. This bill is not the end. The Opposition and the Government are engaging in

a bipartisan approach to planning reform. We hope that the approach taken on this bill is a good indication of how

that process will continue.

I thank the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for his engagement on the bill from a very early stage.

I thank also his chief of staff and his deputy chief of staff for their work with the Opposition and other parties. It

has been sincerely appreciated. I think that collaboration will create good legislation as the bill passes through this

House. We are all committed to ensuring we can provide more affordable homes for the people of New South

Wales. In achieving that aim, we must also ensure that we plan for and provide the best building blocks for liveable

communities in our State now and into the future.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (20:20): The Greens do not oppose the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Amendment Bill 2025, despite holding reservations about some of the bill's schedules. I acknowledge that the

Government has taken our suggestions on board and has ensured that amendments have been agreed to in the

other place to address some of those concerns. We are very grateful to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

and his office for their early engagement and the thorough discussions we had in order to understand the intention

behind this legislation. The Minister was very patient and tolerant of our concerns.

The Government claims this bill will streamline planning and support housing delivery. Components of

the bill will achieve that aim. However, the bill will also deliver some changes that are not clearly positive in

terms of public participation and the transparency of the planning system. We must remember that transparency

and public participation have been the hallmarks of this system since 1979. That is significant. Planning and

development decisions are only good to the extent that the local community has informed them and the public has

participated in sharing its knowledge about the environment and the economic and social fabric of the site of any

proposed development.

Changes to transparency and public participation are particularly significant in light of our changing

climate and our collective capacity to respond to the crisis we face. It is a crisis that our planning system must

adapt to. We debate this legislation just months after Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment

tabled its report on the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities.

That report concluded in no uncertain terms that our planning laws are fundamentally failing to protect

communities and ecosystems from worsening climate impacts. The committee made 18 sound recommendations

based on the expert evidence, and those recommendations were overwhelmingly supported. The Government's

response to the report was not displeasing. It indicates an appetite for genuine reform. That report, based on

months of public hearings and extensive evidence, called for systemic reform. It is unfortunate that the bill does

not do that and seems to be going in the other direction. Tonight we are looking at further deregulation, reduced

accountability and a narrowing of the very tools that we need to plan for a liveable future.

Before getting into the detail of the bill, we could have and we should have been seeing much more effort

to deal with all of the things that the planning system should be doing here and now in 2025. I will begin with one

of the examples in the bill that we say undermines the principle of strategic planning—schedule 1 [24]. That item

will allow planning proposal authorities to sidestep the requirement to give effect to regional and district strategic

plans. Strategic plans are our blueprint for coordinating where homes, jobs, infrastructure and services go. They

should also much more clearly set the expectations for natural space, habitat and, critically, how cities and

communities must adapt to a future where fires, floods and coastal hazards are significantly different from today.

They are meant to reflect long-term public interest, not short-term gain or an expedited and politically motivated

planning response that does not address all of the systemic causes of the housing crisis.

We received some really important feedback on the bill, including comments from expert environmental

law organisations and planning bodies. The comments about this particular item were that it undermines the ability

of strategic plans to serve their intended function and that it weakens the legislative basis for plan-led

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 79

development, replacing it with increased discretion and greater risk of ad hoc rezonings. Recommendation 9 of

the report of Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment urged the Government to embed climate

resilience and sustainability within regional and district plans. It recognised that spatial planning is one of the

most powerful tools we have to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Yet the bill actively weakens that strategic

framework. It creates a pathway for planning proposals to disregard climate-aligned regional plans altogether.

The Government's response to recommendation 9 claimed to support the intent, yet the amendment in

schedule 1 [24] would allow projects to be approved that do not align with climate or infrastructure priorities. If

we cannot ensure that rezonings conform to the strategic plans intended to guide them, then ultimately those plans

become meaningless. I acknowledge that the Government has made some concessions on the matter of strategic

planning, but the amendments to the bill passed in the other place do not resolve our concerns: that the importance

of strategic planning and delivering coordinated and climate resilient developments can be bypassed by a simple

regulation change.

When talking about planning in inquiries conducted by Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and

Environment—inquiries about transport oriented developments, the planning system, climate change and

communities—everybody who works in this space, particularly those in the government department and

embedded within councils, has given the same number one piece of evidence that strategic plans and their

functions are important. This evening we should be bolstering the prioritisation of strategic planning, not

weakening it and simply making a commitment that we will do it.

The bill contains a suite of measures that reduce oversight transparency and public participation safeguards

in our planning system. I recognise that the Government has taken our concerns on board and ensured that some

guardrail amendments were passed in the other place. In reality, the reductions in oversight, transparency and

public participation are still present in the bill. I say in earnest that it is a worrying direction to be taking. I

appreciate that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces is executing the Government's agenda, and I have a

degree of trust in his integrity when it comes to how these changes will be executed.

Significant misconduct and corruption has occurred in the New South Wales planning system. Some

members in this place and the other place were members during that time. Any reduction in the processes that

create public trust in the planning system should be weighed very carefully. We cannot assume that just because

the current Minister is acting with integrity all future Ministers will too. We remain concerned about the bill's

proposed reduction in the public exhibition period for State significant developments from 28 days to 14 days.

I acknowledge that the Minister has kept his promise to The Greens, and somewhat addressed our concerns, by

specifying that community participation plans may provide for longer periods of consultation. But expert

commentary on this specific provision from lawyers who work with this legislation and with communities day in,

day out is that 14 days is wholly inadequate for meaningful community input, particularly for complex and

high-impact State significant developments.

Removal of the requirement that the Minister obtain and publish advice from the Independent Planning

Commission [IPC] before declaring a State significant development is a concern. Removal of the requirement for

IPC advice undermines transparency, politicises the State significant development process and increases the risk

of corruption. I can still see, written in bold, the 2012 report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption

into corruption in the planning system. That report was so significant in identifying the measures to keep the

planning system safe from corruption and attacks on its integrity. Those measures are precisely what we do not

see in the bill. It is of genuine concern that some of them are being unravelled.

Before the bill was amended in the other place, it did not contain requirements to publish meeting minutes,

and decisions, and reasons for decisions, taken by the new Housing Delivery Authority. That is a very worrying

sign of the Government's intent—that it thinks it is okay to skip through some of the important accountability and

transparency provisions that have been held close in the planning system for many years—and is a serious red

flag regarding accountability in the planning system. Our concerns are somewhat lessened by the amendments

that were passed in the other place, but it is a very concerning indication to all members of this place, and to the

people of this State, that we have a Government that is trying to weaken transparency and accountability. It is a

cause for concern.

The omission of any accountability provision in the first print of the bill is chilling. Public access to

deliberations is essential for accountability. Allowing the new Housing Delivery Authority to meet behind closed

doors would further erode the public trust in planning. Accountability provisions are not technical tweaks, and the

issue is not completely resolved by the amendments that have been passed so far. Recommendation 1 of the report

of Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and the Environment called for expanded transparency and oversight,

particularly for high-impact elements. The Government rejected that recommendation, claiming that the current

system was adequate, yet this bill goes even further in the wrong direction. It eliminates IPC oversight where

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 80

residential development is involved. That is precisely the type of development that triggers intense community

concern.

The bill also changes the law so that submissions received after the close of exhibition may not be counted

at all. I appreciate that a consent authority may exercise discretion when considering submissions received after

the end of the public exhibition period, and I am sure many authorities will, but that adds unnecessarily to the

pressures and deadlines of community members who are attempting in very good faith to participate in the

planning system.

The best decisions are the ones where community members have provided their local knowledge and have

participated fully, meaningfully and in good faith, which is what communities do. The amendment may result in

objectors being excluded from merit appeal rights, according to legal experts, which is a serious curtailment of

procedural fairness. That means that for someone who learns about a project the day after the exhibition ends—

perhaps because they were evacuating during a flood or dealing with a bushfire—whether their concerns and

submissions will be considered is left completely at the discretion of the consent authority.

We need democratic planning and a fair and accountable system. In that regard the changes are, once again,

moving in the wrong direction, which is not completely resolved by the amendments. One of the most powerful

and forward-thinking recommendations from the Portfolio Committee No. 7 report was recommendation 3 to

empower planning authorities to revoke or review historical approvals that are no longer appropriate in the face

of climate risks or the changing environment. The committee heard shocking examples of subdivisions approved

decades ago now being activated in bushfire zones, flood plains and biodiversity corridors.

Regarding the amendment bill, planning experts have said that while they support clarifying the

modification powers, they recommend an additional amendment to allow consent authorities to initiate changes

where climate risk or public interest warrants it. They note that consent authorities must be empowered to initiate

modification or revocation of consents to prevent activation of outdated approvals in areas now known to be

hazardous. The Government's response to that was effectively "We'll think about it later." Later is too late. We

cannot keep building the homes that this amending bill is trying to expedite. We cannot keep building homes in

known danger zones. We cannot afford to say, "Our hands are tied by the past", when the climate crisis demands

bold action in the present. The bill should have included provisions to allow consent authorities to review, revoke

or condition historical developments where there is climate risk or where community safety is at stake.

I also acknowledge a set of amendments that I have tabled that seek to strengthen how the planning system

deals with bushfire risk and other natural hazards. Those amendments will not be debated in Committee of the

Whole, but I have tabled them. I did so after discussions with the Minister's office regarding those serious

amendments, which I am very grateful for. I am encouraged that the Government has acknowledged that there is

merit in the changes suggested. I also acknowledge that the Opposition has had conversations about those

important amendments. The Government has committed to working on the principles behind them as part of its

ongoing reform agenda. The amendments propose a new section 4.14 that requires that residential accommodation

on bushfire-prone land complies with the best practice bushfire protection standards or, where alternatives are

proposed, that certified performance solutions be developed in consultation with the Rural Fire Service.

The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): There is too much audible conversation

in the Chamber. I am having difficulty hearing Ms Sue Higginson. Members will keep it down to a dull roar.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant President. It feels like the night before end of school

break.

The Hon. Scott Farlow: With the cool kids up the back there!

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Yes, it's the cool kids at the back. Amendments to section 4.15 clarify that

consent authorities must consider the full spectrum of natural hazards, including bushfires, flood, landslip, storm

surge and more, when determining development applications. Part of me feels that it is rather bizarre that we are

suggesting these amendments at this point in time and that they are not amendments already spelt out—expressed

and fulsome—in the legislation or that were brought forward by the Government. A revision to section 10.3

requires that maps of bushfire-prone land are updated at least every five years and made publicly available. Again,

it is hard to believe this is not already a requirement. The introduction of new section 3.25A ensures that rezonings

which increase housing or fire-sensitive uses in bushfire-prone areas trigger early consultation with the Rural Fire

Service.

These are practical, precautionary reforms that reflect the overwhelming evidence presented to

Portfolio Committee No. 7, particularly in recommendation 3, which calls for action to ensure new developments

are not exposed to known and increasing climate risks. As the Environmental Defenders Office and local

governments highlighted during that inquiry, the lack of statutory safeguards around hazard-prone land is one of

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 81

the most critical failures of our planning system. Too often homes are still being approved in high-risk areas on

the basis of outdated maps, unclear guidelines and limited hazard consideration during rezoning. It is hard to

believe that is happening here and now in New South Wales. We have the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Amendment Bill 2025, and we are not dealing with those most pressing public interest matters.

The idea that we are dealing or purporting to deal with a housing crisis is to be commended, but to do that

in the abstract or in the absence of addressing or accommodating those other fundamental matters that the planning

system has to deal with, and currently is dealing with, in the absence of good, statutory, robust guidance, is really

concerning. It is not just concerning to me, my party and my constituents; I know it is currently concerning to

everybody and particularly councils across New South Wales. These tabled amendments are about building a

system that recognises the realities of climate change and protects people, property, ecosystems and infrastructure

before disaster strikes.

I sincerely appreciate that the Government has indicated its willingness to progress that work, and I take

that earnestly and in good faith. But I respectfully express that this is urgent. Many of us live in areas that are

experiencing the failures of the planning system from decades ago. We now have the opportunity, and the

Government knows it has the support of both Houses of the Parliament, to take a progressive reform agenda

through the planning system to deliver one that is genuinely climate-ready—or disaster-ready, if we don't like the

words "climate change"—for New South Wales and for the public interest. I ask that the Government advance

that work as an absolute priority and engage with the Parliament, the committees that have been doing this work,

the agencies and the community to deliver comprehensive, hazard-aware, ready reforms. Every year that we delay

the risk deepens and the cost grows.

The bill could have been a moment of courageous, current, contemporary reform. It could have aligned our

planning system with the realities of climate change, embedded justice and resilience in every decision, and

restored public faith in development processes. When I talk about restoring public faith in development processes,

I am not just talking about those with vested interests who engage with the planning system and knock on the

Minister's door. I am talking about our kids and their kids—the generations that we are here for right now, who

do not currently have faith in the system. Instead, in large part, it is moving in the other direction.

The bill removes oversight, diminishes strategy and sidelines the public. The Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act must be about the long-term wellbeing of people and place, not the short-term convenience of

governments and developers. On behalf of The Greens, I urge the House to carefully consider the aspects of the

bill that reduce transparency, oversight and public consultation, and work with us to build a planning system that

centres on climate justice, ecological integrity and democratic accountability. Planning is not just paperwork; it is

a covenant with future generations, and right now we are breaking it.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (20:45): On this day of song in the Legislative Council mosh pit, the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2025 is part of the "long and winding road" to housing

reform—and what a long road it is. The Government's transport oriented developments and the movement of

housing into State significant developments—via the two wise men and one wise woman on the Housing Delivery

Authority—has achieved 10 per cent of the long and winding road of reform. The bill before the House takes us

another 2 per cent down that road, so we are still 88 per cent short. I will address that and engage in open debate

about housing reforms, together with my colleagues Ms Sue Higginson, the Hon. Scott Farlow and Government

representatives in the Chamber.

This is an important debate. The Government has made housing affordability its top agenda item for reform

in New South Wales. Given the state of the Legislative Assembly—the words were expunged from my earlier

motion—the best ideas will obviously come out of this Chamber, so let us get on with it. The bill responds to

three challenges in the New South Wales courts: the Ku-ring-gai Council case in 2021 concerning the nature of

consent modifications and bundling issues, the Goulburn Mulwaree case from 2024 regarding—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: It's Mul-wurry.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I know Goulburn but not Mulwaree. You learn something every day.

I appreciate my friend and colleague the Hon. Penny Sharpe for helping me—once.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Don't get used to it.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I did say "once". I am certainly not getting used to it. I am not as silly as

I look, don't worry. The Goulburn Mulwaree case concerned late submissions. The final matter was the Hills Shire

Council issue concerning clarity about how consent authorities address inconsistencies between concept approvals

and subsequent development applications. This random miscellaneous bill bundles together a series of proposals.

It removes the statutory requirement that the Minister must obtain and publish advice from the Independent

Planning Commission [IPC]. In the Committee stage I will move an amendment to abolish the IPC altogether.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 82

The Government does not need to worry about getting advice from the IPC because it will be no longer if members

support that amendment. The Housing Delivery Authority will have less formal meeting arrangements. It has only

just got going, so it does not matter whether the meetings are formal or informal. That is a trivial provision.

The minimum exhibition period for State significant developments will be reduced from 28 days to

14 days. I would abolish that altogether, and I propose to streamline the bill when I move my amendments in the

Committee stage. The bill removes references in the Act to the Six Cities Region. The Government previously

abolished the totally useless Greater Sydney Commission. By removing references to the Six Cities Region,

Lucy Turnbull's nonsensical notion of three cities inside Sydney goes with it. We could wander the streets of

Wollongong, Campbelltown, the Hills and inner Sydney for months on end and not find anyone who knows what

the six cities are or were supposed to be. The concept was always ridiculous. It is the sort of thing they dream up

in that pink waterfront building at Point Piper.

The reality is that the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra are their own regions, and proudly so, with their own

planning history and needs. Sydney is a sprawling metropolis, a city bound by the geographical limits of national

parks, river systems and the Blue Mountains. There is no great mystery about any of this and it can be

over-complicated. When Rob Stokes was the Minister, he swallowed a planning encyclopaedia and tried to put it

into the legislation. He over-complicated it at every stage, thinking his reforms were acts of genius when they

were actually acts of delay and restriction on the housing development industry. It is no surprise that New South

Wales now has a housing affordability crisis, driven by a lack of supply and other factors. Good riddance to the

Six Cities, whatever they were. I wish them well in being consigned to the statutory dustbin.

New section 7.32 (3) (c) in the bill allows the imposition of a financial contribution if a planning policy

identifies the need for affordable housing. This is a great ambition, but trying to squeeze money out of the private

sector for affordable housing has never been a great success. In fact, it normally stops the private sector from

building any housing at all, so it is possible to go overboard. It never works. The real affordability issue relates to

lowering building costs so that private sector developers can get on with the job. Big and medium-sized housing

developers say they have the support of the Government. We have heard all the rhetoric, but what about the cost

of building? Where is the margin for turning a dollar on these developments? The labour costs, compliance costs

and green tape costs have all escalated, so the big challenge is bringing down those costs in tandem with creating

opportunities for housing supply. That is the real affordability question we face.

I echo the great Neville Wran when he said, "The real purpose of public housing is to get out of it." That

always needs to be remembered. Public housing is only a stopgap to help people through times of need and

springboard them into private ownership, which is the cliché but reality of the great Australian dream. The bill

also states that all regional boundaries will be determined by the Minister. That will not change the face of Sydney,

the Illawarra or the Hunter, but I am sure the Minister will do a fine job.

We all know what has happened in Sydney. Figures confirm that since 1992, New South Wales has built

on average only six dwellings per 1,000 residents, fewer than Queensland and Victoria, which have built eight to

nine dwellings per 1,000 residents. New South Wales is one-third behind the adjoining States to our north and

south. As a rule of thumb in Australia, a 10 per cent increase in housing supply leads to a 25 per cent reduction in

housing costs for the home buyer. In Sydney we need every tactic we can find to get more homes built. I am

reading from the executive summary of the excellent NSW Productivity Commission's Building more homes

where people want to live report from May 2023.

I come back to the essential point that for housing supply to work, it has to be more than a theory. It also

has to be the practice of the private sector building the dwellings, which hinges on building costs. There are

two components here: the role of government in opening up development opportunities and the private sector

having the financial capacity and profit margins to turn them into dwellings to bring down housing costs, as per

the Productivity Commission report. The report recommends:

To build more housing in Sydney's existing housing areas, we should:

 raise average apartment heights in suburbs close to the CBD (and to job opportunities)—

this is ending urban sprawl and focusing heavily on inner ring urban consolidation—

 allow more development around transport hubs so that we leverage our existing infrastructure capacity—

I congratulate the Minister on the transport oriented developments, which take up this recommendation—

 encourage townhouses and other medium-density development and allow more dual-occupancy uses such as granny flats where increased density is not an option.

The Productivity Commission has done a lot of work on this. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need

to attend to the evidence and the recommendations it has made and build them into amendments to this statute.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 83

On the urban consolidation questions, the Productivity Commission found in its August 2023 follow-up report

that it costs $40,000 in government infrastructure per dwelling in the inner ring suburbs. In the outer suburbs—I

am talking primarily north-west and south-west Sydney, and you can stretch down to Illawarra and the Central

Coast—it is over $100,000 per dwelling because of the extra costs built into urban sprawl. Consolidation is

needed. We all know from flying in and out of Sydney that it is a very flat city compared with those overseas,

particularly in the inner ring. That is where the Productivity Commission has guided us for the immediate and

most achievable gains.

The commission has other recommendations. It has done a power of work. In August 2024 its final report

on housing supply, when it became known as the Productivity and Equality Commission, stated, "Low feasibility

partly reflects a construction sector that is at capacity delivering Australia's public infrastructure projects." It is

not really mentioned in the public debate that all the infrastructure construction in Sydney is crowding out private

sector investment into housing. I do not know how you smooth that out and ensure that more investment goes into

private housing, but I think lowering building costs is certainly essential. The crowding-out factor is important.

Members of the former Government boast of its infrastructure program—and it was significant, albeit just keeping

up with the pace of migration-driven population growth in Sydney. But there has been a crowding-out effect,

which is part of the problem in private sector housing supply. To build more homes, the commission recommends

that governments should work to free up capacity. The report states:

All governments should work together to reprioritise capital spending based on merit while freeing up capacity in the construction

sector and containing cost pressures.

It states this is paramount. It goes on:

Tax breaks and subsidies for developers should be used sparingly. These policy tools generally increase demand, not supply, and are

ineffective when the construction sector is operating at capacity.

That is a very important concession. Some may say that tax breaks for private housing are the answer, but in fact

when you already have capacity constraints they do not work. The answer, really, is to free up the capacity

constraints. One of those is labour costs coming out of COVID; another is the failure of our training system to

produce more tradies and construction workers. We cannot have a continuation of the Ponzi scheme whereby it is

argued we need more migration, and tradies and construction workers to build the homes for the migrants to live

in. That is not a solution either; it is quite self-defeating.

Part 3 of the final report is to "Support housing supply by allowing more density in feasible locations,"

namely in the inner ring rather than urban sprawl, as I have mentioned previously. Then, in part 4, the report

comes to improving processes, including after development consent, to avoid excessive delays and, finally,

creating a pro-housing regulatory environment. It is absolutely critical that the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act should be pro-housing, pro-economic growth and pro-productivity. Over the years, more and

more extra considerations have been placed into the Act like layers of sediment, primarily climate change,

environmental considerations, local consultation, extra layers of bureaucracy, extra planning commissions and

extra city plans. That build-up of sediment has got away from the core objective we are after tonight and into the

future—a pro-housing environment that builds up private investment.

The itself can be amended in a number of respects. I suggest a 10-point plan for housing reform. The first

is to bring immigration levels down to sustainable levels—90,000 per annum net, not the big Australia levels of

400,000. Obviously, reducing the level of demand eases the housing supply and affordability crisis in Sydney.

The next point in the plan is to bring down the cost of building. Green tape and compliance costs are enormous,

particularly under the new national code and the work of the Building Commissioner.

That brings me to the third point. I would send the Building Commissioner back to towers only rather than

residential, detached one- and two-storey dwellings. Recently I talked to a medium-size housing developer in

Sydney. I said, "How are you going with the Government's agenda?" He said that because of the Building

Commissioner's extra compliance costs, he has had to place an extra 10 staff in his company on $150,000 a year

each, meaning that he is dropping off less profitable housing projects and concentrating on those where he turns

the best dollar. The work of the Building Commissioner, while very much needed with Opal Tower, Mascot

Towers and so forth, has got out of control. I am told the new commissioner is not so much of a zealot in that

regard, but I do not know why anyone would think we had a crisis in the design, safety and sustainability of

detached dwellings in Sydney. I have never heard of that in the housing sector. Things have gone too far in that

regard.

We need to give the Minister a power in the Act for time limits on zonings and development applications.

It is a funny thing about the Minister's role. The Minister is a good person and a fine politician. But, historically,

in his portfolio there is a reluctance to govern, to drag items in and to actually make a planning decision. There is

a fear of actually doing things and making decisions. There are Australian Labor Party members in this place who

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 84

would like to govern land use planning in Gaza if they could. Why not in Sydney? They have other priorities. If

it were something that the trade unions asked for or some other social policy priority, of course Ministers would

be jumping around. In the middle of a housing affordability crisis, we should not be afraid to give the Minister

more power to govern and do his job.

Elected governments should govern. In this area, strong, purposeful, streamlined, fast-tracked governance

is absolutely essential. It happens in other areas. I look at our friend the Hon. John Graham, the Minister for

everything, who has a commission and an advisory council and is getting on with reforms in other areas. The

Government is doing some things—not big bang things—but in planning and housing we need the Minister to

have the power, authority and regulation to actually govern. As I mentioned, I would abolish the IPC.

John Barilaro made that point; why didn't the former Government do it? The commission is anti-development. It

is an extra layer of bureaucracy when we need streamlining and fast-tracking. I would place limits on appeals

processes. I look at poor old Santos at Narrabri and its 12 years of agony. Why is it still interested in New South

Wales? Other companies have fled because of the problems of unlimited court appeals.

Stamp duty choice would matter. The Government made a mistake to move away from that. Why not give

people the chance to avoid the up-front cost of stamp duty on new housing purchases in Sydney when it averages

$50,000? Further, 30 per cent of Sydneysiders are locked in the wrong home. They cannot move around because

of the stamp duty impost. They are in the wrong spot or the wrong size house. We should end the arguments about

connection to country. I made that point to the Minister in relation to the Ingham development at Bradfield and

all the ridiculous terminology. We need plain English, understandable statutes so that people, having read them,

can get on with the job and move forward. I would abolish the unsolicited proposals. What a disaster they are for

housing, as we have seen at Rosehill. Finally, we need urban consolidation, big-time. The city needs to go up

instead of out.

Those reforms are necessary and can be done with goodwill. There is consensus in the Parliament. All

members, in their own way, want to solve the housing affordability crisis. I welcome the news that the Premier

got together with the Opposition leader to talk about a complete overhaul of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act. The bill is a small step in that direction, introducing some streamlining. But when we look at the

sediment that has been built up in that Act over decades, there is so much to be stripped out and brought back to

the basics of economic growth, productivity, housing affordability, sensible planning and some public

involvement but, most of all, a Minister who governs, gets things done and is not afraid of their own shadow or

jumping at past corruption problems in New South Wales. If we cannot rely on a good and ethical Minister to get

the job done, what is the point of having legislation at all?

I welcome the meeting of minds between Mr Minns and Mr Speakman. I believe they have delegated it to

greater minds—Mr Scully and the Hon. Scott Farlow—to get together on reform of the Act. At the racetrack,

when two tipsters agree, they put it on Great Minds. That is what is happening with the Minister and the shadow

Minister. Perhaps they could even pick up some of the things I have suggested tonight and involve members of

the crossbench so that there is a parliamentary consensus. I welcome the fact that the Government has made

housing affordability its main agenda item. I lament that we have not moved forward enough at this time. There

have been distractions like the Rosehill initial plan. We can do a lot better. The bill is worth supporting. I will

move some amendments and engage with Ms Sue Higginson in a debate on her amendments. I hope that out of

this process we transform the planning legislation in New South Wales and give young people, in particular, their

hope of getting into the housing market in our great city with the great Australian dream.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (21:04): In reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate

on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2025: the Hon. Scott Farlow, on behalf of the

Opposition; Ms Sue Higginson for The Greens; and the Hon. Mark Latham. It is clear that we have a housing

crisis, and we need to do something to address it. I thank Opposition and crossbench members for their

constructive discussions and consultation with the Government on the bill.

Our planning system demands modernisation to address the housing challenge across New South Wales.

The bill introduces crucial amendments to streamline the planning system, to provide certainty to industry and

communities, and to make sure that our approach to development assessment is pragmatic, efficient and effective.

At its core, the bill responds to three key legal decisions, two of which have created unnecessary uncertainty in

the planning processes. The Buyozo decision has made it difficult for consent authorities to modify development

consents when the proposed change does not involve a physical amendment to the original development. The bill

clarifies that consent authorities can modify conditions without requiring additional, substantive changes to the

development itself, removing an unnecessary barrier to housing delivery.

The Filetron decision has created uncertainty, making it unclear whether submissions received after the

exhibition period has closed should be counted when determining the consent authority for a State significant

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 85

development [SSD]. The bill will make it so that only submissions received within the exhibition period are

considered in determining the consent authority, thus providing greater clarity and preventing further legal

challenges. However, I will be clear that this does not stop consent authorities from considering late submissions

during their assessment or extending the exhibition time frame. It simply clears up uncertainties while still

providing the opportunity for community engagement. The Castle Hill decision confirmed that consent authorities

could approve a subsequent development application that departs from the original concept, provided they impose

conditions to modify or surrender the concept approval. The bill reinforces that decision so that applicants can

seek reasonable changes without lengthy procedural roadblocks.

The bill will also make necessary amendments to streamline the planning system to support the delivery

of housing projects. It will allow the flexibility to shorten assessment time frames for the determination of certain

residential SSD applications by updating the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure's community

participation plan to reduce the minimum public exhibition periods for those applications. I stress that any changes

to the community participation plan will require consultation for 28 days. Once the community participation plan

is updated, this will allow certain residential accommodation SSD applications to be in alignment with local

development applications assessed by councils. This provision is a fair balance between community consultation

and timely housing delivery.

The Housing Delivery Authority [HDA] was established to accelerate the delivery of critical housing

projects. However, current legislation requires advice from the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] before

certain residential developments can be declared SSD. This duplication causes unnecessary delays. The bill

removes the requirement for IPC advice for residential SSD projects, allowing the HDA to take on an expanded

advisory role. Finally, the bill will modernise affordable housing contribution requirements. On behalf of the

Government, I acknowledge the discussions that crossbench members—particularly Shooters, Fishers and

Farmers Party members in this place—have had with the Minister's office and the department. They raised some

concerns, including removing legacy references to the "Six Cities Region". By removing the Six Cities model

from the planning Act, this Government is demonstrating its commitment to improving strategic planning across

the State.

The bill will make important changes that will guarantee the continuity of the strategic planning framework

for the years to come. On behalf of the Opposition, the Hon. Scott Farlow raised concerns about the lack of

government oversight of local strategic planning instruments. The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment

that proposes continued oversight of local strategic planning statements by the planning secretary to enable the

secretary to review the statements to determine if they are inconsistent with the strategic plan applying to that

local government area. The amendment will allow the planning secretary to direct the council to amend these

statements, safeguarding the alignment of local planning outcomes with State and regional strategic priorities. We

remain committed to the strategic planning framework as amended by the bill, and I indicate that the Government

will support the Opposition amendment during the Committee stage.

Uncertainty in the planning system has impacted on the delivery of new homes and the simple modification

of a development consent, and it has held back progress at a time when we clearly need efficient, effective and

streamlined planning processes. The bill intends to endorse the Government's objective of pragmatic and

functional approaches to development assessment and determination. The community has an important role in the

planning process, and consultation opportunities where the community can comment on proposals are maintained.

The Government acknowledges the contribution of the Hon. Mark Latham and notes he is foreshadowing

several amendments. The Government has not had sufficient time to examine his proposed amendments in detail,

but preliminary advice suggests that a lot of them are generally outside the scope of the bill. The Government will

not be in a position to support them at this time. I also acknowledge the amendments that have been foreshadowed

by Ms Sue Higginson.

The Government cannot accept the proposed amendments, which essentially reverse the amendments

agreed to in the other place yesterday and are against the overall intent of the bill. However, several proposed

amendments have been tabled by Ms Sue Higginson in relation to special consultation procedures and

development consents concerning bushfire-prone land. The Government believes that those amendments are

highly complex and would require further careful consideration and greater scrutiny across other government

agencies and other Ministers' offices, in particular the NSW Rural Fire Service. We acknowledge and are thankful

that good discussions have taken place between the Minister's office and Ms Sue Higginson and her office,

indicating that those important issues will continue to be discussed in the context of other reforms to the planning

Act at another time.

In closing, I thank the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure officials. They were mentioned

by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in the other place, but I thank them in the Legislative Council for

the work that they have done and the subsequent advice provided in the discussions on the proposed amendments

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 86

from Opposition and crossbench members. I look forward to the discussion in the Committee of the Whole.

I commend the bill to the House.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill

as a whole. I have four sheets of amendments: I have The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-076A,

The Greens amendments Nos 1 to 11 on sheet c2025-046F. Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-066G,

and seven amendments from the Hon. Mark Latham on sheet A02.4. Bearing in mind the time of night, it is my

intention to start with The Greens amendment on sheet c2025-076A and see if we can clear some of the sheets

that only have one amendment. We will deal with them and hopefully get rid of them before 10.00 p.m. If we

have to come back in the next sitting period, we will deal with all of the others. Let us work through those that we

might be able to get out of the way quickly first. In that regard, I ask Ms Sue Higginson to move The Greens

amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-76A.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:15): I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-076A:

No. 1 Special consultation procedures concerning bush fire prone land

Page 5, Schedule 1. Insert after line 34—

[25A] Section 4.15 Evaluation

Insert after section 4.15(1)(c)—

(c1) the risk to life, property, the natural and built environments, cultural values and

infrastructure resulting from the effects of the following natural hazards on the

development—

(i) bush fires,

(ii) floods,

(iii) winds,

(iv) cyclones,

(v) storms,

(vi) earthquakes,

(vii) snow fall, and

(viii) coastal erosion and inundation.

This amendment seeks to insert some important words and considerations into what I refer to as the beating heart

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [EP&A Act]. It is the evaluation part of the legislation. It is

an absolutely fundamental, important part. It is where the hard work happens in the EP&A Act. I reflect on the

words of the Hon. Mark Latham when he spoke about the sediment that has built up in the Act. It is an interesting

way to view this Act. I have worked so much with this Act throughout my life. I see the sediment as fundamental

layer upon fundamental layer upon fundamental layer of how we get to making planning decisions and making

them well. That is what the amendment is about.

Section 4.15 of the Act is the evaluation process. At the moment, the legislation lists the matters for

consideration in general when determining development applications. The natural world, the built environment,

the social fabric and the economic environment all come as fundamental considerations when we are making

development decisions. Those decisions have a high impact on the people around them today and the people that

will be around them in the future. The amendment seeks to insert some extra words, and it requires consent

authorities to consider the risk to life, property, the environment, infrastructure and cultural values from a clear

and comprehensive list of natural hazards, and they are bushfire, floods, winds, cyclones, storms, earthquakes,

snowfall, coastal erosion and inundation.

Let us be clear: The amendment is not a radical change. It is a long overdue correction to a planning system

that still, in 2025, too often pretends the climate crisis is abstract or someone else's problem or not the planning

system's problem. The amendment would make explicit what is already morally and scientifically necessary,

which is that every development application be assessed against its exposure to those natural hazards, including

bushfire, floods, storm, coastal erosion and so on. Those risks are not a hypothetical; they are present. Most of

them, particularly those associated with rising global temperatures, are in fact escalating. They are deadly. We

know that, and too many of us know it too well. We know that thousands of homes in New South Wales are

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 87

already built on flood plains. We know that subdivisions are still being approved in bushfire-prone areas,

sometimes based on outdated hazard maps or inadequate consultation. We know that communities are being asked

to rebuild in the same dangerous places over and over without any assurance that the next time will be different.

The amendment responds directly to the findings of Portfolio Committee No. 7, which heard extensive

evidence that our planning system is not properly accounting for climate-related hazard exposure.

Recommendation three of that report called for planning authorities to have clear statutory obligations to consider

and respond to those risks at the point of decision. The Environmental Defenders Office was equally clear that we

need hazard-aware planning laws, not just for fires and floods but for the full suite of impacts—including coastal

erosion, storm surges, heat and wind—that we know will worsen as climate change continues.

This amendment supports what is referred to as a precautionary, evidence-based approach. It provides

clarity to consent authorities, developers and communities alike. It ensures that planning decisions are made in

the real world, where extreme weather events are no longer rare but routine. It also protects more than just

buildings. The proposed amendment seeks to directly to protect lives, ecosystems, cultural heritage and critical

infrastructure—things that, once lost, cannot be simply replaced. This amendment should not be controversial. It

is responsible, future-focused governance. If we are to have any hope of building resilient, safe and equitable

communities in New South Wales, our planning laws must reflect the risks we face, not just the political

convenience of avoiding them.

As I said, this amendment is seeking to be inserted in the sensible, logical place, which is the central part

of the legislation at section 4.15. It is where the evaluation takes place. That provision already requires the

consideration of any of the environmental planning instruments and, specifically, the suitability of the site for

development; the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and

built environments; and the social and economic impacts in the locality. This amendment will provide

decision-makers the level of specificity and particularity that they need when making planning decisions,

particularly about development the built environment. They ought to have that degree of guidance and it is our

job, as the Legislature, to provide that specific guidance, here and now. We know that the most important things

to consider when making planning decisions are bushfire, floods, winds, cyclones, storms, earthquakes, coastal

erosion and inundation. If we do not make sure that those fundamental matters are part of the evaluation process

of building new homes, and the infrastructure and the public services to support those homes, then, seriously, we

are failing at our job.

I ask all members, as always, to consider this amendment on its merits. It is sensible, reasonable and

responsible. We need to remember that when we are talking about decision-makers, we are talking about not just

the Minister or the IPC, but we are also talking about other consent authorities and councils, some of which are

more equipped than others. This amendment provides them with absolute clarity about the things that we, as the

Legislature on behalf of people of New South Wales, expect those consent authorities to consider deeply when

they are undertaking that very important evaluation process that has been provided for under the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act. On that basis, I implore all members to support this amendment and support it in

full. As I said, there is nothing contentious about it. The proposed clause refers to the risk to life, property, the

natural and built environments, cultural values and infrastructure resulting from the effects of the following natural

hazards on the development, and that is, again, bushfire, floods, winds, cyclones, storms, earthquakes, snowfall,

coastal erosion and inundation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (21:23): The Government does not support this amendment, which

seeks to expand the matters for consideration when assessing development applications to include natural hazards.

The legislation already recognises that the planning system has a role in managing the risks of natural hazards.

Listening to Ms Sue Higginson, one would think no consideration at all is given to that in the process. There is a

whole environmental impact study that deals with those matters. A feature of the New South Wales planning

system—whether one loves it or loathes it—is that these considerations are up-front throughout the process. They

are already dealt with under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

This is quite a narrow bill. It deals with uncertainties that are the result of legal challenges, and seeks to

streamline certain things relating to the Housing Delivery Authority. This amendment is much broader in scope

than the intent of this particular bill. That does not mean the Government will not engage in those conversations

in the future. I refute any suggestion that these things are not already considered through the planning system;

they are. However, there are unintended consequences to the amendment that would make it almost impossible to

get any application through the planning system. I acknowledge the work that Ms Sue Higginson has done with

Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment in relation to climate change and our response to it.

However, the Government does not support this amendment.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 88

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (21:25): Like the Government, the Opposition does not support the

amendment. The Opposition shares the Government's view that this is a fairly constrained bill. There will be

opportunities to have dialogue about future amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. If

we all brought our wish list of items for that Act, we would be here for a very long time. I hope we will be able

to do that in the future, but tonight is not that night. For that reason, the Opposition does not support the

amendment.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (21:26): I make a couple of points. The first point is that this is actually a

wideranging, miscellaneous bill, ranging from corrective action on three different court cases to the Minister

defining regions, and from abolishing the Six Cities concept to whether or not the Housing Delivery Authority

has formal or informal meetings. There is a lot of minutia across a whole range of questions. The Minister for

Planning and Public Spaces and his department have had a wish list converted into the statute, and I do not see

why other members in this place cannot add their more substantial ideas to this miscellaneous bill.

Ms Sue Higginson's amendment cannot be supported on the basis that it is part of the sediment problem.

When the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was introduced by the Wran Government in 1979, it had

127 pages. The Act now has 330 pages. That is 200 extra pages of sediment—extra considerations that got away

from what the people of New South Wales would regard as the proper application of land use planning and

consents in their local area. The two big economic considerations are "Can my kids get into housing?" and "Will

we have a decent urban environment?" The question is about the housing affordability consequences of the urban

form of Sydney.

This amendment is another layer of sediment. As much as I have recently been getting along with The

Greens, I still fear for their state of mind. They do not get out of bed in the morning unless there is an imminent

natural disaster to do with bushfires, floods, wind, cyclones, storms, earthquakes, snowfall or coastal erosion.

What about pestilence? What about famine? What about the locust plague that could be coming and hitting us

hard? What about bird flu?

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Fire ants.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: What about fire ants and COVID? There is a whole range of disasters that

could be imminent on any given day. We would not need the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act; we

would be sheltering in the closet. We would be in the cupboard and worried about walking outside if any of those

things were to hit. Environmental planning and assessment would be the least of our worries. We need to be more

optimistic and outward-looking, and return the core purpose of this particular statute to economic considerations

about housing supply and affordability, along with some sensible considerations about the urban environment.

A good park down the road for kids is much more important for families than what the United Nations is

saying about climate change. Having less congestion on the road, getting home earlier and spending valuable

family time is much more important for families than what is said in the Paris Agreement or what Donald Trump

or Keir Starmer or Xi Jinping or other big international players think and do about that. That is why the Act was

introduced in the time of the Wran Government—for practical considerations about how we can live and how we

can afford something as important as private housing ownership.

Let us strip the sediment away and let us consider, out of the meeting of great minds, stripping the Act

down to 127 pages or less—down to what it should be—rather than building it up over the fear of snowfall,

earthquakes, cyclones, winds and the other things that occupy the minds of The Greens. The Leader of the

Government was right to say that in planning, no-one builds a house expecting that tomorrow it will be knocked

over by wind or flood or bushfire or anything else. All those considerations are made through sensible planning.

The other question is whether the Government is failing to act on so-called climate action. It released an industry

policy recently, a big pyramid of strategy. The Hon. Jacqui Munro is in the Chamber and knows it well. It was in

the budget estimates hearings.

The Hon. Jacqui Munro: The industry policy.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Yes, the modern version of Barry Jones' "Noodle Nation". It is squiggles

and lines on a pyramid of industry policy.

The Hon. Jacqui Munro: It's a Bermuda Triangle of policy.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: It's the Bermuda Triangle of industry policy. Of the 30 strategies in this

pyramid, 17 are about climate action. The Government has overdosed on climate action. Every pet shop galah on

Macquarie Street is squawking, "Climate action". We do not need extra sediment written into this statute. We

have gone too far already.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 89

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:31): The Hon. Mark Latham may refer to it as sediment, but I can tell him

what sediment in your house looks like when you are scraping it off your wall. I can tell him what it looks like

when your belongings are piled so high on the street and so full of sediment, because of a planning system that

has failed so drastically because it did not take into account floods and all the other disasters, like coastal erosion

and cyclones. I will tell him what it feels like when you are lying in your bed hoping the roof might still be on in

the morning because you know a cyclone is about to hit your region and you know that the buildings all around

you are not built ready for that cyclone. I can guarantee that what the member refers to as sediment, or what is

being referred to in this place as sediment, is a very real factor.

Right now I am thinking about all the people in retirement villages in west Yamba just last week or the

week before who were cut off because we are still building houses in that area. Those people could not get their

medications. They are all over the age of 70, and they were literally incapable of accessing the very things that

keep them alive because nobody thought about flooding. I refute that the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act already considers those factors and so we do not need to spell them out and consider them. Now is precisely

the time to give guidance to consent authorities to do the job of considering these life-threatening impacts. People

want homes not just to live but to feel safe in. They want to know that when there is a cyclone, a flood, a fire or

coastal erosion, they will still have their homes in the morning.

I tell members that it is not just Lismore or west Yamba. It is all those in communities up and down the

coast who lost their homes to the radical, intense, climate-fuelled, climate-induced bushfires of 2019 and 2020.

We may want to laugh and we may want to call it sediment. We can do whatever we want, but we need to face

the facts and the reality. The legislation that we are debating does not even mention climate change. There is not

one reference to climate change in the entire legislation. I deliberately came here today without having used the

words "climate change". I put the real words on the table that have a real, life-threatening impact on the homes

we are planning to build today, tomorrow and next month. It is fundamental that we provide clear, unequivocal

guidance to decision-makers and consent authorities that have to evaluate developments.

It is fine to say that it can currently be implied under the evaluation considerations in section 4.15 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Good decision-makers will do that, but our job right now is

to provide clear guidance. That is what we are here for. We are here to literally keep people safe and alive when

we talk about increasing the housing supply. Maybe it is all fine here in Sydney. Maybe everyone in Sydney is

safe. I do not know, because I do not live here. I can sure as heck say that people across the regions do not feel

safe. People are displaced and homeless because the simple things that I am suggesting we amend in the bill were

not written into the law and were not properly considered. They are still not in the law today.

Members need to remember that this is not just about when the decision is made by a decision-maker. It is

also about when someone challenges a decision in court, which they are entitled to do, and the court requires this

guidance. It will assist us all to make good decisions if the Act says we have to give primacy and real consideration

to flood, fires, cyclones, coastal erosion and inundation. This is how the planning system works. Maybe when the

Neville Wran Government introduced the planning legislation in 1979—

The Hon. Mark Latham: It would have been Paul Landa.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Paul Landa was the planning Minister. The legislation was only 120 pages long

when it was introduced, but the reality is that things are more complex now. We should not be frightened of

complexity and complexity theory. We should not try to dumb everything down. We should embrace the

complexity of the decisions that need to made in a complex environment. I have tried my hardest to use simple

words to put some of the most complex, harrowing and life-threatening concepts into our planning legislation.

I commend my amendment to the Committee. I think it is a very sensible amendment.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (21:37): The reality is that the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act is 330 pages long. All of that complexity is driving housing investment to Queensland and other parts of the

Commonwealth. The complexity, size and length of the statute is a big problem for housing affordability. The

bigger, longer, more complex and cumbersome the level of sediment in the Act, the more investment is going to

go to other parts of Australia, and particularly to Queensland. The truth is that the honourable member was not

talking about land-use planning. She was talking about evacuation and not being able to build in certain areas that

might have bushfires, floods, winds, cyclones, storms, earthquakes, snowfall and coastal erosion.

All parts of New South Wales have wind, especially in this Chamber. All parts of New South Wales are

susceptible to storms. We cannot quarantine such enormous amounts of landmass that we end up living on postage

stamps. A life is for living, and it should not be lived in fear. We should have sensible planning laws that can be

expressed in a statute matching the original length of 127 pages. We should strip away the sediment and all of the

additional environmental considerations and scare campaigns that have been added to the statute over time. There

must be ironclad determination. There is no point in having meetings and discussions and telling the newspapers

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 90

that people are getting together to consider reform across the aisle without a strong determination to strip the Act

down to its core fundamentals of economics, housing affordability and practical local land-use planning

provisions. That is all the statute needs to be. Everything else can be handled by other parts of the New South

Wales bureaucracy. The honourable member has to alter her mindset of disaster and that we will all be ruined.

Doomsdayism will not prevail. We need to be optimistic and, most importantly, positive about getting young

people into new housing.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Ms Sue Higginson has moved The Greens amendment No. 1 on

sheet c2025-076A. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I invite the Hon. Scott Farlow to move Opposition amendment

No. 1 on sheet c2025-066G.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (21:39): I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-066G:

No. 1 Secretary's power to direct councils to amend local strategic planning statements

Page 5, Schedule 1[25], line 34. Omit all words on the line. Insert instead—

Omit section 3.9(3A). Insert instead—

(3A) If the Planning Secretary is satisfied a local strategic planning statement that has been

prepared for an area is inconsistent with a strategic plan applying to that area, the

Planning Secretary may direct the council to amend the statement.

(3B) A council for an area that receives a direction from the Planning Secretary under

subsection (3A) must amend the local strategic planning statement for that area within—

(a) 28 days after the direction is received, or

(b) the period otherwise determined by the Planning Secretary and specified in the

direction.

At present it is a requirement under section 3.9 (3A) of the Act that any local strategic planning statement within

the Six Cities Region must be supported by the planning secretary as being consistent with the applicable regional

and district strategic plans. As the Government dispenses with the Six Cities strategy and intends to move to a

broader strategic planning approach, we believe that that is a relevant safeguard that the planning secretary should

retain in order to ensure that the local strategic planning statements are consistent with any strategic plan that may

be developed by the planning department. I thank the Government for its cooperation on this amendment. The

amendment is the result of the Government working with the Opposition to draft something that will hopefully

gain the support of the Committee. The amendment will give the planning secretary the power to direct a council

to amend a statement if it is inconsistent with a strategic plan. Following such a direction, a council will either

have 28 days to amend the planning statement or a period determined by the planning secretary to be specified in

the direction. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (21:41): The Government thanks the Opposition for its liaison and

consultation in relation to this amendment, which we support. The amendment proposes continued oversight of

local strategic planning statements by the planning secretary and will enable the planning secretary to review local

strategic planning statements to determine if they are inconsistent with a strategic plan applying to that local

government area. In those instances, the amendment will allow the planning secretary to direct the council to

amend those statements, safeguarding the alignment of local planning outcomes with State and regional strategic

priorities. The Government is committed to the strategic planning framework as amended by the bill. We welcome

this amendment from the Opposition and support it.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:41): The Greens do not support the amendment. Giving the secretary power

to direct local councils and local authorities is just not good planning and not good process. Strategic planning

done well, right, properly and early will have the support of local planning authorities and bodies. Giving the

secretary draconian power of oversight and direction is not the system that we want. When there is genuine, good

planning with excellent strategic focus that has taken everything into consideration and there is proper local buy-

in, then there is no need for a secretary level or other direction. The idea of a push-from-the-top planning system

is exactly where we keep going wrong.

If we have overarching strategic plans that are community led and community driven—with the assistance

of planning authorities—we would never need this kind of power. Giving the secretary this power that is not

needed will have a chilling impact on community-led strategic planning processes, which are required to get

proper outcomes that have the inclusion and buy-in of community members. We know that from all the

international conventions on best practice, environmental impact assessments and strategic planning. If we do it

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 91

early, get the scoping right and have conversations about what is good, what is right, what the direction is, what

the vision is and why, then we do not need a secretary sitting in Macquarie Street telling a planning authority in

north-west New South Wales, "Make your plan like we said". It just does not work. It is not good planning. We

know this stuff. I understand why the Opposition thinks this is important. I understand its legacy commitment to

the former planning Minister and the strategic plans of the Six Cities Region. Unlike others in this Chamber, I

think he was an excellent planning Minister who knew so much about planning and planning law.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Who is this? Rob Stokes?

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: I am referring to the former member, the Hon. Rob Stokes. He was an incredible

planning Minister, and his understanding and capacity to grapple with the planning system was pretty much

unparalleled in this place. He walked the talk. He travelled around the world, and he looked at planning systems—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: We are in Committee of the Whole, and I think we have strayed

well beyond the terms of the amendment. It is getting late, and we can probably get through more amendments if

members keep to the amendment being considered.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I uphold the point of order. As the Minister said, this is the

Committee of the Whole, and contributions need to be relevant to the amendment before the Committee.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You can speak in the adjournment debate about how much you love Rob Stokes.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Rob Stokes and I once shared a conference platform on ecologically sustainable

development. I understand the motivation for the amendment and why the Government has agreed to it. But, on

the basic premise and principle of what we are meant to be doing tonight—which is setting out the provisions of

this miscellaneous amendment bill—I do not think this is the right direction for the New South Wales planning

system to take. The secretary does not need powers of direction when we get the strategic planning right.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved Opposition amendment No. 1

on sheet c2025-066G. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Ms Sue Higginson, I do not want to put words in your mouth,

but I understand that you may be prepared to move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on sheet

c2025-046F in globo. You do not intend to move amendments Nos 3 and 6.

Ms Sue Higginson: That is correct, Chair. I will seek leave to move The Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 4,

5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on sheet c2025-046F in globo. I will not be moving amendments Nos 3 and 6.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I will state the amendments again to ensure everybody

understands and we have it right. Ms Sue Higginson will move The Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

and 11 on sheet c2025-046F in globo. She will not be moving amendments Nos 3 and 6.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:49): By leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 11 on sheet

c2025-046F:

No. 1 Area comprising Six Cities Region

Page 3, Schedule 1 [4], lines 18–27. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 2 Strategic plans

Page 5, Schedule 1 [24], lines 28–32. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 4 Modifications of consents

Page 6, Schedule 1 [32]. Insert after line 34—

(6A) Also, a consent authority may modify a condition of consent under subsection (1), (1A) or (2) on

its own initiative, subject to the requirements of this section.

No. 5 Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court

Page 7, Schedule 1 [34]. Insert after line 2—

(1BA) Also, a consent authority may modify a condition of consent under this section on its own

initiative, subject to the requirements of this section.

No. 7 Development that is State significant development

Page 8, Schedule 1 [41], lines 6 and 7. Omit "the Act, the regulations or an environmental planning instrument".

Insert instead "designating the consent authority for a development application".

No. 8 Development that is State significant development

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 92

Page 8, Schedule 1 [41], line 3. Omit "and (4)".

No. 9 Development that is State significant development

Page 8, Schedule 1 [41], lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 10 Meetings of planning bodies

Page 8, Schedule 1 [43] and [44], lines 14–30. Omit all words on the lines.

No. 11 Exemption from meeting requirements

Page 12, Schedule 2 [4], lines 10–16. Omit all words on the lines.

These amendments are intended to uphold a responsible, transparent and climate-aware planning system and

address the structural concerns raised by the Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment inquiry into

the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities. The amendments

would create an explicit power for consent authorities to initiate a review or modification of consent conditions,

even where the proponent does not initiate the application. The bill already allows for variation and modification

powers, and it does so in a sensible way. The amendment seeks to complement that by addressing a key gap

identified in recommendation No. 3 of the Portfolio Committee No. 7 report.

The report found that outdated approvals are still being acted upon despite significant climate risk because

consent authorities do not have powers to revoke or modify consents in the public interest. That issue affects

bushfire- and flood-prone subdivisions—approvals granted under past frameworks—that did not consider today's

climate risks. The amendment is narrowly framed to allow a consent authority to act in the public interest,

particularly in response to new climate risk or hazard data, major infrastructure changes, and environmental or

safety considerations.

The Government's response to the Portfolio Committee No. 7 report noted recommendation 3 but did not

propose legislative action. Without that reform, consent authorities are effectively powerless to prevent the

activation of legacy consents that may now pose serious risks to life, environment and infrastructure. This is a

climate readiness measure, and it is one of the most important structural fixes we can make. The amendments also

go to the omission of provisions in the bill that removed references to the Six Cities Region. The Greens

acknowledge that the Government has supported amendments in the other place that go part of the way towards

improving transparency and how new regional boundaries will be declared.

However, we maintain that the removal of legislated references to the Six Cities Region is premature

without a binding alternative framework. It creates uncertainty around strategic planning responsibilities for the

Illawarra, Central Coast and Lower Hunter regions in particular. Ministerial orders alone are insufficient to

provide continuity, accountability and public confidence. Our position remains that the sections of the bill that

remove those references should be omitted in full. That is why The Greens have moved these amendments.

Amendments in the other place went some way towards improving those provisions, but these amendments say

clearly that we should not be doing that in the first place.

The bill includes provisions that weaken the statutory status of strategic plans and allows certain planning

proposal authorities to deviate from those plans under prescribed regulation. While some clarifying amendments

were made in the Legislative Assembly, The Greens continue to oppose that approach. It undermines plan-led

development, which is a principle supported by planners, councils and communities alike. It creates uncertainty

for local councils, particularly when they are expected to justify departures from established regional strategies.

It also opens the door to ad hoc rezonings that could conflict with the environment or infrastructure capacity. The

original provisions should be omitted entirely and replaced with a clear requirement that planning proposals must

align with current regional and district plans.

The Greens amendments also go to the Housing Delivery Authority. The bill includes amendments to the

Act to exempt bodies like the Housing Delivery Authority from public meeting requirements and from publishing

meeting minutes or resolutions. Again, while Legislative Assembly amendments introduced a minimal reporting

requirement, the core exemptions remain. Meetings can still be held behind closed doors and key decisions may

never be publicly scrutinised. That is a real problem, which is why The Greens urge members to support these

amendments. Transparency in decision-making is a non-negotiable safeguard, particularly for high-value

development pathways like State significant development. Our position remains that those exemptions should be

removed in full and the same transparency rules that apply to other panels and authorities should apply to the

Housing Delivery Authority.

These amendments reflect our commitment to a planning system that is strategic, not opportunistic;

participatory, not exclusionary; transparent, not opaque; and, above all, fit for purpose in the face of a rapidly

changing climate. We urge the Government to continue the constructive work undertaken in the Legislative

Assembly but to go further. Partial fixes are not enough when the stakes are this high. I ask members to take these

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 93

amendments seriously. I know the Government will not support them because it is what The Greens are seeking

to achieve. I appreciate the amendments in the lower House were agreed to and they go some way to giving us

what we want. But the bill still makes unnecessary changes and these amendments would make things a heck of

a lot better.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the

Environment, and Minister for Heritage) (21:55): I thank the honourable member for her contribution. She is

correct that the Government does not support the amendments. Many of them undo the amendments that were

negotiated and agreed to in the lower House. The Government believes that they are outside the scope of what we

are trying to achieve with the bill. More broadly, the issue that everyone is trying to tackle is that the current

planning system in New South Wales is not delivering the housing that we need. We are losing young people

interstate because they cannot afford to live here. If we continue doing the same things, we will end up with the

same results in this State of people leaving, not having enough housing, expensive housing or, like me, 26 year

olds will still be living at home. Those are not things that we want to deal with. I could talk in more detail, but

I touched on the amendments more generally in the second reading debate.

The Government does not support these amendments because they undo some of the negotiations that

occurred in the lower House that pick up on some of the issues that The Greens have raised. Putting more

provisions into the Act will not fix the problem we are trying to solve. But that does not mean that we should not

still provide good input into strategic planning frameworks. The fundamental difference in The Greens approach

is that through legislation they want to dictate every single consideration that needs to be made, whereas the

Government is trying to move in the opposite direction of good up-front planning that is linked in early, meaning

that people will not have to come back two, three or four times when they are trying to build something. That is

the fundamental difference in what the Government is trying to do.

The Government believes that the framework in the bill will get rid of some of the challenges we have, but

that is an ongoing project. Over the course of this and future parliaments, Labor will have a strong go at dealing

with these reforms. I do not want to speak outside of the amendments and take up any more time of the House, so

I will conclude by saying that the Government does not support the amendments because they make it harder, not

easier, to do what we are trying to do.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (21:57): The Opposition will not support the amendments.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:57): I have one short thing I forgot to contribute. As I identified in the second

reading debate, I want it noted in the Committee of the Whole that I have tabled some important amendments that

have not been moved. I appreciate the Government's contribution to those.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I am looking at the clock, and I think it would be to everybody's

benefit if there were no further contributions. That being the case, Ms Sue Higginson has moved The Greens

amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 to 11 on sheet c2025-046F. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:

That the Chair do now leave the chair, report progress and seek leave to sit again on the next sitting day.

Motion agreed to.

Adoption of Report

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): According to sessional order, further

consideration of the bill is set down as an order of the day for the next sitting day.

Documents

ANTISEMITISM AND POLICE BRIEFINGS

Variation of Order

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): According to Standing Order 53, I table a

request received on Thursday 27 March 2025 from the Cabinet Office to vary the scope of the order for papers,

together with a response from the Hon. Rod Roberts not agreeing to the request. According to standing order, as

no agreement was reached, the original order stands with the original due date.

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 94

Adjournment Debate

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE SECTOR

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (22:01): I spent the past six months working with Four Corners to expose the

structural crisis in our early childhood education and care system. Last Monday night's episode revealed story

after story of deeply troubling accounts of children and workers being subject to serious abuse and exploitation,

in what has become an almost entirely privatised industry where too often profit outweighs care. These revelations

have shaken households and struck a chord with educators and industry insiders. The inadequate quality of care

found in for-profit providers seems to have been the worst-kept secret in the country—and, upon reflection, why

would it be? Should we really be shocked by revelations that multinational private equity companies might be

cutting corners in pursuit of supposed efficiency improvements? Are we really surprised to hear that massive

corporations are viciously optimising rosters, indifferent to the impact that inadequate staffing has on the children

in their care?

Why should we not expect a large, profit-seeking corporation with a steady stream of government subsidies

propping up its cashflow to optimise its operations to deliver the bare minimum standard of service and care to

still remain viable—and probably a bit less than that, because it knows it can get away with it? The sad and simple

fact is we have heard this story before. Does nobody remember the lessons we learnt in aged care—the horrors

that were uncovered through the royal commission of multimillionaire aged-care business owners driving

Lamborghinis while those in their care were drugged, restrained, abused and fed slop? The ingredients are all here

again when we look at early childhood education and care, and it is playing out the same way.

It has been revealed that one in 10 childcare centres in Australia has never been rated by regulators, while

just less than 10 per cent in New South Wales do not meet the minimum standards. Only 14 per cent of for-profit

centres exceed the National Quality Standard, while non-profits are more than double that rate. But even those

services that do receive ratings that say they are up to scratch may be gaming the system or relying on ratings that

are years out of date, with parents none the wiser. We have heard of over-enrolled services; of services failing to

have staff employed with a Working with Children Check, or no qualified teachers at all; and of nutritionally

worthless meals and unsafe play areas. There is a burn and churn culture of staffing. Every action is taken in

pursuit of profit and efficiency rather than being motivated by a genuine care and desire for child wellbeing and

safety.

It is not just the operators getting in on the action. Child care has become one of the most profitable plays

in Australian real estate. Investors are flooding the sector, flush with a steady stream of Government subsidies.

Fees paid by parents for many services are more than $1,000 a week, pushed ever higher by skyrocketing rental

costs. Experts have warned that Government funding, without sufficient strings attached and scrutiny applied, is

fuelling a private rent economy for child care. Quality is slipping, accessibility is still unacceptably low and

childcare deserts are emerging and entrenching themselves in rural and regional areas. That is because, for those

commercial childcare landlords, rent is calculated per child, meaning that children become a walking dollar sign

to predatory corporate actors. When we commoditise a young, vulnerable person like that, how can we expect

anything other than exploitation and neglect? When those market forces are let loose, how can we expect anything

other than non-profit and community-run services being undercut and forced out?

In the first tranche of documents I managed to have released, we exposed what was happening at the private

equity owned Affinity early learning. That group operates 255 centres across Australia, and every one is run under

corporate performance metrics like occupancy targets, wage targets, revenue and profit targets, and budget targets.

Child wellbeing comes second. Case after case of neglect and breaches of child safety have been unearthed. But

those are not isolated incidents. Last night I received a further box of documents, this time detailing incidents that

have occurred in services owned and operated by G8. G8 is the nation's largest ASX-listed early childhood

company, operating more than 400 centres across Australia under more than 20 brands, including Community

Kids, Great Beginnings, the Learning Sanctuary and World of Learning. In 2024 G8 posted a net profit of more

than $67 million on the back of revenue of more than $1 billion. Some of its centres charge families in the order

of $170 a day, or more than $850 a week, yet scores of centres captured in the documents between 2021 and 2024

were plagued with basic safety and hygiene failures as well as incidents where children were left unsupervised,

put in harm's way or assaulted.

If breaches of those kinds—not only the extraordinary but also the mundane and entirely predictable and

preventable—are occurring so frequently across the largest ASX-listed early childhood company in the country,

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 95

we have to assume it is a standard feature of the corporatised early childhood model. Each of those incidents taken

in isolation may not be cause for huge alarm, but it is the patterns of offence and the structures that permit them

to occur that warrant a big-picture view of the sector. Nothing could be more important than taking a firm and

unflinching look at the sector responsible for the care and education of our littlest people, and that is what I hope

the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry established in the wake of the fallout from the Four Corners exposé

will do.

MIGRANT WORKERS CENTRE

TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL LANE AUGEE

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (22:06): Members might recall that last year the Minns Labor

Government announced a $6.5 million investment in a Migrant Workers Centre. It was very pleasing to hear this

week that Unions NSW has been selected by Multicultural NSW to establish that centre. The Migrant Workers

Centre will partner with multicultural communities and organisations like the Immigration Advice and Rights

Centre [IARC] and will deliver culturally sensitive and accessible support for at-risk workers. The centre will

span the State and ensure that migrant workers in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote communities are

supported by providing advice on workplace, work health and safety, and immigration. Unions NSW has been

undertaking a leading role in advocating for migrant workers' protections and providing individual advice and

assistance to migrant workers. Its current Visa Assist partnership with IARC has supported over 3,000 temporary

migrant workers experiencing exploitation. Indeed, that is the only program in the State to provide both

employment and immigration legal support, so Unions NSW is certainly well placed to establish that centre and

undertake that incredibly important work.

I also speak about a memorial that I attended on 9 March to honour the life of Michael Lane Augee of

Wellington. Mike died some three weeks earlier in Sydney after an illness. I first came to know Mike as a member

of the Orana branch of the Labor Party. He was one of the foundation members of that branch. Mike was American

by birth, born in the States in 1939. He migrated to Australia as an adult and ultimately made his home in the

Wellington area, drawn there by his professional and academic interests in the Wellington Caves and the ancient

animals that remain entombed there, which have been so key in understanding the natural history of Australia. It

was a beautiful service, and it painted an extraordinary picture of Mike's community contribution. He was a former

deputy mayor of Wellington shire and a volunteer for an incredibly large number of community organisations.

Many of those organisations were represented at the memorial service, including the National Parks and Wildlife

Service, the Burrendong arboretum, the Mount Arthur Reserve Trust and the Wellington Caves.

Mike had left the Labor Party some years back, and in 2024 he contested the Dubbo Regional Council

election for The Greens and narrowly missed out on election. When I spoke at the service I made the point that it

was an indication of Mike's open-mindedness and active, inquiring mind that in his mid-eighties he joined

The Greens and stood for election. His obituary published in The Sydney Morning Herald recorded:

Kind-hearted and generous to a fault, Mike's quick wit, superb organisational skills and catering prowess were legendary.

Following a distinguished career in teaching and research at UNSW Sydney … retirement saw him fully engage in community affairs

with his usual trademark energy and enthusiasm.

Loved and dearly missed by family, friends and colleagues near and far.

The service, which was held at the Wellington Golf Club, was extremely well attended and had many speakers.

I was among the attendees, who also included Josh Black, Mayor of Dubbo Regional Council; Anne Jones, former

mayor of Wellington shire; and a large number of former councillors, many of whom had served with Mike during

his time on the Wellington Shire Council. Mike was loved by many and will be dearly missed by family, friends

and colleagues near and far.

PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF YOUTH JUSTICE REFORM

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (22:11): Last week the Parliamentary Friends of Youth Justice

Reform met again, this time to hear from the National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, on her recent

report 'Help Way Earlier!'. The room was full of not just members from across the political spectrum but also

advocates, service providers and community leaders—people on the front line of youth justice and child

wellbeing. Among those present were StreetWork, BackTrack, the Justice Reform Initiative, Centacare, the

Salvation Army, Domestic Violence NSW, Youth Action, the Australian Christian Lobby and the Justice and

Equity Centre. They were all united by a shared belief that we can—and must—do better for vulnerable children.

Anne Hollonds spoke with clarity and care, but the voices that stayed with us were those of the children in

her report. One 13-year -old girl said, "They wait until you break the law to help you. Why did they help when

I was nine and everything was falling apart?" It is heartbreaking, but it is also a truth we have heard too many

times: that our systems are reactive, not preventative. 'Help Way Earlier!' is not about letting children off the

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 96

hook; it is about keeping them from ever needing a hook in the first place. It is about intervening early, listening

carefully and recognising that when a child ends up in the justice system, something has already gone wrong. One

young boy in the report simply said, "I just wanted someone who was not going to leave." That says everything.

These children do not need punishment. They need connection, they need stability and they need the kind of

consistent, wraparound support that many of the organisations that joined us last week are delivering every day.

The report calls for investment in what works: community-based diversion programs, family support,

culturally safe and trauma-informed care, and systems that respond to distress with dignity. There was a sense of

unity in that room, not just around the challenges but also around the solutions. This is not about ideology. It is

about doing what we know works and listening to the young people who live it. The parliamentary friends group

is not a talkfest; it is a space for cross-party collaboration and action. We have a duty to make sure that the voices

we heard last week do not get lost in a report or buried in a submission. They deserve to be heard here too, in this

place, because if we can help way earlier, we can change the story for kids, for families and for our communities.

FORESTRY WORKERS

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (22:14): I stand in support of our State's fantastic timber and forestry

workers. The future of this industry has been at the forefront of many conversations in this Chamber and around

the Parliament of late. Last September, when I spoke about this issue in Parliament, I provided some personal

stories of members of the manufacturing and forestry union and the Australian Workers' Union. The industry has

had truly positive impacts on the lives of its workers and communities around our State. Tonight, I will provide

some key statistics on the industry. At least 8,900 people work in the hardwood forestry industry alone in New

South Wales. Hardwood is sourced from native forests, plantations and private farms. New South Wales is home

to around 63 hardwood mills. Most wood harvested from native forests is of the hardwood variety, although,

I note that the vast majority—said to be around 88 per cent—of our public forests are protected.

The estimated yearly revenue of the hardwood industry is $2.9 billion. New South Wales' economy is

enhanced by about $1.1 billion, thanks to the hardwood timber industry. Across the entire industry, there are

between 15,000 and 22,000 workers, most of whom live and work in communities in regional New South Wales.

This includes those in forest growing and management, who the Australian Workers' Union represents, and those

in sawmilling, manufacturing, harvesting, pulp production, paper production and haulage, who are represented by

the manufacturing and forestry union. This is not to mention all of the industries that support forestry and timber

work, like the transport and energy industries. We rely on timber and forestry products for housing projects and

many pieces of essential infrastructure, like power poles and wharves.

A part of the industry that many people do not know about is the work to nurture the health and

sustainability of our forests, as well as the fact that many workers in the industry carry out heroic firefighting

work. When I have spoken to these workers, their care and passion for the nature they work in is clear. The value

of this industry cannot be overstated. I thank the Australian Workers' Union, led by its secretary, Tony Callinan,

and the manufacturing and forestry union, led by Alison Rudman, for their very strong advocacy and for

continuing to educate not just me, but members across the Chamber on the industry. I also thank all the union

delegates and workers who have come to see me over recent months. I know they have seen many other members

as well.

Finally, I acknowledge the great work of Minister Tara Moriarty in advocating strongly for forestry and

timber workers. The Forestry Industry Action Plan is a significant initiative of Minister Moriarty and Minister

Penny Sharpe. It is currently underway and is looking at how we can best balance environmental concerns and

sustainable supplies of timber. As I have said before, it is my view that workers must be at the forefront of

conversations about the future of the timber and forestry industry. One of the big difficulties in this area is the

vast chasm between both sides of the argument—the environmental side and the workers' side—in terms of

statistics and the economic analysis behind the number of jobs in the industry and the potential economic loss for

favouring one side over the other.

The datasets are widely varied, depending on who we talk to. I am advised that the Government is

conducting an independent economic analysis so that we can gather an objective set of facts that we can all agree

on in terms of the true economic value of the industry. I hope that this will bring both sides closer together so that

we can move forward and do exactly what we should be doing as a Parliament, that is, balancing the very valid

need to be for a sustainable environment in which forestry is protected but also, and just as importantly, protecting

jobs and the livelihoods of our working people.

BRAIDWOOD HERITAGE CENTRE

The Hon. NICHOLE OVERALL (22:19): The Braidwood community has serious concerns around

government mismanagement of the Braidwood Heritage Centre Project. The critical initiative is over budget, years

Thursday 27 March 2025 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 97

behind schedule and now facing the potential of not even being completed. Braidwood is the first and only town

in New South Wales with a State Heritage listing, added back in 2006 under the Labor Government of the time.

The unique and popular tourist town has received no direct ongoing financial assistance under that listing from

the State during that period.

In 2020 a one-off $3.75 million joint State and Federal grant was awarded for the development of the

Braidwood Heritage Centre. The significant project was intended to boost tourism, local employment and

economic recovery after the devastation of the 2019-20 bushfires. Three years later, the project remains

unfinished, almost half of its budget is gone and it is bogged down in government bureaucracy overkill. Work

stopped in September 2024. The Sydney-based builder has gone into voluntary administration. There are concerns

around subcontractors who were not paid, and almost none of them were local. Close to $2 million has been spent,

and the remainder of the grant is now in jeopardy, as is the project entirely, due to a funding deadline of 30 June.

The project was developed by the Braidwood and District Historical Society; though, as its president states,

not for the benefit of the society but for the community and New South Wales tourism more broadly. The society

also contributed land, buildings, assets and artefacts to ensure the success of the project. The local branch of the

Bendigo Bank pledged $520,000 towards completion, demonstrating the overwhelming local support for the

incredibly important initiative. The convoluted levels of bureaucracy have included the Queanbeyan-Palerang

Regional Council, NSW Public Works and Heritage NSW.

The historical society raised repeated concerns about the delays and escalating costs that were producing

little result. A significant portion of the funding has been eaten up by architect, heritage and archaeology services,

quantity surveying, powerline design and power poles, geotechnical costs, development applications, fencing and

supplies. All that has been delivered so far are unconnected utilities, a concrete slab and a shell for the

accommodation component. It looks like little more than a bomb site from World War I. The

Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council took over the project from NSW Public Works a month ago. Again,

"Why?" is another question that needs to be fully answered. I have been advised council has not yet issued a tender

to find a new builder. It appears the project is no longer listed on the New South Wales Government website.

The other concerns of the Braidwood historical society are numerous. It believes it and the expertise it

offers have been sidelined and that the project is the victim of government waste and incompetence. Funds were

not provided to it directly, nor was it offered the opportunity to be involved in the project to ensure a successful

outcome. Communication and engagement across all the various levels of bureaucracy is stated to have been poor,

if not non-existent. The current Labor member for Monaro has been invited to view the site numerous times,

including during other visits to Braidwood and, to date, that has not occurred. The current Labor Federal member

has visited and offered sympathies.

Ultimately, time is running out. The potential complete failure of the project is imminent and real, and it

will be a massive blow both socially and economically. The community and the historical society cannot be

expected to clean up the failures of various government bodies or be left with a half-finished, unfunded project.

In addition, the situation raises questions around whether other heritage projects of significance throughout

New South Wales are similarly being impacted.

I call on the New South Wales Labor Government to immediately intervene; ensure that the remaining

existing funding is preserved and redirected towards completing the entire project as originally intended, including

the artisan studios, blacksmith and museum shops, and visitor facilities; and commit to any remaining funding

that will be necessary to fully complete the project. This is not simply about renovating a museum. It is about

securing Braidwood's future as an important heritage and tourism destination. I trust that Labor recognises its

significance, backs this community and, in Labor parlance, does whatever it takes to see it provided. It is about

demonstrating a commitment to the protection, preservation and promotion of our history and our heritage,

particularly in our regions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The question is that this House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 22:25 until Tuesday 6 May 2025 at 12:30.